The World and Everything in It - June 7, 2021

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

The U.S. Supreme Court considers what evidence judges can look at when dealing with felons in possession of a firearm.

NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s ahead on Legal Docket.

Also today the Monday Moneybeat: another criminal hack—this time an attack on the food supply. Is this just going to be the cost of doing business?

Plus, the WORLD History Book. Today, the 245th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, June 7th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

REICHARD: Time for the news. Here’s Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Manchin say he'll vote against 'partisan' Dem elections bill » A key Democratic lawmaker says he will not vote for the largest overhaul of U.S. election law in at least a generation.

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin said Sunday…

MANCHIN: I think it’s the wrong piece of legislation to bring our country together and unite our country, and I’m not supporting that because I think it would divide us further.

The bill would shift more control over voting regulations from states to Washington. It would restrict gerrymandering of congressional districts and enact new campaign finance regulations. It would also strike down voting measures passed in some GOP-led states that Democrats charge are designed to make it tougher for minorities to vote. Republicans contend the rules only make it tougher to vote fraudulently.

Manchin’s defection all but guarantees the legislation will fail in the Senate after it passed largely down partly lines in the House.

Trump teases 2024 White House bid » Former President Donald Trump over the weekend once again teased the prospect of making another run for president.

TRUMP: We’re going to lay the groundwork for making sure that Republicans once again carry the great state of North Carolina in a number, a year, that I look very much forward to, 2024.

Trump heard there speaking to hundreds of GOP officials and activists over the weekend in North Carolina. The 74-year-old vowed to campaign for those who share his values in next year's fight for control of Congress.

Trump also took aim at Facebook, which just announced a two-year suspension of his account.

TRUMP: They may allow me back in two years. We’ve got to stop that. We can’t let it happen. So unfair.

Facebook had blocked Trump indefinitely back in January. But a quasi-independent oversight board said the social media giant violated its own rules by not defining the length of Trump’s ban.

Knesset to take up new Israeli power-sharing agreement » Israel’s parliament, known as the Knesset, is scheduled to meet today to take up a new power-sharing agreement that would oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from office.

Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid and Yamina party chair Neftali Bennett recently announced a power sharing agreement that would involve eight parties in total.

And a vote on the new coalition government could come as soon as Wednesday. But while Lapid and Bennett appear to have the votes to replace Netanyahu, the prime minister said it’s not too late for lawmakers to vote against what he has called a dangerous “left-wing” government.

NETANYAHU: [Speaking in Hebrew]

He predicted that if that government is established, it will be quickly overthrown.

Netanyahu is Israel’s longest-serving prime minister with 12 years on the job.

Delta virus variant could delay UK plans to lift restrictions » The COVID-19 delta variant, first detected in India, is fast becoming the dominant strain in the U.K.

And British Health Secretary Matt Hancock said evidence suggests the variant is much more contagious than other strains in the country.

HANCOCK: Around 40 percent more transmissible. It is indeed—that is the latest advice I have. That means that it is more difficult, obviously, to manage this virus.

He acknowledged that the delta variant could delay the British government’s plans to lift most remaining lockdown measures on June 21.

Hancock also said he wouldn’t rule out continuing measures such as face masks in public settings and working from home where possible.

But he noted some good news: vaccines do appear to be highly effective against the delta variant. Right now it’s a race between the U.K.’s vaccination campaign and the highly contagious strain.

I’m Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: a question of evidence at the Supreme Court.

Plus, preserving our nation’s historical artifacts.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s Monday, June 7 and you’re listening to The World and Everything in It. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today! I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher.

Well, it’s time for Legal Docket. Lots to cover today: Three opinions of the US Supreme Court from last week. We’ll also cover the final oral arguments for the term—just two of them.

So, if you’ve listened each Monday since October, you will have heard something about all 64 merits cases that the justices heard this term.

REICHARD: And something about all 64 opinions the remainder of which will be coming in fast and furious through the end of the month.

So let’s talk about the three opinions the court handed down from last week.

