 Hi. OK. I wanted to get one more point in for people who are fortunate enough to hear about it. Dr. Grove, are we in a constitutional crisis, or are we about to get into one because it seems to me that what's going on, in many cases, will bring serious questions about what the Constitution allows a president to do, requires of Congress, et cetera. What are we looking at here? So I think there's two very different kinds of constitutional crises. We use the word a lot in the press. We don't often say what we mean. I think one is if we enter a zone where we don't know what the Constitution intended. So I think that one's actually very probable, where we have massive fights over the limits of executive privilege, the limits of what you can and can't make classified, who you can sort of deny access to information to. That's a constitutional crisis because the Constitution doesn't have a structure for interpreting those problems. What about freedom of the press? Would that also be involved? What the press can and cannot have? Potentially, but I think that the Supreme Court would heavily side on national security trumping some of these issues. The second kind of constitutional crisis is the one that's less likely, but I think more frightening, which is that we enter a period where the president is doing things that are de facto and du jour violations of the Constitution. What do you mean when you say de facto and du jour? De facto, the first version of the constitutional crisis I was talking about, it violates what we think of as the spirit of the Constitution. But it doesn't violate the actual textual language. We can't find a clear violation, but we just don't believe. It doesn't seem like these are the kinds of principles that were assumed in the Constitution and its interpretation. By du jour, I mean an actual legal violation. I borrowed the phrase we used to talk about de facto and du jour segregation, which when legally we segregated people, de facto segregation is what we have now, where it's not the law, but it still happens for economic reasons. Now actual violations of the Constitution I do think are also possible. I think we have a president who, unlike the last president who was a constitutional legal scholar, doesn't have an innate respect for the Constitution. I don't think he's ever read it to be honest. It's possible. I wouldn't speculate, but I would say that there is nothing about his agenda and the way that he's characterized it that seems limited or even attempting to appeal to the spirit of the Constitution. So whereas I would say there's always been a huge difference between the Democratic and Republican Party, everyone always thought of themselves as democratic. They pitched their arguments as being the best version of the United States. Despite the tagline, make America great again, the majority of Trump's proposals, whether they're on immigration or they're on citizenship or they're about military authority, they're not couched in terms of going back to a once great America, nor are they couched in terms of making America better. They're about making America quite different. They're radically distinct values from many of the Republicans that you would have thought of even a generation ago. So it's not that nobody had ever thought about challenging birthright citizenship, but I don't think anyone was willing to make the kinds of claims, for instance, that we shouldn't be embarrassed to be nationalists or that we should be willing to cut Europe loose or that the kinds of extreme claims that Trump has made suggest that he doesn't care that much about any kind of constitutional tradition. And so I think that poses different kinds of risks where we start to ask questions we haven't normally asked, which is could he break fundamental institutions? Now I would just ask to one little follow-up on that. Sometimes issues like this are actually good for you because you haven't asked yourself the question. You haven't looked at the possibility and until the danger stands in front of you and is threatening you, you don't even think to think about it. Sure. There's the old Nietzsche's phrase, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. The problem is that that's medically terrible advice. Heart attacks make your heart weaker and they make you more susceptible to other things. So I think it's good that we're having these kinds of conversations about what we want democratic institutions to be, but I do not think that on the whole that conversation is salutary for the health of American democracy. I think it is actually breeding a kind of antipathy and cynicism about what the federal government can do. And I think that is a significant danger to political participation and a better, more collective existence. Okay. Well, thank you for that extra special information. And this is Martha Randolph from the Will of the People on ThinkTekHawaii.com, signing off. Dr. Jaros Grove from University of Hawaii, Manoa, Professor of Political Science has just given you some important information. Please keep it in mind. Thank you very much. Bye. Thank you, Martha.