Legale§e

Episode # 66 Today on Legalese we are doing a deep dive into the pending Supreme Court Case SEC v Jarkesy. This case was one included in my Supreme Court Roundup video from October 2023, which included a very brief summary of the case and reviewed the Question Presented. In my opinion, this case is shaping up to be the most interesting and most consequential among those I am covering for this term in my Supreme Court Roundup. Which is why today we'll be giving this case the comprehensive attention it deserves. The Court is being asked to either reaffirm or vacate a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals that found an internal SEC case brought against George Jarkesy as unconstitutional on three separate grounds. Today we take a deep dive into the administrative state, the Fifth Circuit decision, the Supreme Court oral arguments and the scare-mongering untruths that are spreading by way of the corporate media and the Washington DC political class. Show Notes - How The Administrative State Is Disputing Your Right To A Jury Trial Subscribe to the Legale§e Newsletter You will get notifications for all new content, whether it's articles, podcasts or videos! Visit the Legale§e Podcast homepage to learn more about the show, get updates, contact me, buy my book, find links to my social media & more! Follow Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack Support PayPal.me  Venmo Locals Contact Me BUY MY NEW BOOK Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in areas of law, politics & culture. Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode # 65 Today on Legalese, we are discussing the case Moore v United States. This case, which was part of my 2023 Supreme Court Roundup was argued before the Court on December 5th, 2023. There is a lot of new information that can be gleaned about this case from those arguments and so this video will be a summary of those arguments. Looking at the key issues raised and making some fairly certain predictions about the outcome of this case. Show Notes Page for This Episode - Moore Money, More Problems Go Read my Article about Moore v United States that I mention at the top of my video: Subscribe to the Legale§e Newsletter You will get notifications for all new content, whether it's articles, podcasts or videos! Visit the Legale§e Podcast homepage to learn more about the show, get updates, contact me, buy my book, find links to my social media & more! Follow Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack Support PayPal.me  Venmo Locals Contact Me BUY MY NEW BOOK Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in areas of law, politics & culture. Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Understanding The Significance Of Ketanji Brown Jackson And Progressive Originalism Episode #61 Today on Legalese we will be discussing the judicial philosophy of Progressive Originalism. What is it, what isn't it, how does it work and to what ends? Plus how does it compare with the other more common forms of Originalist judicial interpretation such as original public meaning or textualism? Also we will be talking about the first Progressive Originalist on the Supreme Court. That is of course the Junior Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. I will be discussing some likely surprising reasons Ketanji Brown Jackson has the potential to become one of the most influential justices on the high court and why that's not necessarily a bad thing! Follow and Support Subscribe to the Legale§e Newsletter You will get notifications for all new content, whether it's articles, podcasts or videos! Visit the Legale§e Podcast homepage to learn more about the show, get updates, contact me, buy my book, find links to my social media & more! Follow Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack Support PayPal.me  Venmo Locals Contact Me BUY MY NEW BOOKConstitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in areas of law, politics & culture.Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