The first two decisions are unanimous in overturning the 9th Circuit.

First, a win for Native American tribal authority. Here, a police officer of the Crow tribe detained and searched the vehicle of Joshua Cooley, a non-Indian. Evidence resulted in an indictment of Cooley on drug and gun offenses.

But Cooley argued the Native American officer lacked authority to search a non-Indian, and therefore any evidence seized cannot be used against him. Besides, he was on a public highway that just happened to run through the reservation.

You can hear Justice Samuel Alito’s incredulity from oral argument in this exchange with Cooley’s lawyer, Eric Henkel:

ALITO: Can the officer ask the person to come out of the car and perform a field sobriety test?

HENKEL: I don't believe so. No, he can't.

ALITO: So he just has to let that person go?

All 9 justices agree that a tribal officer has authority to detain and search non-Indians traveling through a reservation for potential violations of law. The case is now remanded.

EICHER: Now for the second opinion in a consolidated case dealing with immigration.

The high court held in this case that the testimony of a person seeking asylum need not be assumed as credible by a reviewing court. This, even when the immigration courts in earlier proceedings didn’t explicitly say they found the person non-credible.

Justice Stephen Breyer was blunt about it during oral argument:

BREYER: I think you and everyone seems to agree with this: The Ninth Circuit's wrong when they say that you, even though where there's no finding, you assume that the person is credible. That isn't what the statute said.

REICHARD: Here, two foreign nationals sought asylum in the United States. They each claimed to fear persecution if sent back home.

The foreign nationals argued an explicit statement of incredulity on the part of the immigration courts is required.

The justices disagreed, and said the law requires that federal courts defer to immigration decisions without making assumptions. Case remanded.

EICHER: Last opinion from last week: a win for a police officer in Georgia who accepted a bribe of $6,000 from a shady friend to use police computers to run a license plate search.

That decision was 6-to-3, but the makeup of the majority was a bit of a surprise. The majority was three liberals and three conservatives. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion, joined by conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh and liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito were in the minority.

The ruling turned on whether the officer violated the plain terms of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, not on the question of whether the officer’s conduct was right or wrong.

The Act criminalizes conduct in which someone intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access. That’s defined as obtaining information in the computer he or she is not entitled “so to obtain.”

It all turned on that one word, “so.” The officer was entitled to access and to this information, and the law aimed only to criminalize authorization, not misuse.

He had access. End of inquiry.

A ruling for the other side could have attached criminal penalties to common computer practices, such as using your office laptop to read the news or catch up on personal emails.

REICHARD: Now for our final oral arguments of this term.

They deal with a similar theme: felons in possession of a firearm. These two cases arose after a landmark Supreme Court decision from 2019 called Rehaif v United States. That ruling said only people who actually know they are felons can be subject to the felons-in-possession law that carries heavy penalties.

In each of these current cases, men are convicted felons found in possession of a gun against the law.

The first case is United States v. Gary. In that one, the defendant pleaded guilty before learning the state had to prove he knew he was a felon as an element of the crime.

That’s a problem, argued his lawyer Jeffrey Fisher.

FISHER: And so we just ask the Court to recognize that this the molten core of due process, which is understanding what you are charged with before you submit yourself to prison without a trial.

The second case is Greer v. United States. In that one, the defendant objects to the appeals court looking to evidence outside his trial court record to learn he had multiple prior felonies. Had it not done that, perhaps he wouldn’t have received that conviction as a felon in possession of a firearm?

Justice Samuel Alito wondered how far to take that. Listen to this exchange with Allison Guagliardo, a Florida public defender in Greer.

ALITO: Suppose the defendant had written a book about his prison experience, and in the book describing the 10 years he spent in prison, he says, ‘I was convicted of this felony.’ Could the court look at any of those?

GUAGLIARDO: No, your honor. And I understand that that looks like the defendant may know his status...

