Podcasts about article vi

Guest: LTC Lee Robinson, USA In this Crosspoint Highlight from July 2025, LTC Lee Robinson tackles the complex question: Was America founded as a Christian nation? Lee draws a distinction between the first founding (e.g., Puritan colonies with explicitly religious laws) and the constitutional founding rooted in liberty and freedom of conscience. He explains that while America's early cultural fabric was deeply influenced by Christianity, the U.S. Constitution intentionally avoided establishing a state religion—rejecting even a proposed religious test in Article VI. Citing Alexis de Tocqueville, Lee paints a vivid picture of early Americans shaped by both faith and civic engagement, underscoring the enduring impact of Christian values on the nation's moral habits, even if not enshrined in its legal foundation. What do you think? What does the balance between personal faith and civic freedom look like for Christian leaders today?

1UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASHOUSTON DIVISIONIn re:INTRUM AB, et al.,1Debtors.Chapter 11Case No. 24-90575 (CML)(Jointly Administered)NOTICE OF APPEALPursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002 and 8003,notice is hereby given that the Ad Hoc Committee of holders of 2025 notes issued by Intrum AB(the “AHC”) hereby appeals to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texasfrom (i) the Order Denying Motion of the Ad Hoc Committee of Holders of Intrum AB Notes Due2025 to Dismiss Chapter 11 Cases Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) and Federal Rule ofBankruptcy Procedure 1017(f)(1) (ECF No. 262) (the “Motion to Dismiss Order”) and (ii) theOrder (I) Approving Disclosure Statement and (II) Confirming Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11Plan of Intrum AB and Its Affiliated Debtor (Further Technical Modifications) (ECF No. 263) (the“Confirmation Order”). A copy of the Motion to Dismiss Order is attached as Exhibit A and acopy of the Confirmation Order is attached as Exhibit B. Additionally, the transcript of theBankruptcy Court's oral ruling accompanying the Motion to Dismiss Order and ConfirmationOrder (ECF No. 275) is attached as Exhibit C.Below are the names of all parties to this appeal and their respective counsel:1 The Debtors in these Chapter 11 Cases are Intrum AB and Intrum AB of Texas LLC. The Debtors'service address in these Chapter 11 Cases is 801 Travis Street, Ste 2101, #1312, Houston, TX 77002.Case 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 1 of 62I. APPELLANTA. Name of Appellant:The members of the AHC include:Boundary Creek Master Fund LP; CF INT Holdings Designated Activity Company; CaiusCapital Master Fund; Diameter Master Fund LP; Diameter Dislocation Master Fund II LP; FirTree Credit Opportunity Master Fund, LP; MAP 204 Segregated Portfolio, a segregated portfolioof LMA SPC; Star V Partners LLC; and TQ Master Fund LP.Attorneys for the AHC:QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLPChristopher D. Porter (SBN 24070437)Joanna D. Caytas (SBN 24127230)Melanie A. Guzman (SBN 24117175)Cameron M. Kelly (SBN 24120936)700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3900Houston, TX 77002Telephone: (713) 221-7000Facsimile: (713) 221-7100Email: chrisporter@quinnemanuel.comjoannacaytas@quinnemanuel.commelanieguzman@quinnemanuel.comcameronkelly@quinnemanuel.com-and-Benjamin I. Finestone (admitted pro hac vice)Sascha N. Rand (admitted pro hac vice)Katherine A. Scherling (admitted pro hac vice)295 5th AvenueNew York, New York 10016Telephone: (212) 849-7000Facsimile: (212) 849-7100Email: benjaminfinestone@quinnemanuel.comsascharand@quinnemanuel.comkatescherling@quinnemanuel.comB. Positions of appellant in the adversary proceeding or bankruptcy case that isthe subject of this appeal:CreditorsCase 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 2 of 63II. THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPEALA. Judgment, order, or decree appealed from:The Order Denying Motion of the Ad Hoc Committee of Holders of Intrum AB Notes Due2025 to Dismiss Chapter 11 Cases Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) and Federal Rule ofBankruptcy Procedure 1017(f)(1) (ECF No. 262); the Order (I) Approving Disclosure Statementand (II) Confirming Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Intrum AB and Its Affiliated Debtor(Further Technical Modifications) (ECF No. 263); and the December 31, 2024 Transcript of OralRuling Before the Honorable Christopher M. Lopez United States Bankruptcy Court Judge (ECFNo. 275).B. The date on which the judgment, order, or decree was entered:The Motion to Dismiss Order and the Confirmation Order were entered on December 31,2024. The Court issued its oral ruling accompanying the Motion to Dismiss Order and theConfirmation Order on December 31, 2024.III. OTHER PARTIES TO THIS APPEALIntrum AB and Intrum AB of Texas LLCMILBANK LLPDennis F. Dunne (admitted pro hac vice)Jaimie Fedell (admitted pro hac vice)55 Hudson YardsNew York, NY 10001Telephone: (212) 530-5000Facsimile: (212) 530-5219Email: ddunne@milbank.comjfedell@milbank.com–and–Andrew M. Leblanc (admitted pro hac vice)Melanie Westover Yanez (admitted pro hac vice)1850 K Street, NW, Suite 1100Washington, DC 20006Telephone: (202) 835-7500Facsimile: (202) 263-7586Email: aleblanc@milbank.commwyanez@milbank.com–and–PORTER HEDGES LLPJohn F. Higgins (SBN 09597500)Case 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 3 of 64Eric D. Wade (SBN 00794802)M. Shane Johnson (SBN 24083263)1000 Main Street, 36th FloorHouston TX 77002Telephone: (713) 226-6000Facsimile: (713) 226-6248Email: jhiggins@porterhedges.comewade@porterhedges.comsjohnson@porterhedges.comIV. OTHER PARTIES THAT MAY HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS APPEALThe following chart lists certain parties that are not parties to this appeal, but that may havean interest in the outcome of the case. These parties should be served with notice of this appealby the Debtors who are aware of their identities and best positioned to provide notice.All Other Creditors of the Debtors, Including, But Not Limited To:• Certain funds and accounts managed by BlackRock Investment Management (UK)Limited or its affiliates;• Capital Four;• Davidson Kempner European Partners, LLP;• Intermediate Capital Managers Limited;• Mandatum Asset Management Ltd;• H.I.G. Capital, LLC;• Spiltan Hograntefond; Spiltan Rantefond Sverige; and Spiltan Aktiefond Stabil;• The RCF SteerCo Group;• Swedbank AB (publ).Any Holder of Stock of the Debtors• Any holder of stock of the Debtors, including their successors and assigns.Case 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 4 of 65Respectfully submitted this 13th day of January, 2025.QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &SULLIVAN, LLP/s/ Christopher D. PorterChristopher D. Porter (SBN 24070437)Joanna D. Caytas (SBN 24127230)Melanie A. Guzman (SBN 24117175)Cameron M. Kelly (SBN 24120936)700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3900Houston, TX 77002Telephone: (713) 221-7000Facsimile: (713) 221-7100Email: chrisporter@quinnemanuel.comjoannacaytas@quinnemanuel.commelanieguzman@quinnemanuel.comcameronkelly@quinnemanuel.com-and-Benjamin I. Finestone (admitted pro hac vice)Sascha N. Rand (admitted pro hac vice)Katherine A. Scherling (admitted pro hac vice)295 5th AvenueNew York, New York 10016Telephone: (212) 849-7000Facsimile: (212) 849-7100Email: benjaminfinestone@quinnemanuel.comsascharand@quinnemanuel.comkatescherling@quinnemanuel.comCOUNSEL FOR THE AD HOC COMMITTEE OFINTRUM AB 2025 NOTEHOLDERSCase 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 5 of 6CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI, Christopher D. Porter, hereby certify that on the 13th day of January, 2025, a copy ofthe foregoing document has been served via the Electronic Case Filing System for the UnitedStates Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas./s/ Christopher D. PorterBy: Christopher D. PorterCase 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 6 of 6EXHIBIT ACase 24-90575 Document 296-1 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 1 of 31IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASHOUSTON DIVISION)In re: ) Chapter 11)Intrum AB, et al.,1 ) Case No. 24-90575 (CML)))Jointly AdministeredDebtors. ))ORDER DENYING MOTION OF THE AD HOCCOMMITTEE OF HOLDERS OF INTRUM AB NOTES DUE 2025TO DISMISS CHAPTER 11 CASES PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 1112(B) ANDFEDERAL RULE OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 1017(F)(1)(Related to Docket No. 27)This matter, having come before the Court upon the Motion of the Ad Hoc Committee ofHolders of Intrum AB Notes Due 2025 to Dismiss Chapter 11 Cases Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1112(b) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1017(f)(1) [Docket No. 27] (the “Motion toDismiss”); and this Court having considered the Debtors' Objection to the Motion of the Ad HocCommittee of Holders of Intrum AB Notes Due 2025 to Dismiss Chapter 11 Cases Pursuant to 11U.S.C. § 1112(b) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1017(f)(1) (the “Objection”) andany other responses or objections to the Motion to Dismiss; and this Court having jurisdiction overthis matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and the Amended Standing Order; and this Court havingfound that this is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2); and this Court having foundthat it may enter a final order consistent with Article III of the United States Constitution; and thisCourt having found that the relief requested in the Objection is in the best interests of the Debtors'1 The Debtors in these Chapter 11 Cases are Intrum AB and Intrum AB of Texas LLC. The Debtors' serviceaddress in these Chapter 11 Cases is 801 Travis Street, STE 2101, #1312, Houston, TX 77002.United States Bankruptcy CourtSouthern District of TexasENTEREDDecember 31, 2024Nathan Ochsner, ClerkCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29662-1 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 2 o of f2 32estates; and this Court having found that the Debtors' notice of the Objection and opportunity fora hearing on the Motion to Dismiss and Objection were appropriate and no other notice need beprovided; and this Court having reviewed the Motion to Dismiss and Objection and havingheard the statements in support of the relief requested therein at a hearing before this Court; andthis Court having determined that the legal and factual bases set forth in the Objectionestablish just cause for the relief granted herein; and upon all of the proceedings had beforethis Court; and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor, it is HEREBYORDERED THAT:1. The Motion to Dismiss is Denied for the reasons stated at the December 31, 2024 hearing.2. This Court retains exclusive jurisdiction and exclusive