The History Of Qualified Immunity -The Slow Death Of Government Accountability Episode # 64 Today on Legalese we are talking about the history of the qualified immunity doctrine. We do a deep dive into constitutional law and common law to show just how ahistorical this doctrine is, having been invented out of nothing by the Supreme Court in the 1980's. Show Notes - History Of Qualified Immunity Subscribe to the Legale§e Newsletter You will get notifications for all new content, whether it's articles, podcasts or videos! Visit the Legale§e Podcast homepage to learn more about the show, get updates, contact me, buy my book, find links to my social media & more! Follow Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack Support PayPal.me  Venmo Locals Contact Me BUY MY NEW BOOK Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in areas of law, politics & culture. Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Qualified Immunity Turns Against Police (Blue On Blue Violence) Episode # 63 Today on Legalese we will be discussing two truly outrageous cases in which cops were granted qualified immunity. The first is a unique example of what I call "blue on blue violence". A term I coined to describe incidents in which police officers are both preparator and victim. In this case, one officer shot another in the back, paralyzing him. The hapless cop who carelessly shot him would get qualified immunity. While this case is, of course, a tragedy for Officer Jamie Morales (the injured cop)— If we step back, we can see this case as potentially being a positive development. Perhaps more police need to become victims of their own standards and practices if we ever hope to demonstrate just how unjust and unequitable the qualified immunity doctrine truly is. The second case is a truly shocking example of a citizen who did absolutely nothing wrong and yet found himself being followed home by a truly deranged sociopath, who proceeded to assault this man right in his driveway... Only to find out this deranged sociopath was a police officer. He would also get qualified immunity for this off-duty assault that was the result of a deranged cop with a volatile temper and zero impulse control engaging in one of the most extreme cases of road rage ever. Show Notes - Qualified Immunity Turns On Police & Cops Get A Taste Of Their Own Medicine! Subscribe to the Legale§e Newsletter You will get notifications for all new content, whether it's articles, podcasts or videos! Visit the Legale§e Podcast homepage to learn more about the show, get updates, contact me, buy my book, find links to my social media & more! Follow Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack Support PayPal.me  Venmo Locals Contact Me BUY MY NEW BOOK Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in areas of law, politics & culture. Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #62 Today on Legalese we will be discussing three cases going before the Supreme Court this term that are centered on gun rights and the second amendment. Two are new cases that the Court just recently granted cert on last week. Garland v Cargill and National Rife Association v Vullo. The third case is revisiting a case we already discussed in my first roundup video on October 2nd 2023. This is United States v Rahimi. The Court heard oral arguments in the case on November 7th. I have a hell of a lot to say about it, as well as giving you my prediction for the outcome of this case. Show Notes - SCOTUS Roundup: Gun Rights & The Second Amendment Follow and Support Subscribe to the Legale§e Newsletter You will get notifications for all new content, whether it's articles, podcasts or videos! Visit the Legale§e Podcast homepage to learn more about the show, get updates, contact me, buy my book, find links to my social media & more! Follow Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack Support PayPal.me  Venmo Locals Contact Me BUY MY NEW BOOKConstitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in areas of law, politics & culture. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #60 Today on Legalese we will be taking on several constitutional myths and misconceptions related to Congress, criminal law, state and federal jurisdiction and the great myth of federal supremacy. Show Notes Episode #60 - The Myth Of Federal Supremacy Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter Legalese Homepage “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #59 Today on Legalese we will be discussing a major update to the Supreme Court's 2023 term. Earlier today the Court chose to grant cert on two big cases that offer a serious challenge to the doctrines of Chevron Deference and Qualified Immunity. In Relentless Inc. v Chamber Of Commerce we have a nearly identical case to the Loper Bright case the Court agreed to review back in May. Just like Loper, this case directly asks the Court to overturn Chevron Deference and revolves around a provision in the Magnuson-Stevens Act that supposedly coerces fishing vessels to not only to carry two federal officers onboard their boat AND pay those bureaucrats salary. One major difference is that, unlike Loper Bright, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will not be recusing herself from the case, allowing the full court to weigh in on this challenge to Chevron Deference. In Gonzalez v. Trevino, the justices agreed to decide what kinds of evidence will meet the exception outlined in 2019's Nieves v Bartlett. In Nieves v. Bartlett, this Court held that probable cause does not bar a retaliatory arrest claim against a “police officer” when a plaintiff shows “that he was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been.” The question before the Court is whether the Nieves probable cause exception can be satisfied by objective evidence other than specific examples of arrests that never happened. On This episode we will discuss the backgrounds and facts of these two cases. Show Notes - Major Supreme Court Update Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter Legalese Homepage “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #58 Today I Legalese I will be discussing the cases that I will be covering in depth during the coming Supreme Court term for 2023-2024 Show Note Page for "Supreme Court Roundup 2023-2024 Term" Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/ Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. ►00:00 Introduction ►05:00 Dominance of First Amendment Cases ►05:36 Social Media & State Law ►06:30 Moody v Netchoice LLC ►08:55 Netchoice LLC v Paxton ►10:40 Social Media, State Action & The First Amendment ►12:55 O'Conner-Ratcliff v Garnier ►14:15 Lindke v Freed ►14:42 Vidal v Elster ►16:05 Devillier v Texas ►17:45 Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo ►24:10 SEC v Jarkesy ►30:42 Moore v United States ►33:55 United States v Rahimi ►36:55 Conclusion Tags: Law,Constitution,Politics,legal theory,Moral Philosophy,Current Events,supreme court,first amendment,1A,social media,SB 7072,HB 20,administrative law,chevron,rahimi,2A,second amendment,7th amendment,5th amendment,takings clause --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #56 Today on Legalese we will be discussing a recent case out of the Sixth Circuit - 'Ingram v Wayne County' in which the Court held that when a car is seized under civil asset forfeiture, the owner has a constitutional right to a hearing within two weeks of the seizure. On top of that encouraging majority opinion, we also discuss the concurring opinion filed in this case by prominent conservative jurist Judge Amul Thapar that takes an even more striking and encouraging position. Show Notes Page "Sixth Circuit Smacks Down Civil Asset Forfeiture" - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/episode-56-sixth-circuit-smacks-down Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/ Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #57 Today On Legalese we are going to be discussing the 7 categories of speech that are not protected under the first amendment: Intro Incitement True Threats Fighting Words Defamation Obscenity Fraud and Perjury Speech Integral To Criminal Conduct Show Notes Page For This Episode This episode was created to be the ultimate guide to unprotected speech within our modern legal framework according to the First Amendment's protections of speech, expression and conduct. There are a great deal of misconceptions and misinterpretations of what classes or categories of speech fall outside the bounds of first amendment protection. In order to minimize, if not wholly eliminate the common causes of such misunderstandings and misinterpretations, I have done my best to excise any discussion that relies on contested claims or personal opinions, including my own. We look specifically and comprehensively at those categories of unprotected speech in constitutional law which the courts have concluded to be well-established exceptions. We look at the landmark cases that have established these categories and derive definitions, principles, doctrines and legal tests through a textual analysis of the controlling opinions of the court to provide everyone the information they would need to successfully defend their individual rights of free speech, expression and conduct within our existing legal and constitutional framework. Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/ Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. 00:00 Intro 11:42 Incitement 14:57 True Threats 21:08 Fighting Words 35:05 Obscenity 36:34 Defamation 37:51 Fraud and Perjury 38:55 Speech Integral To Criminal Conduct 39:29 What of Hate Speech? 45:57 Outro 46:18 Closing Announcement/Question --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #55 Today on Legalese we look at two recent cases that pit private citizens and the First Amendment against qualified immunity and police officers who believe themselves to be above the law. In Jordan v Adam's County Sheriff's Office a man was arrested for criticizing two shitty cops who got very upset when their inflated sense of authority was questioned. In Bailey v Iles we find a man whose only "crime" was to post a joke on Facebook. Which was considered enough of a crime by the Rapides Parish Police Department in Louisiana to send a SWAT team to arrest him and charge him with violating a state anti-terrorism law. In both cases the Tenth Circuit and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeals (respectively) would find in favor of these two citizens while holding the actions of these police to be so unreasonable these officers would not be allowed to cower behind claims of qualified immunity. Show Notes Page for "First Amendment Beats Police Defendants" Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter Legalese Homepage “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #54 A big win coming out of the Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals in the case of Rogers v. Smith. The Court affirmed that a police officer who deprived a citizen of their first and fourth amendment rights when they arrested that citizen for criminal libel, despite the police's prior awareness the criminal libel law in question, Louisiana Revised Statutes §14.47 had been ruled unconstitutional by both the Louisiana and United States Supreme Courts. For these reason the police officers being sued in this case were DENIED qualified immunity and held to have deprived the plaintiff of his civil rights under color of law in accordance with 42 U.S.C. §1983 I also use this case to discuss one of the most common and problematic myths in constitutional law. The writ-of-erasure fallacy. This deals with the crucial distinction between a law that has been ruled unconstitutional by the Courts and the actual repeal of that law by the legislature. The confusion over this legal doctrine frequently has major real world consequences and we discuss what they are. Show Notes Page for Federal Court Short Circuits Officer's Qualified Immunity Defense - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/episode-54-fifth-circuit-short-circuits Subscribe to the Legale§e Newsletter You will get notifications for all new content, whether it's articles, podcasts or videos! Visit the Legale§e Podcast homepage to learn more about the show, get updates, contact me, buy my book, find links to my social media & more! Follow Rumble Odysee YouTube Twitter Substack Anchor⁠ Support PayPal.me Venmo Locals Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in areas of law, politics & culture.Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, fifth circuit, supreme court, criminal libel, louisiana revised statute,§14.47, 42 USC §1983, rogers v smith, qualified immunity --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #53 Today on Legalese we are going to be discussing a new article that will be released in an upcoming volume of the Notre Dame Law Review entitled "Qualified Immunity As Gun Control". Law professors Guha Krishnamurthi & Peter N. Salib make one of the most evil and admittedly most brilliant calls ever to further a gun control agenda by using the doctrine of qualified immunity. This video is based on my article of the same name, recently published to Substack: https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/qualified-immunity-as-gun-control Even if you have read the article this video may well be worth a watch anyway, as I have elaborated on certain topics first discussed in the article, such as judicial scrutiny. The original article by Krishnamurthi and Salib was largely written as a response to a notable case filed by the U.S. Fifth Circuit on Feb 02, 2023 ~United States v. Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443, 448 (5th Cir. 2023). https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/21-11001/21-11001-2023-02-02.pdf?ts=1675384240 What makes U.S. v Rahimi so notable is that the Supreme Court has chosen to grant cert on this case, following a petition filed by the DOJ on the following question presented: "Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face." This case has a high likelihood of ending up as a landmark 2A case in their upcoming term... ORIGINAL ARTICLE Krishnamurthi, Guha and Salib, Peter, Qualified Immunity as Gun Control (July 5, 2023). Notre Dame Law Review Reflection (forthcoming 2023), https://ssrn.com/abstract=4500816 SHOW NOTES For all other links and citations, as well as a full transcript of this podcast episode head over to episode show notes page - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/qi-as-gc FOLLOW AND SUPPORT Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/ Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ Pick up a copy of my book - “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legale§e is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law-- as well as current events in law, politics and culture. Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #52 Today on Legalese we will be discussing the Supreme Court's landmark equal protection clause case dealing with the constitutionality of racially biased admissions discrimination policies on both public and private universities. The case: Students For Fair Admission v Harvard effectively puts an end to affirmative action in college admissions in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in it's opinion that the affirmative action policies fail the strict scrutiny standard in every regard. Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/ Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #51 Today on Legalese we have another video in my Supreme Court Wrap-Up. We discuss Haaland v Brackeen (2023). A landmark Indian Commerce Clause case that sought to challenge the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. Show Notes Page For This Episode - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/haaland-v-brackeen-599-us-___-2023 Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/ Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #50 Today on Legalese we will be talking about corporate personhood. We examine a number of the most common myths and misconceptions surrounding the issues of corporations, of people and of rights. Show Notes Page Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter Legalese Homepage Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Today On Legalese we are talking about the ridiculous arguments coming from Washington that suggest the debt limit is unconstitutional and that the 14th amendment authorizes the President to circumvent the Constitution and laws of the United States to pay off the US debts to avoid default. Show Notes Page For This Episode Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter Legalese Homepage Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Today on Legalese we return to a case I discussed in January about home equity theft and the Supreme Court case challenging its constitutionality. Yesterday the Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion, enjoining Minnesota's Home Equity Theft law as unconstitutional under the Takings Clause. We will be talking the case in question Tyler v Hennepin County, why and how the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, Geraldine Tyler, and what some of the likely ramifications of this decision will be when it comes to the government and further schemes of legalized theft. ⁠Show Notes Page For This Episode⁠ Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter Legalese Homepage Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. Tags: Law,Constitution,Politics,legal theory,Moral Philosophy,Current Events,geraldine tyler,Hennepin county,home equity theft,minnesota,supreme court,john roberts,neil gorsuch,ketanji brown jackson,property rights,takings clause,just compensation,excessive fines --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

