The Constitution Study podcast

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – Declaration of Independence You may be wondering, why am I quoting the Declaration of Independence for a holiday other than Independence Day? Because, one of our nation's most important holidays is often treated as nothing more than the beginning of summer. That does a disservice to all who have sacrificed so much for the government to secure our rights.

It took more than 20 years, but the REAL ID Act of 2005 is finally being enforced. While several people have talked about the requirements for a REAL ID, and whether or not they even need one, I haven't heard anyone ask one very important question, is it legal?

It took more than 20 years, but the REAL ID Act of 2005 is finally being enforced. While several people have talked about the requirements for a REAL ID, and whether or not they even need one, I haven't heard anyone ask one very important question, is it legal?

The State of Wisconsin exempts religious organizations from their unemployment tax system. Even though everyone agrees that Catholic Charities is controlled by a church, Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Catholic Charities is not “operated primarily for religious purposes”, and therefore does not qualify for the exemption. Catholic Charities appealed to the Supreme Court to ask if that decision violated the First Amendment.

How many of you know about the Johnson Amendment? If you've ever donated to a church or other charity, you've been impacted by this amendment. This limitation on freedom of speech has been in effect for over 70 years. And now, the House of Representatives is trying to remedy this infringement.

There will always be tension between our desire for privacy and safety. We're all for privacy, until we find that an invasion of said privacy could have stopped some terrible event. But are we willing to trade our privacy for safety? “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” --Benjamin Franklin In the case of SCHOLL and BEDNARZ v. Illinois State Police the privacy question revolves around automatic license place readers (ALPRs) and what makes a search reasonable.

I don't know which of the three branches of government does the most to infringe on your rights. Take, for example, the recent Supreme Court decision in the case Bondi v. Vanderstok, where Mr. Vanderstok challenged the recent regulation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives redefining weapons parts kits as firearms. It seems the Supreme Court has a hard time reading either the law or the Constitution.

Imagine you are stopped by law enforcement. Maybe you were doing something wrong, maybe not. At this point, when you are in the custody of law enforcement, whose safety matters more, yours or the officers? In the 2017 Fourth Circuit case United States v. Robinson, while not specifically put this way, the question came up, does officer safety trump your right against unreasonable search and seizure, even your own safety?

As a lifelong gun owner, I understand the awesome responsibility of owning a weapon. After getting my concealed carry license many years ago, I came to understand the greater responsibility of having a deadly weapon on my person. But as a constitutional scholar, I've come to realize just how badly states are infringing on our rights, simply because we decide to exercise one of them. Today, I want to talk about “duty to inform” laws. After all, if the presence of a firearm is a threat to officer safety, than the officer's firearm is a threat to my safety.

Ibriam Kendi is often quoted as saying “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” But is that true? Above the main entrance to the Supreme Court is a promise chiseled into the marble façade, “equal justice under law”. How can we have equal justice under law if one side is always discriminating against another? Enter the case of Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth Services, where Marlean Ames claims she was discriminated in her job because of her sexual orientation. What makes this case uniques is, Ms. Ames is heterosexual, and the Sixth Circuit claimed that ment she had a higher burden of proof than a homosexual.

Free speech jurisprudence has rested on shaky ground for decades in this country. Looking back at cases like Hill v. Colorado, Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health has left a confusing and contradictory morass of precedence, most if not all of it contradicting the Constitution of the United States. With the recent case Coalition Life v. City of Carbondale, Illinois, the court had the opportunity to set the record straight once and for all. Instead, the court whiffed, and declined to even head the case.

In poker there's a move called “Buying the pot”. This is when one person makes a very large bet in an attempt to discourage others from continuing the hand. But what if we're not talking poker? What if we're talking permit fees for the use of your own land? That is exactly what George Sheetz sued the County of El Dorado California for.

There are certain things in life with a minimum age limit like driving, drinking alcohol, and even voting, but is there a minimum age limit for your constitutionally protected rights? That was the question Caleb Reese and others wanted asked, when they filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regarding 18 USC §§922(b)(1) and (c)(1), which prohibit the selling of handguns to 18-20 year old adults.

I doubt it would surprise you that I watch a fair amount of videos that involve interactions with the police. One question that comes up is when is an officers attempt to search of detain someone reasonable? One of the cases attorneys frequent refer to is Pennsylvania v. Mimms. So I decided it was worth some time reviewing that case.