venue with respect to allmatters arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this Order.DAeucegmubste 0r 23,1 2, 0210294CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29662-1 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 3 o of f2 3EXHIBIT BCase 24-90575 Document 296-2 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 1 of 135IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASHOUSTON DIVISION)In re: ) Chapter 11)Intrum AB et al.,1 ) Case No. 24-90575 (CML)))(Jointly Administered)Debtors. ))ORDER (I) APPROVINGDISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND(II) CONFIRMING JOINT PREPACKAGED CHAPTER 11PLAN OF INTRUM AB AND ITS AFFILIATEDDEBTOR (FURTHER TECHNICAL MODIFICATIONS)The above-captioned debtors and debtors in possession (collectively, the“Debtors”), having:a. entered into that certain Lock-Up Agreement, dated as of July 10, 2024 (asamended and restated on August 15, 2024, and as further modified,supplemented, or otherwise amended from time to time in accordance with itsterms, the “the Lock-Up Agreement”) and that certain Backstop Agreement,dated as of July 10, 2024, (as amended and restated on November 15, 2024 andas further modified, supplemented, or otherwise amended from time to time inaccordance with its terms), setting out the terms of the backstop commitmentsprovided by the Backstop Providers to backstop the entirety of the issuance ofNew Money Notes (as may be further amended, restated, amended and restated,modified or supplemented from time to time in accordance with the termsthereof, the “Backstop Agreement”) which set forth the terms of a consensualfinancial restructuring of the Debtors;b. commenced, on October 17, 2024, a prepetition solicitation (the “Solicitation”)of votes on the Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of IntrumAB and its Debtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (asthe same may be further amended, modified and supplemented from time totime, the “Plan”), by causing the transmittal, through their solicitation andballoting agent, Kroll Restructuring Administration LLC (“Kroll”), to theholders of Claims entitled to vote on the Plan of, among other things: (i) the1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Intrum AB and Intrum AB of Texas LLC. The Debtors' serviceaddress in these chapter 11 cases is 801 Travis Street, STE 2102, #1312, Houston, TX 77002.United States Bankruptcy CourtSouthern District of TexasENTEREDDecember 31, 2024Nathan Ochsner, ClerkCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 2 o of f1 133452Plan, (ii) the Disclosure Statement for Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan ofReorganization of Intrum AB and its Debtor Affiliate (as the same may befurther amended, modified and supplemented from time to time, the“Disclosure Statement”), and (iii) the Ballots and Master Ballot to vote on thePlan (the “Ballots”), (iv) the Affidavit of Service of Solicitation Materials[Docket No. 7];c. commenced on November 15, 2024 (the “Petition Date”), these chapter 11 cases(these “Chapter 11 Cases”) by filing voluntary petitions in the United StatesBankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Bankruptcy Court”or the “Court”) for relief under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code(the “Bankruptcy Code”);d. Filed on November 15, 2024, the Affidavit of Service of Solicitation Materials[Docket No. 7] (the “Solicitation Affidavit”);e. Filed, on November 16, 2024 the Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan ofReorganization of Intrum AB and its Debtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11of the Bankruptcy Code (Technical Modifications) [Docket No. 16] and theDisclosure Statement for Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Intrum AB andits Debtor Affiliate [Docket No. 17];f. Filed on November 16, 2024, the Declaration of Andrés Rubio in Support of ofthe Debtors' Chapter 11 Petitions and First Day Motions [Docket No. 14] (the“First Day Declaration”);g. Filed on November 17, 2024, the Declaration of Alex Orchowski of KrollRestructuring Administration LLC Regarding the Solicitation of Votes andTabulation of Ballots Case on the Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan ofReorganization of Intrum AB and its Debtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11of the Bankruptcy Code [Docket No. 18] (the “Voting Declaration,” andtogether with the Plan, the Disclosure Statement, the Ballots, and theSolicitation Affidavit, the “Solicitation Materials”);h. obtained, on November 19, 2024, the Order(I) Scheduling a Combined Hearingon (A) Adequacy of the Disclosure Statement and (B) Confirmation of the Plan,(II) Approving Solicitation Procedures and Form and Manner of Notice ofCommencement, Combined Hearing, and Objection Deadline, (III) FixingDeadline to Object to Disclosure Statement and Plan, (IV) Conditionally (A)Directing the United States Trustee Not to Convene Section 341 Meeting ofCreditors and (B) Waiving Requirement to File Statements of Financial Affairsand Schedules of Assets and Liabilities, and (V) Granting Related Relief[Docket No. 71] (the “Scheduling Order”), which, among other things: (i)approved the prepetition solicitation and voting procedures, including theConfirmation Schedule (as defined therein); (ii) conditionally approved theDisclosure Statement and its use in the Solicitation; and (iii) scheduled theCombined Hearing on December 16, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. (prevailing CentralCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 3 o of f1 133453Time) to consider the final approval of the Disclosure Statement and theconfirmation of the Plan (the “Combined Hearing”);i. served, through Kroll, on November 20, 2025, on all known holders of Claimsand Interests, the U.S. Trustee and certain other parties in interest, the Noticeof: (I) Commencement of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Cases; (II) Hearing on theDisclosure Statement and Confirmation of the Plan, and (III) Certain ObjectionDeadlines (the “Combined Hearing Notice”) as evidence by the Affidavit ofService [Docket No. 160];j. caused, on November 25 and 27, 2024, the Combined Hearing Notice to bepublished in the New York Times (national and international editions) and theFinancial Times (international edition), as evidenced by the Certificate ofPublication [Docket No. 148];k. Filed and served, on December 10, 2024, the Plan Supplement for the Debtors'Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization [Docket 165];l. Filed on December 10, 2024, the Declaration of Jeffrey Kopa in Support ofConfirmation of the Joint Prepackaged Plan of Reorganization of Intrum ABand its Debtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code [DocketNo. 155];m. Filed on December 14, 2024, the:i. Debtors' Memorandum of Law in Support of an Order: (I) Approving, on aFinal Basis, Adequacy of the Disclosure Statement; (II) Confirming theJoint Prepackaged Plan of Reorganization; and (III) Granting Related Relief[Docket No. 190] (the “Confirmation Brief”);ii. Declaration of Andrés Rubio in Support of Confirmation of the JointPrepackaged Plan of Reorganization of Intrum AB and its Debtor Affiliate.[Docket No. 189] (the “Confirmation Declaration”); andiii. Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of Intrum AB and itsDebtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (FurtherTechnical Modifications) [Docket No. 191];n. Filed on December 18, 2024, the Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan ofReorganization of Intrum AB and its Debtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11of the Bankruptcy Code (Further Technical Modifications) [Docket No. 223];CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 3 4 o of f1 133454WHEREAS, the Court having, among other things:a. set December 12, 2024, at 4:00 p.m. (prevailing Central Time) as the deadlinefor Filing objection to the adequacy of the Disclosure Statement and/orConfirmation2 of the Plan (the “Objection Deadline”);b. held, on December 16, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. (prevailing Central Time) [andcontinuing through December 17, 2024], the Combined Hearing;c. heard the statements, arguments, and any objections made at the CombinedHearing;d. reviewed the Disclosure Statement, the Plan, the Ballots, the Plan Supplement,the Confirmation Brief, the Confirmation Declaration, the SolicitationAffidavit, and the Voting Declaration;e. overruled (i) any and all objections to approval of the Disclosure Statement, thePlan, and Confirmation, except as otherwise stated or indicated on the record,and (ii) all statements and reservations of rights not consensually resolved orwithdrawn, unless otherwise indicated; andf. reviewed and taken judicial notice of all the papers and pleadings Filed(including any objections, statement, joinders, reservations of rights and otherresponses), all orders entered, and all evidence proffered or adduced and allarguments made at the hearings held before the Court during the pendency ofthese cases;NOW, THEREFORE, it appearing to the Bankruptcy Court that notice of theCombined Hearing and the opportunity for any party in interest to object to the DisclosureStatement and the Plan having been adequate and appropriate as to all parties affected or to beaffected by the Plan and the transactions contemplated thereby, and the legal and factual bases setforth in the documents Filed in support of approval of the Disclosure Statement and Confirmationand other evidence presented at the Combined Hearing establish just cause for the relief grantedherein; and after due deliberation thereon and good cause appearing therefor, the BankruptcyCourt makes and issues the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, and orders for thereasons stated on the record at the December 31, 2024 ruling on plan confirmation;2 Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have meanings given to them in the Plan and/or theDisclosure Statement. The rules of interpretation set forth in Article I.B of the Plan apply to this CombinedOrder.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 4 5 o of f1 133455I. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAWIT IS HEREBY FOUND AND DETERMINED THAT:A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.1. The findings and conclusions set forth herein and in the record of theCombined Hearing constitute the Bankruptcy Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law underRule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as made applicable herein by Bankruptcy Rules7052 and 9014. To the extent any of the following conclusions of law constitute findings of fact,or vice versa, they are adopted as such.B. Jurisdiction, Venue, Core Proceeding.2. This Court has jurisdiction over these Chapter 11 Cases pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1334. Venue of these proceedings and the Chapter 11 Cases in this district is properpursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 157(b)(2) and this Court may enter a final order hereon under Article III of the United StatesConstitution.C. Eligibility for Relief.3. The Debtors were and continue to be entities eligible for relief under section109 of the Bankruptcy Code and the Debtors were and continue to be proper proponents of thePlan under section 1121(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.D. Commencement and Joint Administration of the Chapter 11 Cases.4. On the Petition Date, the Debtors commenced the Chapter 11 Cases. OnNovember 18, 2024, the Court entered an order [Docket No. 51] authorizing the jointadministration of the Chapter 11 Case in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 1015(b). The Debtorshave operated their businesses and managed their properties as debtors in possession pursuant toCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 5 6 o of f1 133456sections 1107(a) and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code. No trustee, examiner, or statutory committeehas been appointed in these Chapter 11 Cases.E. Adequacy of the Disclosure Statement.5. The Disclosure Statement and the exhibits contained therein (i) containssufficient information of a kind necessary to satisfy the disclosure requirements of applicablenonbankruptcy laws, rules and regulations, including the Securities Act; and (ii) contains“adequate information” as such term is defined in section 1125(a)(1) and used in section1126(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, with respect to the Debtors, the Plan and the transactionscontemplated therein. The Filing of the Disclosure Statement satisfied Bankruptcy Rule 3016(b).The injunction, release, and exculpation provisions in the Plan and the Disclosure Statementdescribe, in bold font and with specific and conspicuous language, all acts to be enjoined andidentify the Entities that will be subject to the injunction, thereby satisfying Bankruptcy Rule3016(c).F. Solicitation.6. As described in and evidenced by the Voting Declaration, the Solicitationand the transmittal and service of the Solicitation Materials were: (i) timely, adequate, appropriate,and sufficient under the circumstances; and (ii) in compliance with sections 1125(g) and 1126(b)of the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rules 3017 and 3018, the applicable Local Bankruptcy Rules,the Scheduling Order and all applicable nonbankruptcy rules, laws, and regulations applicable tothe Solicitation, including the registration requirements under the Securities Act. The SolicitationMaterials, including the Ballots and the Opt Out Form (as defined below), adequately informedthe holders of Claims entitled to vote on the Plan of the procedures and deadline for completingand submitting the Ballots.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 6 7 o of f1 1334577. The Debtors served the Combined Hearing Notice on the entire creditormatrix and served the Opt Out Form on all Non-Voting Classes. The Combined Hearing Noticeadequately informed Holders of Claims or Interests of critical information regarding voting on (ifapplicable) and objecting to the Plan, including deadlines and the inclusion of release, exculpation,and injunction provisions in the Plan, and adequately summarized the terms of the Third-PartyRelease. Further, because the form enabling stakeholders to opt out of the Third-Party Release (the“Opt Out Form”) was included in both the Ballots and the Opt Out Form, every known stakeholder,including unimpaired creditors was provided with the means by which the stakeholders could optout of the Third-Party Release. No further notice is required. The period for voting on the Planprovided a reasonable and sufficient period of time and the manner of such solicitation was anappropriate process allowing for such holders to make an informed decision.G. Tabulation.8. As described in and evidenced by the Voting Declaration, (i) the holders ofClaims in Class 3 (RCF Claims) and Class 5 (Notes Claims) are Impaired under the Plan(collectively, the “Voting Classes”) and have voted to accept the Plan in the numbers and amountsrequired by section 1126 of the Bankruptcy Code, and (ii) no Class that was entitled to vote on thePlan voted to reject the Plan. All procedures used to tabulate the votes on the Plan were in goodfaith, fair, reasonable, and conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of theBankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Rules, the Local Rules, the Disclosure Statement, theScheduling Order, and all other applicable nonbankruptcy laws, rules, and regulations.H. Plan Supplement.9. On December 10, 2024, the Debtors Filed the Plan Supplement with theCourt. The Plan Supplement (including as subsequently modified, supplemented, or otherwiseCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 7 8 o of f1 133458amended pursuant to a filing with the Court), complies with the terms of the Plan, and the Debtorsprovided good and proper notice of the filing in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code, theBankruptcy Rules, the Scheduling Order, and the facts and circumstances of the Chapter 11 Cases.All documents included in the Plan Supplement are integral to, part of, and incorporated byreference into the Plan. No other or further notice is or will be required with respect to the PlanSupplement. Subject to the terms of the Plan and the Lock-Up Agreement, and only consistenttherewith, the Debtors reserve the right to alter, amend, update, or modify the Plan Supplementand any of the documents contained therein or related thereto, in accordance with the Plan, on orbefore the Effective Date.I. Modifications to the Plan.10. Pursuant to section 1127 of the Bankruptcy Code, the modifications to thePlan described or set forth in this Combined Order constitute technical or clarifying changes,changes with respect to particular Claims by agreement with holders of such Claims, ormodifications that do not otherwise materially and adversely affect or change the treatment of anyother Claim or Interest under the Plan. These modifications are consistent with the disclosurespreviously made pursuant to the Disclosure Statement and Solicitation Materials, and notice ofthese modifications was adequate and appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the Chapter11 Cases. In accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 3019, these modifications do not require additionaldisclosure under section 1125 of the Bankruptcy Code or the resolicitation of votes under section1126 of the Bankruptcy Code, and they do not require that holders of Claims or Interests beafforded an opportunity to change previously cast acceptances or rejections of the Plan.Accordingly, the Plan is properly before this Court and all votes cast with respect to the Plan priorto such modification shall be binding and shall apply with respect to the Plan.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 8 9 o of f1 133459J. Objections Overruled.11. Any resolution or disposition of objections to Confirmation explained orotherwise ruled upon by the Court on the record at the Confirmation Hearing is herebyincorporated by reference. All unresolved objections, statements, joinders, informal objections,and reservations of rights are hereby overruled on the merits.K. Burden of Proof.12. The Debtors, as proponents of the Plan, have met their burden of provingthe elements of sections 1129(a) and 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code by a preponderance of theevidence, the applicable evidentiary standard for Confirmation. Further, the Debtors have proventhe elements of sections 1129(a) and 1129(b) by clear and convincing evidence. Each witness whotestified on behalf of the Debtors in connection with the Confirmation Hearing was credible,reliable, and qualified to testify as to the topics addressed in his testimony.L. Compliance with the Requirements of Section 1129 of the BankruptcyCode.13. The Plan complies with all applicable provisions of section 1129 of theBankruptcy Code as follows:a. Section 1129(a)(1) – Compliance of the Plan with Applicable Provisions of theBankruptcy Code.14. The Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code,including sections 1122 and 1123, as required by section 1129(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.i. Section 1122 and 1123(a)(1) – Proper Classification.15. The classification of Claims and Interests under the Plan is proper under theBankruptcy Code. In accordance with sections 1122(a) and 1123(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code,Article III of the Plan provides for the separate classification of Claims and Interests at each Debtorinto Classes, based on differences in the legal nature or priority of such Claims and Interests (otherCaCsaes e2 42-49-09507557 5 D oDcoucmumenetn 2t 9266-32 FFiilleedd iinn TTXXSSBB oonn 1021//3113//2245 PPaaggee 91 0o fo 1f 3143510than Administrative Claims, Professional Fee Claims, and Priority Tax Claims, which areaddressed in Article II of the Plan and Unimpaired, and are not required to be designated asseparate Classes in accordance with section 1123(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code). Valid business,factual, and legal reasons exist for the separate classification of the various Classes of Claims andInterests created under the Plan, the classifications were not implemented for any improperpurpose, and the creation of such Classes does not unfairly discriminate between or among holdersof Claims or Interests.16. In accordance with section 1122(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, each Class ofClaims or Interests contains only Claims or Interests substantially similar to the other Claims orInterests within that Class. Accordingly, the Plan satisfies the requirements of sections 1122(a),1122(b), and 1123(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Codeii. Section 1123(a)(2) – Specifications of Unimpaired Classes.17. Article III of the Plan specifies that Claims and Interests in the classesdeemed to accept the Plan are Unimpaired under the Plan. Holders of Intercompany Claims andIntercompany Interests are either Unimpaired and conclusively presumed to have accepted thePlan, or are Impaired and deemed to reject (the “Deemed Rejecting Classes”) the Plan, and, ineither event, are not entitled to vote to accept or reject the Plan. In addition, Article II of the Planspecifies that Administrative Claims and Priority Tax Claims are Unimpaired, although the Plandoes not classify these Claims. Accordingly, the Plan satisfies the requirements of section1123(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 101 o of f1 1334511iii. Section 1123(a)(3) – Specification of Treatment of Voting Classes18. Article III.B of the Plan specifies the treatment of each Voting