This is the first video in my annual Supreme Court Wrap Up. Today we will be revisiting a pair of cases from my Supreme Court Roundup last fall. These cases are: Twitter v Taamneh and Gonzalez v Google The Supreme Court handed down two unanimous opinions on May 18th 2023 for both cases stating that the claims against Twitter & Google in regards to the Anti-Terrorism Act §2333 and the Communications and Decency Act §230 do not amount to "aiding and abetting" in a manner that would make these platforms liable for damages following a terrorist attack. SHOW NOTES PAGE FOR THIS EPISODE Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter Legalese Homepage Contact Me “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in areas of law, politics & culture. Tags: Law,Constitution,Politics,legal theory,Moral Philosophy,Current Events,supreme court,Section 230,section 2333,anti-terrorism act,ISIS,twitter,google --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Today on Legalese, we are going to be looking at a statement put out by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch as part of the Court's procedural decision in the recent case of Arizona v Mayorkas. This decision dealt with the abuse of civil liberties under emergency powers, specifically through the usurpation of the so-called "Title 42 Emergency Orders" that were issued to help prevent the spread of Covid-19, that were usurped by several different state governments and federal administrative agencies for their own designs. Trying to keep these emergency powers in place indefinitely because of a new imagined crisis that they were never meant to apply to. Read the full procedural order here Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter Legalese Homepage Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. Tags: Law,Constitution,Politics,legal theory,Moral Philosophy,Current Events,covid,supreme court,neil gorsuch,title 42,arizona,mayorkas,civil liberties,democracy,autocracy,administrative agencies,agency law --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Today On Legalese we have the second video in my series about the Supreme Court's upcoming case that will reconsider chevron deference. Do their actions constitute some kind of usurpation of power and are they an attack on democracy itself? We discuss this while debunking an article from Vox that claims both of those things are correct. We also look at the real history of administrative law in regards to Chevron Deference Ep. 43 "Do The Supreme Court's Actions Constitute An Attack On Democracy?" Show Notes Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter Legalese Homepage Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. Tags:  Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, Supreme Court, Administrative Law, Chevron Deference, Vox, Ian Millhiser, Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimando --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Today on Legalese, we will be discussing the Supreme Court's grant for judicial review on the case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This case is controversial because of the distinct (though highly unlikely) possibility that it may see Chevron Deference overruled entirely. Chevron Deference is perhaps the most prolific legal doctrine in the whole of administrative law. This doctrine arose from a landmark Supreme Court case known as: Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837. Chevron was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers. We have discussed the Chevron case here on the show before as well as it's doctrine of Chevron Deference. This case is again worth discussing because Chevron Deference supporters and detractors are both being told two different, but equally fallacious, narratives about what the potential outcome of this case may be and the impact that they claim it will have on the entire system of federal regulations and administrative law. Today's episode is the first of two I will be putting out about this case. Today's video will focus on the background information needed to understand the Loper Bright case as a matter of law. The second video, which will be released tomorrow will be taking a look at one article from the conservative mainstream media and one article from the progressive mainstream media to understand how political actors are using this case to manipulate and misinform the public at large (whether this is being done intentionally, or is the result of innocent ignorance, I cannot say... but perhaps that doesn't matter.) Either way we will be looking at the potential motives and goals of using the law as a weapon to further a political agenda. Episode 42: Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimando (Part 1) Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter Legalese Homepage Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. Show Notes Episode 42: Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimando (Part 1) Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter Legalese Homepage Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Today on Legalese we are talking about the meaning and scope of the Ninth Amendment, What did this amendment mean to the framers and ratifiers who gave the bill of rights legal force? What role has it played in Constitutional law and case precedent? What does it mean in our own time and how is it applied today? And could this amendment be the most important sentence in the entire Constitution? Originalism And Textualism: A Complete Guide To Their Understanding & Application (Past Episode) The Negative-Implications Canon Excerpt from Reading Law by: Justice Antonin Scalia & Brian Garner The Ninth Amendment: It Means What It Says A Textual-Historical Theory of the Ninth Amendment The Lost Original Meaning of the Ninth Amendment The Intersection of Natural Rights and Positive Constitutional Law Follow & Support Legalese Homepage Subscribe To Legalese Contact the Show: Bob@LegaleseShow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, ninth amendment, bill of right, natural rights, randy barnett, robert bork, kurt lash, james madison, inclusio unius, negative implications canon, rule of construction, substantive law, griswold v connecticut, the richmond newspaper case, carolene Products, footnote 4, footnote four, williamson v lee optical, substantive due process, rational basis test, enumerated rights, unenumerated rights Legalese is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Today on Legalese, we continue my ongoing series "Ignorance of the Law" where I expose the fact that while politicians and police are often quick to tell people ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law, it's often an excuse for making and enforcing the law. We discuss the North Hampton, New Hampshire police department, where several officers and the police chief beclowned themselves following an especially absurd arrest. But this incident is only the latest in a disturbing trend of North Hampton police officers overstepping their prerogative to the extreme. In October of 2022, a medical emergency led to an auto accident that ended on the front lawn of North Hampton resident Colleen Loud, 67, who had been in her home watching a baseball game. Ms. Loud did not know the driver, had nothing to do with the accident that occurred; and in fact, had not even been aware the accident had occurred until police officers arriving on the scene would question her about the incident. During this encounter, North Hampton police followed the standard protocol of turning an innocent witness into a victim of the officer's own making. What followed was a series of events leading to the eventual arrest of Ms. Loud on such a mind-bogglingly absurd basis, its hard to believe this was a real news story and not a satirical take on modern policing you might find in The Onion or The Babylon Bee. Unfortunately for Colleen Loud, it was all too real and she was the victim of what I believe is the dumbest arrest ever made. Original Source:"North Hampton Chief Leaves After Investigation Into Questionable Arrest"By: Damien FisherPublished by: NHJournal FOLLOW Show Homepage --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Today on Legalese we have part two on my series about the trial of Muhammad Ali. In part one we discussed what it means to be a conscientious objector in accordance with American text, history and tradition. We also looked at the basic narrative of Ali's famous fight to get a conscientious objector exemption in accordance with his religious beliefs. Today we dive into the judicial history and do a deep dive legal analysis of the civil and criminal trials Ali faced on account of this personal conviction. Watch Part One Muhammad Ali: Conscientious Objector Show Notes Clay v United States (Wikipedia) Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522 (2003) DOJ BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION The Trials of Muhammad Ali Clay v. United States, the Trial of Muhammad Ali by Thomas Krattenmaker Muhammad Ali Biography FOLLOW Show Homepage  “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in areas of law, politics & culture. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Today on Legalese, we discuss a very disappointing video from one of my favorite YouTube political commentators, The Actual Justice Warrior. Somehow this normally stellar YouTuber got it in his head that the police having no duty to protect you is a complete myth. So I made this video to correct the record and irrefutably prove the police have no duty to protect you. Actual Justice Warrior YouTube Channel Do Police Have A Duty To Protect You? (Full Video) Police Powers Police Powers in Con L:aw Public Duty Doctrine Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) Warren v DC Lozito v New York (Case Brief) Lozito v New York DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales United States tort law Duty Of Care Maksim Gelman stabbing spree 42 U.S. Code § 1983 FOLLOW Show Homepage “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Today on Legalese, we examine the recent claims made by Joe Biden regarding guns and gun owners and scrutinize every single claim to comprehensively explain why Democrats should reject the Democratic Party's message on gun control. Some clips from The Babylon Bee video: "Frightening But 100% True Facts About Guns"  Where do you stand on the debate over protecting gun rights vs. imposing stricter gun control? I would love to get your thoughts on this topic. Leave a Comment! Leave a comment Legalese is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. FOLLOW Show Homepage “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, guns, gun control, firearms, joe biden, al sharpton,2A, second amendment, cannons, assault weapons, weapons of war, ar-15, magazine, gun rights, democrats, democratic party --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Welcome Back! Today on Legalese we finish discussing the Brunson Case (Commonly known as Docket: 22-380.) The first episode on The Brunson Case we looked at the background of the case and its judicial history. We also discussed what exactly a writ of certiorari is and broke down the first part of Brunson's cert petition, including the all-important Question Presented. Today we explore the other key part of any cert petition, the statement of the facts of the case, where one brings to bare the material evidence required to answer all topics raised by the QP. We will also discuss the wisdom of fighting battles to ostensibly “defend the Constitution” by sacrificing the Times, Places & Manner's clause, The Presidential Elector's clause, the Electoral College clause, The Presidential Vote clause, the Cases and Controversies clause, the Treason clause, and the 5th, 6th, 7th, 11th and 12th Amendments on the altar of convenience. FOLLOW Show Homepage “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Today on Legalese we are going to be examining the case of Brunson v Adams (Also commonly referred to at Docket 22-380). Raland Brunson is suing 388 members of Congress, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris & Mike Pence seeking to kick them out of office then declare them traitors by judicial fiat and put Trump back in office immediately because he believes the election was stolen. This case is fascinating for many reason and I want to share those reasons. Whether you support this case, vehemently oppose it, or have simply never heard of it. Every one has something to gain from listening. Supreme Court Docket for 22-380 (All filing and documents) Brunson District Court Case and Judgement Tenth Circuit Order and Judgement 28 U.S.C. § 636 The Brunson Brothers Home Page Supreme Court Rule 14 - Content of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Follow & Support Show Homepage “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, docket 22-380, Brunson v Adams, Raland Brunson, Lev Brunson, supreme court, treason, cert petition, election, overturn election, investigate congress, lawsuit, tenth circuit, district court, Utah --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Today on Legalese is the first of two videos covering the Trial of Muhammad Ali In this part we focus of the history of Conscientious objection in the United States, get a general overview of the events that unfolded over a period of several years as Muhammad Ali fought what could be seen as his toughest fight ever. Fighting for his right not to go and fight in a war based on his religious convictions. We also discuss some parallels between the Vietnam War and the present war in Ukraine. FOLLOW Show Homepage “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Today on Legalese we will be taking a look at the legalized armed robbery that constitutes "Home Equity Theft”. Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to grant cert on the merits for the case "Tyler v. City of Minneapolis". This case challenges the constitutionality of a Minnesota state law empowering local governments to seize the entire value of a property in order to pay off a much smaller delinquent property tax debt. The property owner in the case—93-year-old widow Geraldine Tyler—argues that this kind of uncompensated seizure of home equity violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires government to pay "just compensation" anytime it takes private property, and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. So how does home equity theft actually work? How does the government justify this policy which stands in clear contravention to the 5th and 8th amendment's takings clause & excessive fines clause (respectively). We will discuss the likely outcome of the case as well as the broader implications that this potential landmark 5th amendment case will have. Creation, Consent, and Government Power over Property Rights Hall v. Meisner, Sixth Circuit Opinion (2022) Tyler v. Hennepin County, Eighth Circuit Opinion (2021) Pacific Legal Foundation Tyler v. Hennepin County: Summary of Fact (Pacific Legal Foundation) Tyler v. Hennepin County Cert Petition FOLLOW · Show Homepage · Rumble · Odysee · YouTube · Anchor · Twitter · Substack SUPPORT · PayPal.me · Venmo · Locals · Contact Me Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, supreme court, equity asset theft, 5th amendment, 8th amendment, takings clause, excessive fines clause, Geraldine Tyler, Tawanda hall, 6th circuit, 8th circuit, property rights, taxes, Minneapolis, Hennepin County --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Cargill v. Garland, No. 20-51016 (5th Cir. 2023) Today on Legalese, we will be discussing the recent case of Cargill v. Garland handed down by an en banc Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals. This case was a big win for gun rights and a well-deserved kick in the teeth for unaccountable Administrative State Agencies. We will discus the case, what it means moving forward and look at several other important implications that can be deduced by researching this case. Cargill v. Garland, No. 20-51016 (5th Cir. 2023) My syllabus & Case Brief Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack Check out my new book “Constitutional Sleight of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Legalese is community-supported venture that you can support with a one-time donation or monthly membership PayPal.me Venmo Locals Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law and currents events in politics & other areas of law. Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, court, gun, gun rights, bump stock, merrick garland, donald trump, fifth circuit, Cargill v Garland, bump stock ban, administrative state, deep state, 2A, second amendment, chevron deference --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