One of the executive orders Donald Trump signed on his first day in office ordered federal departments and agencies to not issue any citizenship documents to anyone born in the United States to a mother who was either illegally or temporarily in the United States unless the father was a citizen. It should surprise no one that this order stirred up controversy. Of the several lawsuits that have been filed I have found one thing in common, an inability to read the law.

When the government, in the form of the police, damage your property, who pays for it? In the case of VIcki Baker v. City of McKinney, TX the police had to damage her property to apprehend a fleeing felon. However, when the city refused to pay for the damages, Ms. Baker sued. The District Court found for her, but the Circuit Court overturned. When she asked the Supreme Court to review, they declined certiorari. Two justices expressed concern about the prospect of the government damaging homes without paying compensation.

Who decides what is appropriate for public libraries? That is at the heart of the case Fayetteville Public Library et. al. v. Crawford County, Arkansas et. al. The representatives of the people of Arkansas passed a law, Arkansas Act 372, which both established a crime of furnishing a harmful item to a minor and established guidelines for selection, relocation, and retention of such materials. A group of libraries, librarians, and related organizations sue Arkansas 28 prosecuting attorneys in the federal District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction, preventing the law from going into effect. Or does it?

There were plenty of infringement on people's rights during the COVID scamdemic, and censorship was rampant. Not only did we have members of our own government colluding to censor information they didn't like, but we've had professional associations joining in. Worst of all, the so-called medical professionals seemed to be at the forefront, violating the central tenant of the hippocratic oath, “First, do no harm”.

There are a lot of things I'd like to see done better in this country. On that list, education is right up near the top. But is it right to break the law to improve education? That's the question I asked myself when I read the text of H.R. 5349, The "Crucial Communism Teaching Act''. You see, while teaching the truth about communism's history is important, should this bill pass Congress and be signed, it cannot be the supreme law of the land, because it was not made pursuant to the Constitution of the United States.

For many, New Year's Eve is a time for drinking and partying, which frequently makes New Year's Day a time for dealing with a hang over. For others, New Years is a time for making resolutions, promises to ourselves to be better. I rarely drink, so hang overs are not a problem for me. I also do not make New Year's resolutions, not because I don't think there are ways I can be better, but because I don't wait until the New Year to act on them. That said, a new year is a good time to look at where we are and make plans for the future.

There are many things most Americans will take for granted this Christmas Holiday. For example, even that fact that it is a holiday is something most of us don't even think about. Let's take a look at this federal holiday in America.

One of the reasons I like answering questions is they prompt me to look at things I hadn't thought about before. Take for example the recent request I had to review the Federal Tort Claims Procedure. While I review lawsuits regularly here, I'd never taken the time to look at this particular legislation.

I don't believe a serious study of the Constitution can be made without looking at the public debates over the documents. After the Constitutional Convention sent the proposed constitution to the states for ratification, a great debate was had over its pros and cons. Supporters of the document as proposed, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, published essays in New York State newspapers under the pseudonym Publius. These essays are collectively known as the Federalist Papers. Meanwhile, several authors published articles and essays opposing, or at least cautioning a rush to adopt the proposed Constitution, under many pseudonyms. In this article, we'll look at the first papers from each group. Both Federalist #1 and Antifederalist #1 deal with the same topic, should the states ratify the newly proposed Constitution?

How much pollution is too much? We all want clean air and water, but we still want our cars and flush toilets as well. The question in San Francisco v. EPA is how specific does the EPA need to be when it tells cities how much waste they can discharge into our nation's waterways. From a constitutional standpoint, this case is not about waste water, but whether or not executive agencies have to follow the laws as written.

Most of us have had the experience of pickup up the mail, only to get that pit in our stomach, maybe utter a small curse or two, and immediately being thinking of ways to get out of it. The piece of mail that has caused these reactions is a jury summons. Almost no one looks forward to jury duty, and the efforts to get out of it are legendary. Which makes me wonder, if We the People put as much effort into understanding jury duty as we did trying to get out of it, would America be a better nation?

Election day is just one week away. I'm sure many of you, like me, are ready for this election season to be over. For more than a year we've been hammered, badgered, and generally harangued with the idea of how important it is to vote. However, it has been my experience that the reasons given for our participation in the election process was more about getting their candidate election, or more often preventing their opponent from winning, than what actually makes voting so important. So as the day of reckoning for this crazy election cycle approaches, let's take some time and look at the importance of voting without all of the political party rhetoric.