Class underthe Plan – namely, Class 3 and Class 5. Accordingly, the Plan satisfies the requirements of section1123(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code.iv. Section 1123(a)(4) – No Discrimination.19. Article III of the Plan provides the same treatment to each Claim or Interestin any particular Class, as the case may be, unless the holder of a particular Claim or Interest hasagreed to a less favorable treatment with respect to such Claim or Interest. Accordingly, the Plansatisfies the requirements of section 1123(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code.v. Section 1123(a)(5) – Adequate Means for Plan Implementation.20. The Plan and the various documents included in the Plan Supplementprovide adequate and proper means for the Plan's execution and implementation, including: (a)the general settlement of Claims and Interests; (b) the restructuring of the Debtors' balance sheetand other financial transactions provided for by the Plan; (c) the consummation of the transactionscontemplated by the Plan, the Lock-Up Agreement, the Restructuring Implementation Deed andthe Agreed Steps Plan and other documents Filed as part of the Plan Supplement; (d) the issuanceof Exchange Notes, the New Money Notes, and the Noteholder Ordinary Shares pursuant to thePlan; (e) the amendment of the Intercreditor Agreement; (f) the amendment of the FacilityAgreement; (g) the amendment of the Senior Secured Term Loan Agreement; (h) theconsummation of the Rights Offering in accordance with the Plan, Rights Offering Documentsand the Lock-Up Agreement; (i) the granting of all Liens and security interests granted orconfirmed (as applicable) pursuant to, or in connection with, the Facility Agreement, the ExchangeNotes Indenture, the New Money Notes Indenture, the amended Intercreditor Agreement and theCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 112 o of f1 1334512Senior Secured Term Loan Agreement pursuant to the New Security Documents (including anyLiens and security interests granted or confirmed (as applicable) on the Reorganized Debtors'assets); (j) the vesting of the assets of the Debtors' Estates in the Reorganized Debtors; (k) theconsummation of the corporate reorganization contemplated by the Plan, the Lock-Up Agreement,the Agreed Steps Plan and the Master Reorganization Agreement (as defined in the RestructuringImplementation Deed); and (l) the execution, delivery, filing, or recording of all contracts,instruments, releases, and other agreements or documents in furtherance of the Plan. Accordingly,the Plan satisfies the requirements of section 1123(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Codevi. Section 1123(a)(6) – Non-Voting Equity Securities.21. The Company's organizational documents in accordance with the SwedishCompanies Act, Ch. 4, Sec 5 and the Plan prohibit the issuance of non-voting securities as of theEffective Date to the extent required to comply with section 1123(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.Accordingly, the Plan satisfies the requirements of section 1123(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.vii. Section 1123(a)(7) – Directors, Officers, and Trustees.22. The manner of selection of any officer, director, or trustee (or any successorto and such officer, director, or trustee) of the Reorganized Debtors will be determined inaccordance with the existing organizational documents, which is consistent with the interests ofcreditors and equity holders and with public policy. Accordingly, the Plan satisfies therequirements of section 1123(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code.b. Section 1123(b) – Discretionary Contents of the Plan23. The Plan contains various provisions that may be construed as discretionarybut not necessary for Confirmation under the Bankruptcy Code. Any such discretionary provisionCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 123 o of f1 1334513complies with section 1123(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and is not inconsistent with the applicableprovisions of the Bankruptcy Code. Thus, the Plan satisfies section 1123(b).i. Section 1123(b)(1) – Impairment/Unimpairment of Any Class of Claims orInterests24. Article III of the Plan impairs or leaves unimpaired, as the case may be,each Class of Claims or Interests, as contemplated by section 1123(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.ii. Section 1123(b)(2) – Assumption and Rejection of Executory Contracts andUnexpired Leases25. Article V of the Plan provides for the assumption of the Debtors' ExecutoryContracts and Unexpired Leases as of the Effective Date unless such Executory Contract orUnexpired Lease: (a) is identified on the Rejected Executory Contract and Unexpired Lease List;(b) has been previously rejected by a Final Order; (c) is the subject of a motion to reject ExecutoryContracts or Unexpired Leases that is pending on the Confirmation Date; or (4) is subject to amotion to reject an Executory Contract or Unexpired Lease pursuant to which the requestedeffective date of such rejection is after the Effective Date. Thus, the Plan satisfies section1123(b)(2).iii. Compromise and Settlement26. In accordance with section 1123(b)(3)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code andBankruptcy Rule 9019, and in consideration for the distributions and other benefits provided underthe Plan, the provisions of the Plan constitute a good-faith compromise of all Claims, Interests,and controversies relating to the contractual, legal, and subordination rights that all holders ofClaims or Interests may have with respect to any Allowed Claim or Interest or any distribution tobe made on account of such Allowed Claim or Interest. Such compromise and settlement is theproduct of extensive arm's-length, good faith negotiations that, in addition to the Plan, resulted inCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 134 o of f1 1334514the execution of the Lock-Up Agreement, which represents a fair and reasonable compromise ofall Claims, Interests, and controversies and entry into which represented a sound exercise of theDebtors' business judgment. Such compromise and settlement is fair, equitable, and reasonableand in the best interests of the Debtors and their Estates.27. The releases of the Debtors' directors and officers are an integral componentof the settlements and compromises embodied in the Plan. The Debtors' directors and officers: (a)made a substantial and valuable contribution to the Debtors' restructuring, including extensive preandpost-Petition Date negotiations with stakeholder groups, and ensured the uninterruptedoperation of the Debtors' businesses during the Chapter 11 Cases; (b) invested significant timeand effort to make the restructuring a success and maximize the value of the Debtors' businessesin a challenging operating environment; (c) attended and, in certain instances, testified atdepositions and Court hearings; (d) attended and participated in numerous stakeholder meetings,management meetings, and board meetings related to the restructuring; (e) are entitled toindemnification from the Debtors under applicable non-bankruptcy law, organizationaldocuments, and agreements; (f) invested significant time and effort in the preparation of the Lock-Up Agreement, the Plan, Disclosure Statement, all supporting analyses, and the numerous otherpleadings Filed in the Chapter 11 Cases, thereby ensuring the smooth administration of the Chapter11 Cases; and (g) are entitled to all other benefits under any employment contracts existing as ofthe Petition Date. Litigation by the Debtors or other Releasing Parties against the Debtors'directors and officers would be a distraction to the Debtors' business and restructuring and woulddecrease rather than increase the value of the estates. The releases of the Debtors' directors andofficers contained in the Plan have the consent of the Debtors and the Releasing Parties and are inthe best interests of the estates.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 145 o of f1 1334515iv. Debtor Release28. The releases of claims and Causes of Action by the Debtors, ReorganizedDebtors, and their Estates described in Article VIII.C of the Plan in accordance with section1123(b) of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Debtor Release”) represent a valid exercise of the Debtors'business judgment under Bankruptcy Rule 9019. The Debtors' or the Reorganized Debtors' pursuitof any such claims against the Released Parties is not in the best interests of the Estates' variousconstituencies because the costs involved would outweigh any potential benefit from pursuingsuch claims. The Debtor Release is fair and equitable and complies with the absolute priority rule.29. The Debtor Release is (a) an integral part of the Plan, and a component ofthe comprehensive settlement implemented under the Plan; (b) in exchange for the good andvaluable consideration provided by the Released Parties; (c) a good faith settlement andcompromise of the claims and Causes of Action released by the Debtor Release; (d) materiallybeneficial to, and in the best interests of, the Debtors, their Estates, and their stakeholders, and isimportant to the overall objectives of the Plan to finally resolve certain Claims among or againstcertain parties in interest in the Chapter 11 Cases; (e) fair, equitable, and reasonable; (f) given andmade after due notice and opportunity for hearing; and (g) a bar to any Debtor asserting any claimor Cause of Action released by the Debtor Release against any of the Released Parties. Theprobability of success in litigation with respect to the released claims and Causes of Action, whenweighed against the costs, supports the Debtor Release. With respect to each of these potentialCauses of Action, the parties could assert colorable defenses and the probability of success isuncertain. The Debtors' or the Reorganized Debtors' pursuit of any such claims or Causes ofAction against the Released Parties is not in the best interests of the Estates or the Debtors' variousCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 156 o of f1 1334516constituencies because the costs involved would likely outweigh any potential benefit frompursuing such claims or Causes of Action30. Holders of Claims and Interests entitled to vote have overwhelmingly votedin favor of the Plan, including the Debtor Release. The Plan, including the Debtor Release, wasnegotiated before and after the Petition Date by sophisticated parties represented by able counseland advisors, including the Consenting Creditors. The Debtor Release is therefore the result of ahard fought and arm's-length negotiation process conducted in good faith.31. The Debtor Release appropriately offers protection to parties thatparticipated in the Debtors' restructuring process, including the Consenting Creditors, whoseparticipation in the Chapter 11 Cases is critical to the Debtors' successful emergence frombankruptcy. Specifically, the Released Parties, including the Consenting Creditors, madesignificant concessions and contributions to the Chapter 11 Cases, including, entering into theLock-Up Agreement and related agreements, supporting the Plan and the Chapter 11 Cases, andwaiving or agreeing to impair substantial rights and Claims against the Debtors under the Plan (aspart of the compromises composing the settlement underlying the revised Plan) in order tofacilitate a consensual reorganization and the Debtors' emergence from chapter 11. The DebtorRelease for the Debtors' directors and officers is appropriate because the Debtors' directors andofficers share an identity of interest with the Debtors and, as previously stated, supported and madesubstantial contributions to the success of the Plan, the Chapter 11 Cases, and operation of theDebtors' business during the Chapter 11 Cases, actively participated in meetings, negotiations, andimplementation during the Chapter 11 Cases, and have provided other valuable consideration tothe Debtors to facilitate the Debtors' successful reorganization and continued operation.