Today on Legalese, we add a new video to my series: “Today In Supreme Court History” This latest installment looks at the landmark case of Printz v. United States. We call it “Today” in Supreme Court history because it was on this day in 1996 that oral arguments for this case were heard by the Supreme Court; as two of our Nation's finest litigators squared off. Stephen Halbrook, representing Sherriff Printz and Sherriff Mack argues as the petitioner. Walter J Dellinger III represented the United States as the respondent. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Bill) required "local chief law enforcement officers" (CLEOs) to perform background-checks on prospective handgun purchasers, until such time as the Attorney General establishes a federal system for this purpose. County sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack, separately challenged the constitutionality of this interim provision of the Brady Bill on behalf of CLEOs in Montana and Arizona respectively. This case became a landmark in defining the meaning and scope of the anti-commandeering doctrine. Legalese is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Full Case Brief Oral Arguments Audio and Transcript Syllabus My Condensed Case Brief Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack Check out my new book “Constitutional Sleight of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Legalese is community-supported venture that you can support with a one-time donation or monthly membership PayPal.me Venmo Locals Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law and currents events in politics & other areas of law. Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Current Events, anti-commandeering doctrine, supreme court, Printz, Mack, united states, tenth amendment, sheriff, CLEO, chief law enforcement officer, second amendment, federalism --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

