Supreme Court Rulings, Vaccine Policy Changes, and Election Integrity Questions

On the June 12, 2025 broadcast, Kim Monson welcomes constitutional scholar Rob Natelson to break down pivotal Supreme Court decisions reshaping federal power, vaccine policy advocate Pam Long to expose troubling Colorado immunization rule changes, and Congressional District 6 Chair Patty McKernan to sound the alarm on altered cast vote records in Arapahoe County.

Colorado Vaccine Rules and Parental Exemption Rights

Start listening at 17:05 – Hour 1

Pam Long, director of the military component at Children’s Health Defense, breaks down three proposed rule changes from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment that parents need to understand before the July 1 public comment deadline. The most controversial change shifts Colorado’s vaccine recommendation authority from the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to the American Academy of Pediatrics and similar medical organizations. Long explains this move came after HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. retired all current ACIP members over conflicts of interest, noting that committee members worked for vaccine manufacturers while recommending those same products.

Long warns that Colorado is the first state in the nation to make this shift, effectively bypassing federal reforms aimed at eliminating industry conflicts in vaccine policy. She also highlights a double standard in the proposed rules: United States citizens must comply with extensive immunization requirements for school, daycare, and college enrollment, while homeless individuals and immigrants without documentation face no such requirements. Long urges parents to understand their existing exemption rights, including medical, non-medical, and titer testing options that providers rarely disclose.

“The takeaway is that the people recommending vaccines to you have conflicts of interest. They are selling you a product and you need to do your homework on the cost benefit analysis of all 72 doses on the schedule.”

Pam Long, Director, Military Component, Children’s Health Defense

Arapahoe County Cast Vote Record Alterations

Start listening at 33:45 – Hour 1

Patty McKernan, chair of Colorado’s Congressional District 6, reveals that Arapahoe County officials altered certified cast vote records after analysts discovered an anomalous pattern in the 2020 election data. According to McKernan, Biden and Trump voters appeared to follow identical voting trajectories on Amendment B (Gallagher removal) and Proposition 115 (due date too late), a statistical improbability that drew scrutiny. When confronted with these findings, the county clerk’s office revised over 15 million data points covering the county’s 345,000 voters.

McKernan argues the alterations broke the law because the canvass board had already certified those election results, and certified records cannot be legally modified after the fact. She notes the case has attracted interest from the FBI and connects to a lawsuit in Nevada that references similar patterns. The discussion gains urgency when Kim shares breaking news that the U.S. Department of Justice has demanded all 2024 federal election records from Colorado Secretary of State, along with any preserved 2020 records, a request McKernan believes may also relate to the prosecution of former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters.

“But when you can go in and change your cast vote records by rearranging columns on a spreadsheet to make the graph now look a little bit more believable, there is a law broken there.”

Patty McKernan, Chair, Congressional District 6

The Supreme Court and the Future of the Administrative State

Start listening at 69:58 – Hour 2

Rob Natelson, a nationally recognized constitutional scholar whose research has been cited by U.S. Supreme Court justices and at least 16 state supreme courts, examines the current Supreme Court term’s focus on reining in the federal administrative state. Natelson distinguishes two types of executive orders: those directing executive branch employees under the president’s constitutional supervisory authority, and those exercising power delegated by Congress under specific statutes. He explains that the Court of International Trade’s decision striking down certain Trump tariff orders illustrates the complexity of evaluating executive authority, as each order must be assessed against the specific statute authorizing it.

Natelson traces the broader constitutional battle over congressional delegation of power to unelected agencies, pointing to the upcoming FCC v. Consumers Research case as a potential landmark on limiting such delegation. He describes the Seila Law precedent, in which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional Congress’s attempt to insulate the Consumer Finance Protection Board director from presidential removal, and connects it to current challenges involving the National Labor Relations Board. Natelson also highlights the unanimous Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services ruling, which established equal standards for discrimination claims regardless of majority or minority group status. He warns that Colorado’s expanding civil rights categories increasingly conflict with constitutional freedoms of religion and association, noting the Supreme Court has already struck down Colorado twice for anti-religious bias and just granted certiorari on a third case.

“The Constitution did not create an administrative state, it did not create an oligarchy, it created a democratic republic and I think we have a majority on the Supreme Court that, while it will proceed cautiously, still understands that fundamental truth about the Constitution.”

Rob Natelson, Constitutional Scholar and Author