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 167 o of f1 133451732. The scope of the Debtor Release is appropriately tailored under the factsand circumstances of the Chapter 11 Cases. In light of, among other things, the value provided bythe Released Parties to the Debtors' Estates and the critical nature of the Debtor Release to thePlan, the Debtor Release is appropriate.v. Release by Holders of Claims and Interests33. The release by the Releasing Parties (the “Third-Party Release”), set forthin Article VIII.D of the Plan, is an essential provision of the Plan. The Third-Party Release is: (a)consensual as to those Releasing Parties that did not specifically and timely object or properly optout from the Third-Party Release; (b) within the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1334; (c) in exchange for the good and valuable consideration provided by theReleased Parties; (d) a good faith settlement and compromise of the claims and Causes of Actionreleased by the Third-Party Release; (e) materially beneficial to, and in the best interests of, theDebtors, their Estates, and their stakeholders, and is important to the overall objectives of the Planto finally resolve certain Claims among or against certain parties in interest in the Chapter 11Cases; (f) fair, equitable, and reasonable; (g) given and made after due notice and opportunity forhearing; (h) appropriately narrow in scope given that it expressly excludes, among other things,any Cause of Action that is judicially determined by a Final Order to have constituted actual fraud,willful misconduct, or gross negligence; (i) a bar to any of the Releasing Parties asserting anyclaim or Cause of Action released by the Third-Party Release against any of the Released Parties;and (j) consistent with sections 105, 524, 1123, 1129, and 1141 and other applicable provisions ofthe Bankruptcy Code.34. The Third-Party Release is an integral part of the agreement embodied inthe Plan among the relevant parties in interest. Like the Debtor Release, the Third-Party ReleaseCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 178 o of f1 1334518facilitated participation in both the Debtors' Plan and the chapter 11 process generally. The Third-Party Release is instrumental to the Plan and was critical in incentivizing parties to support thePlan and preventing significant and time-consuming litigation regarding the parties' respectiverights and interests. The Third-Party Release was a core negotiation point in connection with thePlan and instrumental in developing the Plan that maximized value for all of the Debtors'stakeholders and kept the Debtors intact as a going concern. As such, the Third-Party Releaseappropriately offers certain protections to parties who constructively participated in the Debtors'restructuring process—including the Consenting Creditors (as set forth above)—by, among otherthings, facilitating the negotiation and consummation of the Plan, supporting the Plan and, in thecase of the Backstop Providers, committing to provide new capital to facilitate the Debtors'emergence from chapter 11. Specifically, the Notes Ad Hoc Group proposed and negotiated thepari passu transaction that is the basis of the restructuring proposed under the Plan and provideda much-needed deleveraging to the Debtors' business while taking a discount on their Claims (inexchange for other consideration).35. Furthermore, the Third-Party Release is consensual as to all parties ininterest, including all Releasing Parties, and such parties in interest were provided notice of thechapter 11 proceedings, the Plan, the deadline to object to confirmation of the Plan, and theCombined Hearing and were properly informed that all holders of Claims against or Interests inthe Debtors that did not file an objection with the Court in the Chapter 11 Cases that included anexpress objection to the inclusion of such holder as a Releasing Party under the provisionscontained in Article VIII of the Plan would be deemed to have expressly, unconditionally,generally, individually, and collectively consented to the release and discharge of all claims andCauses of Action against the Debtors and the Released Parties. Additionally, the release provisionsCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 189 o of f1 1334519of the Plan were conspicuous, emphasized with boldface type in the Plan, the DisclosureStatement, the Ballots, and the applicable notices. Except as set forth in the Plan, all ReleasingParties were properly informed that unless they (a) checked the “opt out” box on the applicableBallot or opt-out form and returned the same in advance of the Voting Deadline, as applicable, or(b) timely Filed an objection to the releases contained in the Plan that was not resolved beforeentry of this Confirmation Order, they would be deemed to have expressly consented to the releaseof all Claims and Causes of Action against the Released Parties.36. The Ballots sent to all holders of Claims and Interests entitled to vote, aswell as the notice of the Combined Hearing sent to all known parties in interest (including thosenot entitled to vote on the Plan), unambiguously provided in bold letters that the Third-PartyRelease was contained in the Plan.37. The scope of the Third-Party Release is appropriately tailored under thefacts and circumstances of the Chapter 11 Cases, and parties in interest received due and adequatenotice of the Third-Party Release. Among other things, the Plan provides appropriate and specificdisclosure with respect to the claims and Causes of Action that are subject to the Third-PartyRelease, and no other disclosure is necessary. The Debtors, as evidenced by the VotingDeclaration and Certificate of Publication, including by providing actual notice to all knownparties in interest, including all known holders of Claims against, and Interests in, any Debtor andpublishing notice in international and national publications for the benefit of unknown parties ininterest, provided sufficient notice of the Third-Party Release, and no further or other notice isnecessary. The Third-Party Release is designed to provide finality for the Debtors, theReorganized Debtors and the Released Parties regarding the parties' respective obligations underthe Plan. For the avoidance of doubt, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary, anyparty who timely opted-out of the Third-Party Release is not bound by the Third-PartyRelease.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 290 o of f1 133452038. The Third-Party Release is specific in language, integral to the Plan, andgiven for substantial consideration. The Releasing Parties were given due and adequate notice ofthe Third-Party Release, and thus the Third-Party Release is consensual under controllingprecedent as to those Releasing Parties that did not specifically and timely object. In light of,among other things, the value provided by the Released Parties to the Debtors' Estates and theconsensual and critical nature of the Third-Party Release to the Plan, the Third-Party Release isappropriatevi. Exculpation.39. The exculpation described in Article VIII.E of the Plan (the “Exculpation”)is appropriate under applicable law, including In re Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P., 48 F. 4th 419(5th Cir. 2022), because it was supported by proper evidence, proposed in good faith, wasformulated following extensive good-faith, arm's-length negotiations with key constituents, and isappropriately limited in scope.40. No Entity or Person may commence or continue any action, employ anyprocess, or take any other act to pursue, collect, recover or offset any Claim, Interest, debt,obligation, or Cause of Action relating or reasonably likely to relate to any act or commission inconnection with, relating to, or arising out of a Covered Matter (including one that alleges theactual fraud, gross negligence, or willful misconduct of a Covered Entity), unless expresslyauthorized by the Bankruptcy Court after (1) it determines, after a notice and a hearing, such Claim,Interest, debt, obligation, or Cause of Action is colorable and (2) it specifically authorizes suchEntity or Person to bring such Claim or Cause of Action. The Bankruptcy Court shall have soleand exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether any such Claim, Interest, debt, obligation or Causeof Action is colorable and, only to the extent legally permissible and as provided for in Article XI,CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 201 o of f1 1334521shall have jurisdiction to adjudicate such underlying colorable Claim, Interest, debt, obligation, orCause of Action.vii. Injunction.41. The injunction provisions set forth in Article VIII.F of the Plan are essentialto the Plan and are necessary to implement the Plan and to preserve and enforce the discharge,Debtor Release, the Third-Party Release, and the Exculpation provisions in Article VIII of thePlan. The injunction provisions are appropriately tailored to achieve those purposes.viii. Preservation of Claims and Causes of Action.42. Article IV.L of the Plan appropriately provides for the preservation by theDebtors of certain Causes of Action in accordance with section 1123(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.Causes of Action not released by the Debtors or exculpated under the Plan will be retained by theReorganized Debtors as provided by the Plan. The Plan is sufficiently specific with respect to theCauses of Action to be retained by the Debtors, and the Plan and Plan Supplement providemeaningful disclosure with respect to the potential Causes of Action that the Debtors may retain,and all parties in interest received adequate notice with respect to such retained Causes of Action.The provisions