Today on Legalese we take a look at the history of the right to privacy as well as the common law origins of our fourth amendment. Check out my new book “Constitutional Sleight of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack Legalese is community-supported venture that you can support with a one-time donation or monthly membership PayPal.me Venmo Locals Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law and currents events in politics & other areas of law. Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, common law, fourth amendment, 4th amendment, search and seizure, england, edward coke, william blackstone, james otis, writs of assistance, paxtons case, the rights of british colonies, colonial era, property right, right to privacy --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

Today on Legalese we are going to be discussing a little known area of constitutional law known as the state legislature doctrine that will play a major role in a landmark case the Supreme Court will be hearing this term. This is Moore v Harper, almost certainly it has already become the most controversial case the Court will be hearing for their Fall 2022 term. Links mentioned In The Episode “One Person One Vote" Episode Supreme Court Roundup Fall 2022 "Federal Functions" in 2020 Election Episode Derek T. Muller Amicus Curae Brief Moore v Harper on Supreme Court Docket Moore v Harper on SCOTUSBlog Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack Legalese is community-supported venture that you can support with a one-time donation or monthly membership PayPal.me Venmo Locals Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law and currents events in politics & other areas of law. Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, supreme court, scotus, ,state legislature doctrine ,independent state legislature, gerrymandering, federal functions, districting, federalism, state constitution, federal constitution, Article 1, time place manner --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