How far can law enforcement go when it comes to arresting someone? For example, say police have probable cause to charge you with a misdemeanor, how far can they "bootstrap" that charge to something more serious? That appears to be the question in the case Chiaverini v. City Of Napoleon, Ohio. While dealing with a misdemeanor situation, Mr. Chiaverini was subsequently was charged not only with that, but a felony. One little problem, the police had no probable cause for the felony.

Everyone knows we have a right to remain silent, correct? What if I told you that in 2013 the Supreme Court upheld a decision basically stating that is not true. That you only have the right to remain silent if you verbally claim the right in the first place, otherwise, according to SCOTUS, your silence can be used against you. Let's take a look at this case and some of the history behind this violation of your rights.

Can Massachusetts prosecute out-of-staters who can legally carry in their home state? That was the question before Massachusetts courts in two cases. Needless to say, when these courts agreed with the plaintiffs, the Commonwealth disagreed, appealing the cases the the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. While we wait for the court to decide the case, let's look at the originating cases and the Commonwealth's argument.

Was the Occupational Safety and Health Administration properly created? Was the grant of authority Congress gave the agency constitutional and valid, or did Congress create an overpowered agency, to micromanage businesses throughout the United States. That is the question in the case Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC v. Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary of Labor, et.al. Sadly, the Supreme Court decided not to year the case, even if Justice Gorsuch would have and Justice Thomas wrote a dissent.

There are plenty of myths that revolve around the Second Amendment. It's only meant for the militia, or for hunting, or some weapons are just too dangerous are just of few. When we read the Constitution, along with just a tiny bit of research into the Bill of Rights, these myths should evaporate like the morning mist. However, in the case Bianchi v. Brown, it appears the Fourth Circuit believes the myths. However, some unorthodox procedures may show the court manipulated the process to get the outcome they desired.

Encountering law enforcement can be a nerve wracking situation, even if you've done nothing wrong. Imagine you've pulled over to safely deal with something in your vehicle, then have a police officer pull up behind you. Nothing to worry about, right? Then imagine, after providing your drivers license, you're pulled out of your car, searched, handcuffed, and "stuffed" into the back of the police cruiser while the officer searches your vehicle from stem to stern, even though you've done nothing wrong. Now image, after this arrowing abuse of power, the officer claims "qualified immunity" and asks the court to dismiss the case. That is what happened to Basel Soukaneh in Waterbury, CT. The current state of that case is certainly worth looking into.

There's an adage in the legal profession, "hard cases make bad law". It can also be said that bad cases make bad law, and the case of United States v. Rahimi is one of those bad cases. The question is legitimate. Does 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8), which prohibits a person under domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm or ammunition, violate the Second Amendment. However, for those of you who are thinking the answer is yes, Zackey Rahimi is not the person you would want leading this case.

There are certain lies told about the Constitution that repeatedly grind into me like salt in an open wound. One of those is the repeated statement that "The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, to the states." By which, the speaker usually means that, before the Fourteenth Amendment, none of the ten amendment in the Bill of Rights could be applied to the states. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a flat out lie, and I will prove it here.

The First Amendment protects our right to petition the federal government for a redress of grievance. But what happens when said federal government tells you that you don't have the right to petition? Because that's exactly what happened when the Supreme Court decided the case Murthy v. Missouri.

After the January 6th riots the U.S. Department of Justice began charging anyone they thought participated, but not just for the crimes they committed. According to the DOJ, anyone who showed up at the Capitol had corruptly obstructed or impeded an official proceeding, punishable by a fine and imprisonment for up to 20 years. Many claimed that the DOJ was overcharging these J6ers, misusing the law to punish dissenters. When it comes to 18 U. S. C. §1512(c), SCOTUS agreed.

Seeking redress of our grievances is an important right, protected by the First Amendment. Can the federal government deprive you of due process as a condition of seeking redress? While not talked about in that way, that's pretty much what the case SEC v. Jarkesy is all about. After assessing George Jarksey J. civil penalties for violations of antifraud provisions, the SEC attempted to deny him of his right to a trial by jury. Could this be a start of reforms of unconstitutional administrative law courts?

There are certain legal terms and cases that most people don't know about, at least until their used to bite someone in the backside. One of those terms is Chevron Deference, or Chevron Doctrine. It comes from a 1984 case where the Supreme Court came up with the great idea that, when Congress isn't specific, the bureaucrats get to decide. While the court may have overruled Chevron, Looper may not be any better.

