Tucker Carlson was surprised when Richard Dreyfuss emailed him one night and offered to come onto his program and “explain this rudimentary explanation of the basic checks and balances to you and your audience.” So Carlson took him up on his offer, inviting him on.
Carlson notes that Dreyfuss attended Oxford, studied civics, knows a lot about the Constitution and is a smart guy. He asks his opening question, “But where in the Constitution does it say states can do whatever they want in contravention of federal law and the rest of us have to be quiet and pay for it anyway?
Dreyfuss replies that it doesn’t say that. It simply says that the monies attached to things that the executive might want are the province of the Congress. And that, what was said in the judge’s ruling [Orrick] was that, that the executive didn’t have the power to withhold finances, because that’s the province of the Congress. And that’s all I wanted to clarify because it is, as you say, a very rudimentary thing and we should all know a hell of a lot more than that.”
Dreyfuss continues, “And I want to mention, because I know I’m limited to six minutes, I want to mention one thing. The next night you were talking about the speakers on university campuses, and I am totally, incontrovertibly on your side about this. I think that any intrusion into freedom of speech is an intrusion into freedom of speech.”
He points out, “And when one of the presidents of one of the colleges said, ‘This is a school not a battlefield,’ is said, ‘No, it is a battlefield of ideas’ and we must have dissident, dissenting opinions on campuses and I think it’s political correctness taken to a nightmarish point of view.”
Carlson replies, “Well amen, and I agree with you. And maybe because we’re both over thirty. Unfortunately most people under thirty don’t seem to agree with us at all and they believe in something called “hate speech” which is somehow banned, because they don’t know what the Constitution is.”
Dreyfuss becomes noticeably agitated at that comment, as Carlson just unknowingly provided him with the perfect opening for a topic that is near and dear to him, the abandonment of the teaching of civics in the United States since the 1970s.
Tucker’s in for another surprise or two as the rest of the discussion unfolds, admitting that the interview was not what he expected. He says, “Typically I interrupt our guests and I expected to debate you, but I agree with every single word of that.”
Dreyfuss has one other idea he promotes, utilizing the preamble to the Constitution, which he says, “Is in fact the mandate of America.” He’s trying to create a movement to bring civics back to the education system and sees signing the preamble as the means through which it might be accomplished. He offers to “Call a civics strike, and get the attention of all the people that deserve to pay attention.”
Carlson doesn’t take him up on his offer on the spot, but it’s something he might want to consider. Not only would it likely be good for his ratings, he might be able to help to educate America as to where they’re missing their calling, something potentially much more important.