This is one of the unusual occasions that Justice Alito and Justice Sonia Sotomayor might be in agreement during an argument. Listen:

SOTOMAYOR: Your defendant was just released from prison six months before he was arrested for this charge and he had served either 20 months or 36 months. It’s impossible to believe that there’s any reasonable doubt that he could have put his knowledge in contention.

I think the original defendants here, the felons in possession of a firearm, are going to be disappointed in the ruling to be handed down at any time now.

And now you’re up to date on all oral arguments for this term! As they come in, we’ll be bringing you analysis on opinions released through the end of this month.

And fellow lawyer Jenny Rough and I are also working on Season two of Legal Docket Podcast! We’ll dive into much deeper detail on the cases we considered to be of greatest interest and that’ll get started this summer, after the court adjourns for this term.

For now, that’s this week’s Legal Docket.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Maybe you recall from 2019 when Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan sold one of his pieces for more than $100,000. It was nothing more than a banana duct taped to a wall.

Well, another Italian artist has bested him.

His, um, sculpture didn’t sell for six figures. It fetched a mere $18,000. But that’s impressive when you consider that the work of art in question doesn’t exist.

Salvatore Garau sold what he calls an “immaterial sculpture.” He says, “It is a work that asks you to activate the power of the imagination.”

Garau says the imagination is the only place in which this sculpture exists.

REICHARD: Why didn’t I have the imagination to think of that?

EICHER: Well, you’re not an artist.

Gaurau says—and I’m quoting here—“The vacuum is nothing more than a space full of energy, and even if we empty it and there is nothing left, according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, that nothing has a weight.”

REICHARD: Sounds like a lawyer to me.

EICHER: The winning bidder did receive something: it was a certificate of authenticity as well as instructions to display the immaterial sculpture in a five-by-five foot space, free of obstruction.

I think that last part is key. Because when you’re trying to display “nothing,” and “anything” is in the way, then you have “something” and “something” is not “nothing,” and “nothing” is what you want to see. Or not see. Make sense?

It’s The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Next up on The World and Everything in It: the Monday Moneybeat.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Financial analyst and adviser David Bahnsen joins us for our weekly conversation and commentary on the economy. David, good morning.

DAVID BAHNSEN, GUEST: Good morning, Nick, good to be with you.

EICHER: Well, let's begin with this hack. So this is the second big headline hack we've had in a month's time. We had the Colonial Pipeline, we talked about that. Now we have the biggest meat producer in the world, JBS, responsible for a quarter of the beef supply in the United States, a fifth of the pork. That's a lot of food just a few days offline, so presumably, they paid a ransom. We won’t know that unless and until JBS confirms as Colonial Pipeline confirmed paying $4.4 million to the hackers to regain control of the computer systems. So I think the obvious question is, is ransom paying just going to be a cost of doing business in this environment now?

BAHNSEN: Well, it better not be. Because of course, ransomware, and paying the ransom, as a cost of business, will just simply exacerbate the negative feedback loop. It'll be insatiable. This is going to become a governmental issue. Well, it is a governmental issue. It's a national security issue. And it's my very firm conviction that this is a byproduct of nation state actors that are using criminal enterprises and what would seem to be rogue gangster operations. But I think as this continues to get unpeeled, I firmly believe that we're going to find Iran, China, Russia, and a number of bad actors at the heart of this. I spoke to a few weeks ago about where the crypto world fits into this. And I firmly believe this is going to accelerate the governmental intervention. And to some degree, the demise in the bubble around this whole world as right now, the ability to regulate and administer in this space is significantly hampered. And that is not going to be tolerated as these ransomware attacks continue.

EICHER: So will not be tolerated. What does zero tolerance look like?