Today we have the latest installment of my series "Ignorance of the Law". . This where we take some time to highlight stupid, pointless, hypocritical and useless laws passed by the government; To point out that while the government will tell you ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law, they clearly consider ignorance an excuse when making and enforcing the law. This episode has 3 examples of ignorant laws being ignorantly enforced. First we look at the foster care system in the State of Maine and their regulations regarding bunk-beds; and we share the story of some sweet old grannie taking care of her grandkids and how Maryland's laws are bunk-fucking grannie with their rules against foster children sleeping in bunk beds. Md. Code Regs. 07.05.02.10 - Foster Parent's Home, Equipment, and Supply Requirements D. Sleeping and Living Quarters. (3) Each child shall have adequate bedding and an individual bed which may not be a cot, sofa, sofa bed, double-tiered bed, bunk bed, or any type of portable bed. Second, we look at a case from Minnesota where the 8th circuit Court of Appeals has granted qualified immunity to a government employee who exercises police powers despite not being a policeman and answer the question: "what are you supposed to do when a government employee who is not a police officer pulls you over, detains you for hours, and tries to perform a traffic stop, despite having no authority to do so?" Finally I discuss why certain Halloween costumes just might make any child wearing it a potential felon. Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack Legalese is community-supported venture that you can support with a one-time donation or monthly membership Legalese is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribed Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, ignorance, law, court, grannie, bunk bed, child protective services, foster care, home, family, Maryland, government, regulations, NASA, copyright, trademark, government, qualified immunity --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

Today's videos is not your typical podcast episode. It's a project. In fact its a project I could use your help on. David Hogg, the darling of the anti-gun movement has a habit of trying to shoe-horn his personal opinion that guns are bad into the Second Amendment and into American Law all the time & while he often says he is willing to discuss why he believes that with gun right advocates he doesn't seem to ever actually do it. I have tried reaching out to him twice in the past year to offer a chance to change my mind about guns and get no reply. So I am Hoping all of you lovely people out there will take just a moment and head over to David Hogg's Twitter page and to a specific tweet he recently since that I respond to in this video & I am hoping you will share this video with him and respectfully ask him to find the time to join me here on the Legalese Podcast so we can have a discussion about the second amendment and about the morality of gun control David Hogg on Twitter: - https://twitter.com/davidhogg111 David Hogg's Tweet - https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status/1567529570966065153 The Largest Ever Survey Of American Gun Owners - https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-largest-ever-survey-of-american-gun-owners-finds-that-defensive-use-of-firearms-is-common/?itm_source=parsely-api Defensive Gun Use Study – https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4109494 Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

Today on Legalese we have my fall Supreme Court Roundup. Of the cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this upcoming term I have focused on 5 which I believe have a high likelihood of becoming landmark cases in constitutional law jurisprudence. Including one case dealing with the Independent State Legislature Doctrine, based on Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution. As well as two commerce clause cases, one dealing with the Indian Commerce Clause and another dealing with the dormant commerce clause as well as anti-commandeering doctrine under the tenth amendment. Finally we have two cases regarding Section 230, the statute often referred to as the Internet's first amendment. Moore v Harper – independent state legislature doctrine Haaland v Brackeen – Indian Commerce Clause case National Pork Producers Council v. Ross –Dormant Commerce Clause Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh – Section 230 Gonzalez v. Google LLC – section 230 Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack Legalese is community-supported venture that you can support with a one-time donation or monthly membership PayPal.me Venmo Locals Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law and currents events in politics & other areas of law. Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, supreme court, scotus, writ of cert, commerce, commerce clause, indian, dormant commerce clause, indian commerce clause, section 230, independent state legislature doctrine, state legislature, twitter, google, national pork producers, ross, moore v harper, haalan v braaken, haalan, braaken, voting rights, tenth amendment, anticomandeering doctrine, pike test, pike doctrine, anti-terrorism act, ATA, dormant --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

Today on Legalese we are covering Joe Biden's already catastrophic speech in Philadelphia. Check Out The whole speech here! While most of the critical coverage it has received is largely due to his schizophrenic messaging in which he couldn't decide if he wanted to be the nation's great uniter, or the guy who insists democracy is under threat from all those troublemakers who have a different opinion than Joe Biden on any issue. Because anyone who disagree with Joe Biden on anything is a dangerous terrorist extremist. Therefore, obviously, the only way to save democracy is to destroy democracy by disenfranchising anyone who wouldn't act as a rubber stamp for all Biden driven initiatives. Instituting a one party system. Saving democracy by guaranteeing every American have the right to vote for Joe Biden. I want to focus on the other half of his speech that seems to have gotten almost no scrutiny from its detractors. These include his claim that There is no place for violence in government Sedition and insurrection are not American values That he is on the side of the declaration of independence and the constitution. That “MAGA Republicans” are categorically opposed to the declaration of independence and the constitution These claims are all entirely unsubstantiated and fall apart under the thinnest of scrutiny. Related Content These are ideas and concepts I have discussed before in past videos and articles that I recommend checking out: Full Scope Of The Second Amendment Sedition: An American Virtue Follow & Support · Show Homepage · Rumble · Odysee · YouTube · Anchor · Twitter · Substack Legalese is community-supported venture that you can support with a one-time donation or monthly membership ·PayPal.me · Venmo · Locals · Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law and currents events in politics & other areas of law. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