When the delegates to the Constitutional Convention debated the role of the chief executive, many expected George Washington to become our first king. Between Mr. Washington's humility, and the delegates recent experience with a king, they decided we'd be better off with a President rather than a king. With the recent case of Trump v. United States, many have asked, have we turned the office of President into the office of king?

Rarely does a single sentence so completely crystalize the situation as the first line of the court order in Tennessee v. Cardona. The case involves the attempts by the Biden Administration to rewrite Title IX's protections of women in education and their access to competitive sports. The single sentence? “There are two sexes: male and female.” That one sentence is the foundation of Judge Reeves' injunction against the United States Department of Education's attempt to ignore biology, rewrite law, and set back women's rights by decades.

When does a rifle become a machine gun? That is the question asked in the Supreme Court case Garland v. Cargill. When the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives suddenly decided to redefine bump stocks as machine guns, many Americans simply complied. However, when Michael Cargill surrendered his bump stocks to the ATF, he did so under protest, filing suit to challenge the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act. Those of us who enjoy and exercise our right to keep and bear arms owe Mr. Cargill a debt of gratitude, but the fight is not over. Thanks to Mr. Cargill's determination and persistence, the ATF's bump stock rule has been found to have not been created correctly, meaning we get our bump stocks back. However, it also leaves open the chance for Congress to do what the ATF could not, violate the Second Amendment one more time.

Things looked bleak for the colonies in 1776. The question of freedom had life and death consequences. Those 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence knew they were committing treason against their king. They knew that freedom would cost them greatly. Yet they still pledged to each other their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Today, groups of people around this nation are still fighting for their independence. Not from political affiliation, but from ever expanding governments dedicated to taking away our independence, our freedom, and our right to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness. Will you stand by while your birthright as an American is taken away from you and your family? Will you join with others to make sure this remains the land of the free by making sure we are the home of the brave? Will you pledge your life, your fortune, and your sacred honor, not to me or to this nation, but to your children and those who will follow? As we remember Independence Day and the 56 men who pledged themselves to purchase it for us, let us renew the call of freedom. Let us take this opportunity to remind tyrants and despots that the American people were not born enslaved to their governments. Let us declare that liberty and freedom will not vanish from this nation. That we will not allow tyranny and fear to rule us. We will not go silently into that good night of subjugation. This July 4th, let us loudly proclaim:

Probably the most powerful instinct as a parent is to protect our children. Parents work hard, sacrifice, and sometimes risk their own lives to protect their children. Most parents believe the government is there to help them protect their children, but is that true? Take, for example, the case of Parents Protecting Our Children UA v. Eau Claire Area School District Wisconsin. Parents Protecting, an association of parents, sued the Eau Claire Area School District to prevent them from enforcing guidelines that interfere with a parents right to make decisions for their child. However, both the District and Circuit Courts denied the parents, claiming that no child had yet been harmed by the school policy, and therefore do not have the right to petition their government for a redress of their grievance. If a court can tell parents they are not allowed to protect their children, then who is? Because it is not the school district.

Late May in the United States is usually a time of cook-outs and remembrance as we memorialize those who gave their lives in service to this country. 2024 however, should be remember for another death, the death of courts of justice. First it was the International Criminal Court. Prosecutor court Karim Khan sought arrest warrants for the leader of both Hamas and Israel, alleging he had reasonable grounds to believe they had criminal responsibility for war crimes. Then, barely a week later, Judge Merchan concluded his biased case against Donald Trump with biased instructions to the jury, which found Mr. Trump guilty on all 34 counts. After some consideration, I realized that these cases are so similar, they could be fraternal twins.

According to federal law, if someone is convicted of a crime and punished with more than one year in jail, they loose their rights protected under the Second Amendment. A recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court not only brought that federal law into question, but decided it was wrong. The court didn't find that this federal law violated the Constitution, rather they found it violated Supreme Court's Bruen decision. But is that all this federal law violates?

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution states “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;” That seems pretty straight forward. So how could Congress establish a government agency funded not by appropriations from the treasury, but by fees paid to another federal entity? This was the question brought to the Supreme Court in the case CFPB v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America. Sadly, it seems that the Supreme Court once again showed they have a hard time reading and understanding the English language.