regarding Causes of Action in the Plan are appropriate and in the best interests ofthe Debtors, their respective Estates, and holders of Claims or Interests. For the avoidance of anydoubt, Causes of Action released or exculpated under the Plan will not be retained by theReorganized Debtors.c. Section 1123(d) – Cure of Defaults43. Article V.D of the Plan provides for the satisfaction of Cure Claimsassociated with each Executory Contract and Unexpired Lease to be assumed in accordance withsection 365(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. Any monetary defaults under each assumed ExecutoryCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 212 o of f1 1334522Contract or Unexpired Lease shall be satisfied, pursuant to section 365(b)(1) of the BankruptcyCode, by payment of the default amount in Cash on the Effective Date, subject to the limitationsdescribed in Article V.D of the Plan, or on such other terms as the parties to such ExecutoryContracts or Unexpired Leases may otherwise agree. Any Disputed Cure Amounts will bedetermined in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article V.D of the Plan, and applicablebankruptcy and nonbankruptcy law. As such, the Plan provides that the Debtors will Cure, orprovide adequate assurance that the Debtors will promptly Cure, defaults with respect to assumedExecutory Contracts and Unexpired Leases in accordance with section 365(b)(1) of theBankruptcy Code. Thus, the Plan complies with section 1123(d) of the Bankruptcy Code.d. Section 1129(a)(2) – Compliance of the Debtors and Others with the ApplicableProvisions of the Bankruptcy Code.44. The Debtors, as proponents of the Plan, have complied with all applicableprovisions of the Bankruptcy Code as required by section 1129(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code,including sections 1122, 1123, 1124, 1125, 1126, and 1128, and Bankruptcy Rules 3017, 3018,and 3019.e. Section 1129(a)(3) – Proposal of Plan in Good Faith.45. The Debtors have proposed the Plan in good faith, in accordance with theBankruptcy Code requirements, and not by any means forbidden by law. In determining that thePlan has been proposed in good faith, the Court has examined the totality of the circumstancesfiling of the Chapter 11 Cases, including the formation of Intrum AB of Texas LLC (“IntrumTexas”), the Plan itself, and the process leading to its formulation. The Debtors' good faith isevident from the facts and record of the Chapter 11 Cases, the Disclosure Statement, and the recordof the Combined Hearing and other proceedings held in the Chapter 11 CasesCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 223 o of f1 133452346. The Plan (including the Plan Supplement and all other documents necessaryto effectuate the Plan) is the product of good faith, arm's-length negotiations by and among theDebtors, the Debtors' directors and officers and the Debtors' key stakeholders, including theConsenting Creditors and each of their respective professionals. The Plan itself and the processleading to its formulation provide independent evidence of the Debtors' and such other parties'good faith, serve the public interest, and assure fair treatment of holders of Claims or Interests.Consistent with the overriding purpose of chapter 11, the Debtors Filed the Chapter 11 Cases withthe belief that the Debtors were in need of reorganization and the Plan was negotiated and proposedwith the intention of accomplishing a successful reorganization and maximizing stakeholder value,and for no ulterior purpose. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1129(a)(3) of the BankruptcyCode are satisfied.f. Section 1129(a)(4) – Court Approval of Certain Payments as Reasonable.47. Any payment made or to be made by the Debtors, or by a person issuingsecurities or acquiring property under the Plan, for services or costs and expenses in connectionwith the Chapter 11 Cases, or in connection with the Plan and incident to the Chapter 11 Cases,has been approved by, or is subject to the approval of, the Court as reasonable. Accordingly, thePlan satisfies the requirements of section 1129(a)(4).g. Section 1129(a)(5)—Disclosure of Directors and Officers and Consistency with theInterests of Creditors and Public Policy.48. The identities of or process for appointment of the Reorganized Debtors'directors and officers proposed to serve after the Effective Date were disclosed in the PlanSupplement in advance of the Combined Hearing. Accordingly, the Debtors have satisfied therequirements of section 1129(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 234 o of f1 1334524h. Section 1129(a)(6)—Rate Changes.49. The Plan does not contain any rate changes subject to the jurisdiction of anygovernmental regulatory commission and therefore will not require governmental regulatoryapproval. Therefore, section 1129(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply to the Plan.i. Section 1129(a)(7)—Best Interests of Holders of Claims and Interests.50. The liquidation analysis attached as Exhibit D to the Disclosure Statementand the other evidence in support of the Plan that was proffered or adduced at the CombinedHearing, and the facts and circumstances of the Chapter 11 Cases are (a) reasonable, persuasive,credible, and accurate as of the dates such analysis or evidence was prepared, presented orproffered; (b) utilize reasonable and appropriate methodologies and assumptions; (c) have not beencontroverted by other evidence; and (d) establish that each holder of Allowed Claims or Interestsin each Class will recover as much or more value under the Plan on account of such Claim orInterest, as of the Effective Date, than the amount such holder would receive if the Debtors wereliquidated on the Effective Date under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code or has accepted the Plan.As a result, the Debtors have demonstrated that the Plan is in the best interests of their creditorsand equity holders and the requirements of section 1129(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code are satisfied.j. Section 1129(a)(8)—Conclusive Presumption of Acceptance by UnimpairedClasses; Acceptance of the Plan by Certain Voting Classes.51. The classes deemed to accept the Plan are Unimpaired under the Plan andare deemed to have accepted the Plan pursuant to section 1126(f) of the Bankruptcy Code. EachVoting Class voted to accept the Plan. For the avoidance of doubt, however, even if section1129(a)(8) has not been satisfied with respect to all of the Debtors, the Plan is confirmable becausethe Plan does not discriminate unfairly and is fair and equitable with respect to the Voting Classesand thus satisfies section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code with respect to such Classes as describedCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 245 o of f1 1334525further below. As a result, the requirements of section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code are alsosatisfied.k. Section 1129(a)(9)—Treatment of Claims Entitled to Priority Pursuant to Section507(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.52. The treatment of Administrative Claims, Professional Fee Claims, andPriority Tax Claims under Article II of the Plan satisfies the requirements of, and complies in allrespects with, section 1129(a)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code.l. Section 1129(a)(10)—Acceptance by at Least One Voting Class.53. As set forth in the Voting Declaration, all Voting Classes overwhelminglyvoted to accept the Plan. As such, there is at least one Voting Class that has accepted the Plan,determined without including any acceptance of the Plan by any insider (as defined by theBankruptcy Code), for each Debtor. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1129(a)(10) of theBankruptcy Code are satisfied.m. Section 1129(a)(11)—Feasibility of the Plan.54. The Plan satisfies section 1129(a)(11) of the Bankruptcy Code. Thefinancial projections attached to the Disclosure Statement as Exhibit D and the other evidencesupporting the Plan proffered or adduced by the Debtors at or before the Combined Hearing: (a)is reasonable, persuasive, credible, and accurate as of the dates such evidence was prepared,presented, or proffered; (b) utilize reasonable and appropriate methodologies and assumptions; (c)has not been controverted by other persuasive evidence; (d) establishes that the Plan is feasibleand Confirmation of the Plan is not likely to be followed by liquidation or the need for furtherfinancial reorganization; (e) establishes that the Debtors will have sufficient funds available tomeet their obligations under the Plan and in the ordinary course of business—including sufficientamounts of Cash to reasonably ensure payment of Allowed Claims that will receive CashCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 256 o of f1 1334526distributions pursuant to the terms of the Plan and other Cash payments required under the Plan;and (f) establishes that the Debtors or the Reorganized Debtors, as applicable, will have thefinancial wherewithal to pay any Claims that accrue, become payable, or are allowed by FinalOrder following the Effective Date. Accordingly, the Plan satisfies the requirements of section1129(a)(11) of the Bankruptcy Code.n. Section 1129(a)(12)—Payment of Statutory Fees.55. Article XII.C of the Plan provides that all fees payable pursuant to section1930(a) of the Judicial Code, as determined by the Court at the Confirmation Hearing inaccordance with section 1128 of the Bankruptcy Code, will be paid by each of the applicableReorganized Debtors for each quarter (including any fraction of a quarter) until the Chapter 11Cases are converted, dismissed, or closed, whichever occurs first. Accordingly, the Plan satisfiesthe requirements of section 1129(a)(12) of the Bankruptcy Code.o. Section 1129(a)(13)—Retiree Benefits.56. Pursuant to section 1129(a)(13) of the Bankruptcy Code, and as provided inArticle IV.K of the Plan, the Reorganized Debtors will continue to pay all obligations on accountof retiree benefits (as such term is used in section 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code) on and after theEffective Date in accordance with applicable law. As a result, the requirements of section1129(a)(13) of the Bankruptcy Code are satisfied.p. Sections 1129(a)(14), (15), and (16)—Domestic Support Obligations, Individuals,and Nonprofit Corporations.57. The Debtors do not owe any domestic support obligations, are notindividuals, and are not nonprofit corporations. Therefore, sections 1129(a)(14), 1129(a)(15), and1129(a)(16) of the Bankruptcy Code do not apply to the Chapter 11 Cases.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 267 o of f1 1334527q. Section 1129(b)—Confirmation of the Plan Over Nonacceptance of VotingClasses.58. No Classes rejected the Plan, and section 1129(b) is not applicable here,but even if it were, the Plan may be confirmed pursuant to section 1129(b)(1) of the BankruptcyCode because the Plan is fair and equitable with respect to the Deemed Rejecting Classes. ThePlan has been proposed in good faith, is reasonable, and meets the requirements and all VotingClasses have voted to accept the Plan. The treatment of Intercompany Claims and IntercompanyInterests under the Plan provides for administrative convenience does not constitute a distributionunder the Plan on account of suc