Today on Legalese we have the latest installment of a segment I call: Ignorance of the law This is where we discuss and make fun of laws that are arbitrary, hypocritical, ridiculous or sure to backfire in some hilarious way. Because as we all know, ignorance is no excuse when breaking the law…. But it IS an excuse when making and enforcing the law. Today we will be discussing how New York is finally recognizing the very serious problem it has with crime, homelessness and drug abuse by finally taking on the serious issues sure to make a critical difference in the quality of life of its law abiding citizens by banning people under 21 from being able to buy whipped cream. Related Articles Turns Out Its Illegal For People Under The Age Of 21 To Buy Whip Cream Canisters In New York 2021 New York Laws GBS - Article 26 §399-HH - Sale of Whipped Cream Chargers. Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack Legalese is community-supported venture that you can support with a one-time donation or monthly membership PayPal.me Venmo Locals Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law and currents events in politics & other areas of law. Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, new york, whip cream, crime, law, ignorance, sean king, shaun king, george soros, real justice, PAC, statute, business law, drugs, social justice warriors, prosecutors, bail reform, Talcum X --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

There is all kinds of misinformation currently floating around about monetary inflation. Such as those who desperately try to convince you, in spite of all evidence to the contrary: Inflation is caused by rich, corporate fat cats who aren't "paying their fair share in taxes"… Or gas prices are up because those greedy corporate fat cats running oil and gas companies all suddenly got extra-greedy at exactly the same time somehow and are just price gouging us. Obviously neither of those things are true and the politicians selling that bullshit are just desperate to put the blame somewhere, anywhere other than where it belongs. Because where it belongs is with those politicians. They have to lie, because an honest appraisal would lead to the inevitable conclusion that they are at fault and that the only way to return to long-term prosperity will require a heavy dose of short term pain and they simply have too much to lose to actually admit that. I, on the other hand, have nothing to lose by being honest and can merely state the facts. In this video we will discuss the real definition of inflation, the real cause of inflation and the only cure for inflation. Economic Policy: Inflation (Ludwig von Mises) - https://mises.org/library/inflation Inflation: An Unworkable Fiscal Policy (Ludwig von Mises) - https://mises.org/library/economic-freedom-and-interventionism/html/p/123 Monetary Inflation and Price Inflation (Bob Murphy) - https://mises.org/wire/monetary-inflation-and-price-inflation How Inflation Hides Inflation (Robert Blumen) - https://mises.org/wire/how-inflation-hides-inflation An Inflation Primer (Melchior Palyi) - https://mises.org/library/inflation-primer Defining Inflation (Frank Shostak) - https://mises.org/library/defining-inflation The Cure for Inflation (Henry Hazlitt) - https://mises.org/wire/cure-inflation Inflation as a Policy (Henry Hazlitt) - https://mises.org/wire/inflation-policy Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Order My Upcoming Book “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An Explicit History Of Implied Powers Lgalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

Today on Legalese we will be discussing the full scope of the natural right of armed self-defense codified in the second amendment. Too often, the modern debate over the second amendment has to do with whether, and to what extent, may people engage in individual self-defense when the government is either incapable or unwilling to adequately protect people. However, they never question the legitimacy of the government's assertion of their monopoly on the use of violence. Moreover, should the types of arms individuals may own and carry be limited to those weapons suitable only for individual self defense. Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Order My Upcoming Book “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An Explicit History Of Implied Powers Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

Today on Legalese, we finish our discussion on the Democrat's new "Assault Weapon" Ban bill (HR 1808) We discuss, in greater detail what the ramifications of this legislation would mean for the future of the natural right of armed self-defense, codified in our Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms, as well as gun rights and gun culture. We watch all the anti-gun democrats on the House Judiciary Committee beclown themselves in their frantic attempt to prove they know (quite literally) NOTHING about firearms, especially technical & tactical distinctions; making them the very last people who should be writing legislation about the thing they have proven they know nothing about. We also discuss a challenge in Federal Court on the New York "Assault Weapon Ban" Related Links Stop The "Assault Weapons" Ban - GOA Form Letter HR 1808 - Full Text of Legislation NYSRPA v Bruen (2022) Vanchoff V James (Case Docket) Vanchoff v James (Firearms Policy Coalition Complaint) Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. Tags: assault weapon, ban, pistol, rifle, shotgun, silencer, trigger, joe biden, jerry nadler, david cicilline, david hogg, 2A, second amendment, civil liberties, bill, legislation, house judiciary committee, gun control, gun rights --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

The House Judiciary Committee has a new assault weapons ban they plan to vote on next week. This new bill makes the 1994 AWB that was in place for a decade look downright libertarian by comparison. HR 1808 seeks to ban all semi-automatic sporting rifles, semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic shotguns as well as a ban on many types of triggers and silencers. All weapons which are in common use for lawful purposes. While this bill specifically exempts the very "weapons of war" it claims to be aimed at banning. This assault on our natural rights acts with a breadth never before imagined. In This episode we go through the bill to tell you everything you need to know about this bill. HR 1808 Bill NYSRPA v Bruen (2022) - Case Brief Vanchoff v James - Case Docket Vanchoff v James - Firearms Policy Coalition Complaint Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

Today on Legalese, as part of my ongoing series "Ignorance Of The Law" where we laugh at the fact that ignorance of the law may not be an excuse for breaking the law, but it's often an excuse for making and enforcing the law. Today we discuss the ignorance of Rent Control by looking at a recent John Oliver segment about the need for rent control and we look at a series of rent control laws passed in the Twin Cities that are considered to be the strictest Rent Control Laws in the country. Studies and Related Links The Atlantic - We need more luxury housing, not less Rent Control is fashionable again. But still a bad idea Increasing Acceptance of Housing Vouchers Among Landlords: A Piece of the Affordability Puzzle Landlord Participation Study Does Affordable Housing Make the Surrounding Neighborhood Less Affordable? - Affordable homes don't increase crime or dent Orange County property values, says UCI study Developers Halt Projects, Mayor Demands Reform After St. Paul Voters Approve Radical Rent Control Ballot Initiative America's Most Controversial Rent Control Law Is Getting a Hasty Makeover Robbing Peter to Pay Paul? The Redistribution of Wealth Caused by Rent Control Wealthy, Older Tenants in Manhattan Get Biggest Boost From Rent Regulations NMHC Rent Control Update: Multifamily Firms Reconsider Investments in Rent Control Markets --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