BAHNSEN: Well, I think right now, the ability to use crypto as a medium of exchange is borderline comical in the sense that you're talking about something that in the last year or two has been at $10,000, $65,000, and $30,000, and the last two numbers that's within last couple of weeks. So I don't think a lot of people are very interested in conventional exchange with something whose value is so unbelievably volatile. But of course, if what you're trying to exchange in is the underworld and criminality, then you're a little less concerned about stability of value. The fact of matter is that there are I don't want to say it's 10, but it's near 10 regulatory bodies that would have jurisdiction here. The NSA, most obviously, in the capacity I'm talking about around security, but certainly the Department of Treasury, certainly the Federal Reserve, certainly the SEC, and certainly the Department of State, and you could go deeper from there into some sub regulatory agencies that many of our listeners probably wouldn't be familiar with. But there's a whole host of administrative actions I'm expecting that are going to result in a diminished opportunity set for the underworld to use Bitcoin, to conduct acts of terror on our nation's infrastructure. And whether you're talking about pipelines or our meat supply, that's what this is an act of terror on our infrastructure.

EICHER: You mentioned government, but what about private-sector innovation for self-defense: Can we rely on companies to build better mousetraps here? In other words, I imagine the market for computer security is about to explode if it hasn’t already.

BAHNSEN: Well it has already, but what I think is not just that the market or the size or the quantity is about to explode, but that the quality is about to explode. I think you're about to see this become a true growth engine. There is a significant technology company united states that we're heavily invested in, that is a mainstream name that has been around for, you know, nearly a century, they just announced a big partnership with the government on cybersecurity. And I think you're gonna see more outfits like that, which is the private sector, bringing their resources to the constantly under-resourced to government. And that's where a solution to this is going to have to come from. Because ultimately, the criminals are always one step ahead. And they only have to be right once. And the regulators have to continue to put out fires all over the place. And this is a very complicated world. So I think you're right, there will continue to be more investment there. But my belief is, and by the way, we got some really good feedback from some of the WORLD listeners after we addressed the subject a couple of weeks ago, I think that this has been really addressed. And there's it isn't like it's been ignored. Yet it just hasn't been addressed adequately. It hasn't been addressed competently enough. And it's time to put an end to this. But I repeat what I said about China, Iran, Russia, that there are nation/state actors at the heart of this, then you have a really significant and severe issue ahead, that will not be solved in months, or maybe even years. Because unfortunately, this is a new way to practice warfare.

EICHER: David Bahnsen, financial analyst and adviser. He writes at DividendCafe.com and you can sign up to have it delivered to your email if you’re interested. Thanks again. I hope you have a terrific week. Talk soon.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Next up on The World and Everything in It: The WORLD History Book. Today, combining rival football leagues, preserving national treasures, and documenting a nation. Here’s senior correspondent Katie Gaultney.

WASHINGTON: When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

KATIE GAULTNEY, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: This week marks 245 years since The Continental Congress appointed a “Committee of Five” to draft the Declaration of Independence. On June 11, 1776, founding fathers Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston set to work on one of the most pivotal documents of our nation’s birth.

Jefferson was the chief author. An essay by historian Winfield H. Rose, as read by Maureen Quinn, says Adams could have written the declaration, but Jefferson’s appointment was a strategic selection.

ESSAY: David McCullough, in his 2001 biography of Adams, says Jefferson offered the job to Adams, but Adams declined for several reasons. Jefferson was from Virginia, was younger and possessed, as Adams said, “a peculiar felicity of expression.”

And the Virginian wasted no time in submitting a draft to the Continental Congress.

ESSAY: Jefferson worked quickly, without access to his library, and produced a draft in about three weeks.

MUSIC: ROAD TO BOSTON BY LEWIS AND CLARK FIFE & DRUM CORPS

The committee presented its draft to Congress on June 28th. The Second Continental Congress actually passed the resolution for independence on July 2nd, 1776, but the wording for the declaration wasn’t officially approved until July 4th. And that, of course, is a date that would go down in American history.

Moving now from creating a nation to preserving national history.

MUSIC: ASHOKAN FAREWELL

Prior to the 20th century, public lands were a bit of a free-for-all. Looting and scavenging of historic artifacts was common. Congress responded by implementing the Antiquities Act, authorizing the president to restrict the use of certain parcels of public land. President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act into law 115 years ago, on June 8th, 1906.