Constitutional Law Lecture 1 – Structure of Government and Separation of Powers Source: Excerpts from "Constitutional Law Lecture 1: The Structure of Government and Separation of Powers" I. Foundational Overview I begin by noting that the U.S. Constitution creates a structure of government designed to prevent tyranny. The three branches—Congress (legislative), the President (executive), and the courts (judicial)—operate under a system of separation of powers. This arrangement is complemented by checks and balances, whereby each branch can restrain the others. Federalism further divides power between the federal government and the states. Key Themes: Separation of Powers: This doctrine ensures that no single branch amasses unchecked authority. “Separation of powers is … the bedrock of the American constitutional system.” Checks and Balances: Each branch has devices (like vetoes or judicial review) to limit the other branches. “These interlocking mechanisms create a dynamic tension that fosters a balance of power.” Federalism: The Constitution specifies certain powers (enumerated) for the federal government and reserves others for the states. Judicial Review: Established in Marbury v. Madison, it empowers courts to strike down unconstitutional laws or actions. “Without Marbury, the checks and balances system would lack a critical enforcement mechanism.” Supremacy Clause: Federal law preempts conflicting state law, unifying legal standards throughout the nation. II. Constitutional Foundations Articles I, II, III, and VI Article I defines Congress's powers, including the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Article II vests executive power in the President, granting authority as Commander-in-Chief and in foreign affairs. Article III establishes the judiciary, anchored by the Supreme Court. Article VI contains the Supremacy Clause, ensuring federal law supremacy. Federalism and Division of Power Enumerated Powers: Taxation, regulation of interstate commerce, defense. Reserved Powers: Those retained by states (e.g., police powers, education). Key Cases: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) upheld implied federal powers. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) expanded Congress's reach over interstate commerce. III. Separation of Powers Doctrine Legislative Powers (Congress) Commerce Clause: Broad authority over interstate activities, yet subject to judicial limits (United States v. Lopez). Taxing and Spending: Congress can attach conditions to federal funds (South Dakota v. Dole). Necessary and Proper Clause: Permits laws essential to carrying out enumerated powers. Nondelegation Doctrine: Congress must not transfer its core legislative function to another branch (INS v. Chadha). Executive Powers (President) Commander-in-Chief: Authority over military decisions. Appointment: Nominates judges and officials (with Senate approval). Veto: Power to reject legislation. Foreign Affairs: Treaties, diplomacy; recognized as broad in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. Key Cases: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) – limited executive power over private property without legislative authorization. United States v. Nixon (1974) – limited executive privilege in criminal investigations. Judicial Powers Judicial Review: Power to invalidate unconstitutional statutes (Marbury v. Madison). Justiciability: Requires standing, ripeness, and mootness for a federal court to hear a case (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife). Federal Question Jurisdiction: Authority over federal issues; example: Brown v. Board of Education (1954) advanced civil rights jurisprudence. IV. Checks and Balances in Practice Interbranch Conflicts Congress → Executive: Impeachment, budgetary control. Executive → Congress: Veto power, executive orders. Judiciary → Both: Judicial review of legislative acts and executive actions (Cooper v. Aaron). Balancing National Security and Civil Liberties Key examples include Korematsu v. United States (1944) and Ha --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Constitutional Law Lecture 1 - Structure of Government and Separation of Powers Introduction This lecture provides an overview of the structure of the U.S. government, emphasizing the doctrines of separation of powers and checks and balances, alongside foundational constitutional principles like federalism, judicial review, and constitutional supremacy. Key themes include: Separation of Powers: Division of authority among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to prevent tyranny. Checks and Balances: Mechanisms for interbranch accountability. Federalism: Division of powers between the federal government and states. Judicial Review: Courts' power to declare laws unconstitutional. Constitutional Supremacy: Federal law and the Constitution take precedence over state law. Part 1: Constitutional Foundations Overview of the Constitution: Articles I, II, and III establish legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Article VI's Supremacy Clause ensures federal law overrides state laws. Marbury v. Madison (1803) established judicial review, making courts coequal enforcers of the Constitution. Federalism: Balances federal and state authority: Federal powers: Taxation, interstate commerce, national defense (e.g., Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)). State powers: Police powers, education, intrastate commerce (reserved via the 10th Amendment). Key cases: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Established federal supremacy and implied powers. Arizona v. United States (2012): Reinforced federal preemption over conflicting state laws. Printz v. United States (1997): Limited federal overreach on states' autonomy. Part 2: The Separation of Powers Doctrine Legislative Powers (Article I): Bicameral Congress enacts laws using powers such as: Commerce Clause (e.g., Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) expanded federal power; United States v. Lopez (1995) limited it). Taxing and Spending Power (e.g., South Dakota v. Dole (1987) upheld conditional federal funding). Necessary and Proper Clause: Authorizes laws to execute enumerated powers. Limits: Nondelegation Doctrine: Congress must set clear guidelines when delegating authority. Presentment Clause: Bills must pass both chambers and be presented to the President (INS v. Chadha (1983) invalidated legislative vetoes). Executive Powers (Article II): Includes: Commander-in-Chief authority. Appointment power (subject to Senate confirmation; limited by NLRB v. Noel Canning (2014)). Veto power and foreign affairs authority (United States v. Curtiss-Wright (1936)). Limits: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952): Prohibited unauthorized presidential seizure of private property. United States v. Nixon (1974): Limited executive privilege, affirming no one is above the law. Judicial Powers (Article III): Supreme Court exercises judicial review (Marbury v. Madison) and hears cases involving federal law or constitutional issues. Justiciability doctrines: Standing: E.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992). Ripeness, mootness, and political questions limit courts' jurisdiction. Federal judges' independence is ensured through life tenure and salary protections. Part 3: Checks and Balances in Practice Interbranch Conflicts: Legislative Checks on Executive: Impeachment (e.g., impeachments of Johnson, Clinton, Trump). Control of funding and oversight hearings. Executive Checks on Legislative: Veto power, executive orders, and signing statements. Judicial Checks on Both: Judicial review (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education, Cooper v. Aaron (1958) reaffirmed federal judicial supremacy). Balancing National Security and Civil Liberties: Cases such as: Korematsu v. United States (1944): Upheld controversial wartime actions, later repudiated by Trump v. Hawaii (2018). Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004): Affirmed detainees' due process rights. Ex parte Milligan (1866): Limited military tribunals where civilian courts are operational. Practical Applications and Exam Strategies Hypotheticals to Consider: Delegation of power to agencies --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Your host Josh Hammer explains the power of President Trump's ultimate ace up his sleeve when it comes to his New York and Georgia prosecutions: the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution. Plus, Trump's fantastic new announced picks to lead his Department of Justice, SCOTUS agrees to hear an important new abortion-related case, and more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, the hosts share personal updates, discuss their experiences with new routes, and reflect on the evolution of their jobs in the delivery industry. They touch on the challenges of weather, memorable stories from their careers, and the importance of safety regulations. The conversation also highlights the community aspect of their podcast and the journey they've taken together. In this episode, the hosts discuss the implications of inward and forward-facing cameras in trucks, highlighting potential violations of Article VI. They also celebrate the contributions of women drivers in the industry. The conversation shifts to feel-good movies, with each host sharing their favorites, including 'The Big Lebowski' and 'Rudy.' The episode concludes with a fun question of the week, asking listeners where they would deliver in a fictional world, leading to creative and humorous responses. THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED OR VIEWS EXPRESSED ON THIS PODCAST ARE THOSE OF THE HOSTS AND GUESTS AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT ANY DELIVERY COMPANY Chapters: 00:00 Introduction and Personal Updates 06:02 Transitioning to New Routes and Experiences 12:06 The Evolution of the Job and Technology 17:59 Weather Challenges and Regional Differences 24:01 Memorable Stories and Experiences 30:01 The Importance of Safety and Regulations 36:01 The Podcast Journey and Community Engagement 55:16 Inward and Forward-Facing Cameras in Trucks 58:22 Article VI Violations and Truck Regulations 01:01:57 Shoutout to Women Drivers 01:03:42 Feel-Good Movies and Personal Favorites 01:16:00 Question of the Week: Fictional Delivery Locations