Today by special request, we have a great episode that asks How can Substantive Due Process rights be transferred to the privileges and immunities clause. We look at the history of "Privileges & Immunities" from its common law and colonial American beginning, to the Articles Of Confederation, Article 4, Corfield v Coryell and reconstruction era civil rights legislation to inform us of what the Privileges or Immunities clause was understood to mean by those who gave it legal force. We also discuss a general framework under which enumerated and unenumerated rights protected under the due process clause could be transferred to the privileges or immunities clause. Case Briefs and Legal Resources Dobbs v Jackson Whole Women's Health McDonald v. Chicago Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) Slaughterhouse Cases :: 83 U.S. 36 (1872) United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) McDonald v Chicago Amicus Briefs Clarence Thomas McDonald v Chicago Opinion (Edit) Past Episodes Referenced In This Video: Clarence Thomas Is Right Roe v Wade (1973) Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. Tags: supreme Court, scotus, due process clause, privileges or immunities clause, 14th amendment, civil rights, clarence thomas, Dobbs, jackson, abortion, originalism, textualism, articles of confederation, article IV, Corfield v Coryell, roe v wade, planned parenthood v casey --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

12:50 CORRECTION - Utility Air 573, U.S. is NOT a regulation. It refers to the case Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, (2014) Today on Legalese, we are looking at 2 recent Supreme Court Opinions that curbed the legal doctrine in administrative law known as Chevron Deference. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf West Virginia v Environmental Protection Agency, 596 U.S. ___ (2022) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf And how in both cases the Court finally made meaningful changes to begin to curb the seemingly endless power assumed to be delegated to Executive Agencies under Administrative Law Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/302/ 42 U.S. Code § 1395l - Payment of benefits - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1395l 42 U.S. Code § 7411 - Standards of performance for new stationary sources - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7411 And we bid a fond farewell to Justice Steven Breyer! Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - Legalese@gmx.us Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

Stare Decisis is a Latin phrase, commonly used in law that roughly translates to: “Let wrong decisions of the Warren Court stand” Regardless of your personal opinion in the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate , Roe v Wade was a terrible opinion bereft of even a modicum of legal merit and substantive due process is a garbage legal doctrine invented out of thin air by the Warren Court a century after the 14th amendment was ratified. The only people who could disagree with that statement are people who have never read the actual case brief for Roe v Wade and never bothered to so much as read the 14th amendment, much less earnestly try to give it a good faith interpretation. Full Case Brief - Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) Today In Supreme Court History - Roe v Wade (1973) The 14th Amendment & Incorporation Doctrine Clarence Thomas was right to say as much in his concurrence in Dobbs. This is a position He (and much less importantly I) have held for many years. A careful reading of Thomas' opinion is, in many respects, less detrimental to the protection of unenumerated rights, secured by substantive due process than either Justice Alito's majority opinion and Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion. This is because he is the only one who suggests how the 14th amendment could be used in its original public meaning to secure many of the unenumerated rights that have been created with the imaginary theory of substantive due process , through the original public meaning of the 14th amendment's Privileges & Immunities Clause AMENDMENT XIV, SECTION 1 No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.... In this episode we briefly discuss why Thomas is right and why those on the left who have turned into violent racist bigots over this decision are demonstrating a new low in their pursuit of political ends through mostly peaceful violence and mostly non-racist racism Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

WE have an opinion in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen concealed carry case, and the news is VERY, VERY good!!! Clarence Thomas came through with an incredible majority opinion that will spell the end of the restrictive "May Issue" licensing schemes in States like New York that say the right of self-defense is not reason enough to be able to exercise your right to armed self defense. In This video I go through the Court's primary holding and pull out the key information from the Majority Opinion from what is a 135 page case brief, that I read so you don't have to. (Actually everyone really should read it. But for those on the go I give you all the important information to understand the ruling in this case and its legal significance.) Read the full NYSRPA v Bruen Opinion Here - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf Past Videos of Mine About The Bruen Case: Tim Pool Doesn't Get The Bruen Case - https://youtu.be/8wotWTZlMl4 Disarming Gun Control: An Open Letter To Gun Control Advocates - https://youtu.be/uMDHCR8Kt80 Disarming Gun Control: An Open Letter To Gun Control Advocates (Part Two) - https://youtu.be/drwI3X3rz80 The Second Amendment Is Going Back To Court - https://youtu.be/gIMSj8qz5R0 The Supreme Court vs The Second Amendment (Supreme Court Roundup: The Good, Thee Bad & The Ugly) - https://youtu.be/QizuUeT7p6w Follow & Support Rumble.com/legalese locals.com/legalese categoricalimperatives.substack.com odysee.com/@Legalese anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23 PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - Legalese@gmx.us Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture Tags: Bruen, New York Rifle and Pistol Association, supreme court, scotus, clarence thomas, justice thomas, concealed carry, may issue, shall issue, second amendment, individual right, natural right, 2A --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

The other day on Twitter the notable YouTuber and world-class milquetoast fence sitter, Tim Pool tweeted about the upcoming Supreme Court Opinion in Jackson and Bruen. Saying if the Court overturns Roe and Casey and also rules on Nationwide Constitutional Carry there will be less rioting. While there are myriad problems with this tweet the one that really grinds my gears was his insistence the court could rule on nationwide constitutional carry. After reaching out to Tim to verify if this was meant to be ironic or if it was a genuine statement and it became clear that not only he, but his many followers all genuinely believe this is the most likely outcome, despite the fact this is a constitutional and procedural impossibility. After trying to explain and finding 240 characters not being nearly enough to refute such a complicatedly wrong belief I decided to make this video. Not only will it hopefully explain to the thousands of people espousing this with nothing but an assumption it must be correct why it is LITERALLY impossible for the court to make any ruling about constitutional carry and LITERALLY impossible the outcome of Bruen will be a nationwide anything, its also a great primer for those who are interested in this case to help explain what the case is about or to remind you of the importance facts, issues, the question presented and the potential judgement so when the case comes out you will have a fresh understanding of the arguments that were made in the cert petitions and oral arguments heard last November. See Related Episodes From The Past: Disarming Gun Control (Part One) Disarming Gun Control (Part Two) Second Amendment Goes Back To Court Supreme Court 2nd Amendment Roundup All Gun Control Is Unconstitutional What The Heller? What Is An Assault Weapon? Cooper v Aaron Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support