Protected areas must have natural, cultural, or scientific interest. For example, under the act, Roosevelt deemed the Grand Canyon a national monument—even before it was a national park. Kendra Pierre-Louis writes for Popular Science and talked to C-SPAN in 2017 about the act.

PIERRE-LOUIS: Historical records were being degraded, if you think about the Egyptian monuments and how people raided them so they could sell them on the black market, it was something sort of akin to that. A lot of America’s historical record, Native American artifacts and things, were being raided and sold, so it evolved out of a need to protect, kind of quickly, these very important places.

Businesses can’t get new permits for drilling, mining, and the like at national monuments. Some politicians have argued the law gives the president too much power to lock up public lands, prohibiting commercial activity. Former Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke remarked on the original intent of the act, as he saw it, at a press conference four years ago.

ZINKE: A reminder that’s inscribed in Roosevelt’s Arch at the Yellowstone National Park, our nation’s first national park: “For the benefit and enjoyment of the people.” But somewhere along the way the act has become a tool of political advocacy rather than public interest.

On Zinke’s recommendation, President Trump in 2017 signed an executive order to shrink the size of two national monuments—Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, both in Utah. Only Congress has the power to actually revoke monument status, but it’s done so only 10 times, since such proposals are usually accompanied by public outcry.

MUSIC: ASHOKAN FAREWELL

And we’ll end today’s History Book with a historic merger: The joining of the National Football League and the American Football League. The leagues announced the move on June 8, 1966. But a transaction of that size takes time. Both leagues officially came under the NFL umbrella in 1970. 

MUSIC: CLASSIC BATTLE BY NFL FILMS

Unlike the NFL, the AFL was young at the time the leagues came together. In only six years of operations, the AFL had spawned 10 teams and garnered exclusive broadcasting contracts with major networks. Rivalries ensued over player recruitment.

The NFL started floating the idea of a merger to try to stop the bleeding of funds as recruitment efforts got more and more costly. Under-the-table meetings ensued between Tex Schramm, who was GM of the NFL's Dallas Cowboys, and AFL owners. Schramm shared at a press conference at the time:

SCHRAMM: For my part, I think that all of us that I’ve been associated with felt we would come out of this a much stronger organization and a much greater sport than we had been as two separate entities.

They moved teams around to create two conferences: the American Football Conference and the National Football Conference. Even figuring out which teams belonged where proved contentious. A reporter asked NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle as the dust was settling if the worst was behind the league.

REPORTER: Is there still trouble on the horizon?

ROZELLE: I think we’re through the big ones, and I can’t tell you how grateful I am.

That’s this week’s History Book. I’m Katie Gaultney.

KATIE GAULTNEY: Well, speaking of football and cooperation that’s got me thinking as we kick off our June Giving Drive—see what I did there? 

But seriously, as we do, I’m thinking about those two big football leagues pursuing the same goal and choosing instead to work together toward a common goal and how much stronger they become working as one than as two.

Now, I do want to say I’ve been watching these semi-annual giving drives from the sidelines—there I go again! 

And I am always grateful for the way that you rise to the occasion. You consistently supply the resources we need to continue pursuing our mission.

That’s teamwork: We’re here every day for you. To report news, to send reporters into the field, to create features and commentary, and package it together in all the different ways you want it—podcasts, video, online, in print—all with the highest standards of professional excellence.

But with one important difference: sound journalism that is grounded in facts and biblical truth.

We’re here for you, you’re here for us, so I want to say an early thank you for considering your part in this year’s June Giving Drive.

You can give securely online at WNG.org/donate. I hope you’ll do it today. WNG.org/donate. Thanks so much!

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: COVID origins. We’ll talk about the latest developments in the debate over how the pandemic began.

And, training horses. We’ll take you to a village in Switzerland where jumping is serious business.

That and more tomorrow.

I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio.

WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

Proverbs reminds us: The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.