Summary of Chapter 7: Preemption and the Supremacy Clause Chapter 7 delves into the intricacies of federalism, focusing on the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of preemption, which are foundational to understanding the relationship between federal and state laws in the United States. Supremacy Clause: Found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy Clause establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the "supreme Law of the Land." This clause ensures that federal law prevails over state law in cases of conflict, promoting a uniform legal framework across the nation. It mandates that state judges must uphold federal laws even when state laws or constitutions conflict. Preemption Doctrine: Preemption, derived from the Supremacy Clause, occurs when federal law overrides or preempts state law. The chapter explains the two types of preemption: Express Preemption: Occurs when a federal statute explicitly states that it overrides state law. Implied Preemption: Arises when federal regulation is so pervasive (field preemption) or when compliance with both federal and state law is impossible (conflict preemption). Impact on State Laws: The chapter discusses how preemption reflects the tension between state sovereignty and federal authority. While it ensures national uniformity in law, it can also limit states' ability to regulate matters within their borders. The courts, particularly the Supreme Court, play a crucial role in determining the boundaries of preemption. Key Case Law: The chapter highlights significant Supreme Court cases, such as McCulloch v. Maryland and Arizona v. United States, which have shaped the interpretation of the Supremacy Clause and preemption. Federal Preemption in Practice: The chapter provides examples of how preemption operates in areas like healthcare, environmental regulation, and consumer protection, illustrating the practical implications of the doctrine. Interstate Relations and the Full Faith and Credit Clause: The chapter also covers the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which requires states to recognize and honor the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states, promoting legal consistency and cooperation across state lines. Privileges and Immunities Clause: This clause prevents states from discriminating against citizens of other states, ensuring that all citizens enjoy the same rights and protections when they travel or move between states. In essence, Chapter 7 provides a comprehensive overview of how the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of preemption function within the U.S. federal system, emphasizing the balance between national authority and state autonomy, and the mechanisms that ensure legal consistency across the nation. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 7: Preemption and the Supremacy Clause Chapter 7 delves into the intricacies of federalism, focusing on the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of preemption, which are foundational to understanding the relationship between federal and state laws in the United States. Supremacy Clause: Found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy Clause establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the "supreme Law of the Land." This clause ensures that federal law prevails over state law in cases of conflict, promoting a uniform legal framework across the nation. It mandates that state judges must uphold federal laws even when state laws or constitutions conflict. Preemption Doctrine: Preemption, derived from the Supremacy Clause, occurs when federal law overrides or preempts state law. The chapter explains the two types of preemption: Express Preemption: Occurs when a federal statute explicitly states that it overrides state law. Implied Preemption: Arises when federal regulation is so pervasive (field preemption) or when compliance with both federal and state law is impossible (conflict preemption). Impact on State Laws: The chapter discusses how preemption reflects the tension between state sovereignty and federal authority. While it ensures national uniformity in law, it can also limit states' ability to regulate matters within their borders. The courts, particularly the Supreme Court, play a crucial role in determining the boundaries of preemption. Key Case Law: The chapter highlights significant Supreme Court cases, such as McCulloch v. Maryland and Arizona v. United States, which have shaped the interpretation of the Supremacy Clause and preemption. Federal Preemption in Practice: The chapter provides examples of how preemption operates in areas like healthcare, environmental regulation, and consumer protection, illustrating the practical implications of the doctrine. Interstate Relations and the Full Faith and Credit Clause: The chapter also covers the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which requires states to recognize and honor the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states, promoting legal consistency and cooperation across state lines. Privileges and Immunities Clause: This clause prevents states from discriminating against citizens of other states, ensuring that all citizens enjoy the same rights and protections when they travel or move between states. In essence, Chapter 7 provides a comprehensive overview of how the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of preemption function within the U.S. federal system, emphasizing the balance between national authority and state autonomy, and the mechanisms that ensure legal consistency across the nation. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

The verdict of Trump's so-called hush money trial only cemented in the minds of Americans that the justice system is not serving justice, but the Deep State. Trump's verdict reminds us of what we are up against. We'll look into this and offer ways you can help in today's Analysis Behind the News, perspective and solutions you won't get anywhere else. If you're concerned about American independence and freedom, then please watch and take the recommended actions. Also, be sure to like, subscribe, and share, so we can break through Big Tech censorship and reach many others. ACTION ITEMS: Learn About Nullification & Article VI of the Constitution by reading our free booklet download. Order physical copies of the booklet for distribution. Join The John Birch Society.

Hey everyone! Sorry for no new chapter ep this week, Sam has been super sick. But Rebecca gifted us with a HUGE announcement so we hope you enjoy this reaction episode to the title and release date announcement for Empyrean #3! Be sure to follow, rate, and review! Email - readersquadpod@gmail.com Instagram - @readersquadrantpodcast Discord - https://discord.gg/xuDZAjWHPh The Pyre Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Presidents have made broad appeals to our country without dividing along religious belief throughout American history. Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman look at presidential leadership and talk about how our country's founding documents set up our system of government that does not create a “Christian nation” in any sort of legal sense – rather, it ensures freedom of religion and freedom from a state establishment of religion. They also talk about why people like to claim we are a “Christian nation” and the reasons that is a problematic statement.   Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): Religious freedom at the founding Learn more about the celebration of the holiday known as Washington's Birthday from the National Archives.  Amanda and Holly mentioned this article by Peter Smith for the Associated Press: Many believe the founders wanted a Christian America. Some want the government to declare one now. He also wrote this piece with some frequently asked questions. Amanda mentioned a book she is writing that will come out later this year, which is titled How to End Christian Nationalism. Watch Holly's video answering the question “Is America a Christian nation?” at this link. The Rev. Jennifer Hawks wrote this piece about Article VI for Baptist News Global: How the Constitution's original religious freedom guarantee almost didn't happen Amanda spoke with historian Steven Green in 2019 for this episode of our podcast series on the dangers of Christian nationalism: We were founded as a Christian nation? Michael Meyerson is the author of Endowed by our Creator: The Birth of Religious Freedom in America. You can read more about his 2014 lectures – given for the Walter B. and Kay W. Shurden Lectures on Religious Liberty and the Separation of Church and State – in this recap.  The BJC Fellows Program is open to all young professionals interested in deepening their historical, legal and theological understanding of religious liberty. The deadline to apply for the 2024 class is March 1 – visit BJConline.org/Fellows to learn more and apply.      Segment 2 (starting at 24:21): Words from previous presidents Click here to visit BJC's website page with a few quotes from Founders, presidents, and Baptists about the relationship between church and state. The quotes include links or citations to the original source material.   Segment 3 (starting at 33:20): What now? Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

Formula of Concord - Article VI- The Third Use of the Law --------------------------------After the death of Martin Luther in 1546, controversies arose in the Lutheran Church that began to question, compromise and erode the foundation upon which he stood  and built his church.     Written in 1577, Lutheran leaders faced those controversies head on by continuing to stand on the Word of God and continuing to put their faith in the clear message of Scripture.  They produced a document, divided into twelve articles that we know today as the Formula of Concord.Follow along with us as we read through and discuss each article of the Formula and make applications to the lives of 21st Century Christians.   You can read along with the Formula or just join in on the discussion.The best way to find the Formula of Concord is in the Book of Concord.   Would you like to own your own copy?  It's an inexpensive way to have the Formula and other beautiful confessional Lutheran writings at your fingertips and use them educationally and devotionally.  Below are links to two different versions that we are recommending.     Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions - A Reader's Edition of the Book of ConcordBook of Concord : Kolb Wengert EditionThere's a free edition of the Book of Concord online at: www.bookofconcord.org We hope that you can join us for the fun and that you can grow along with us.  If you have any questions about this series or our Most Certainly True Podcast, please reach out to Pastor Hackmann at bhackmann@gracedowntown.org.  If you'd like to learn more about Grace Lutheran Church, check out our website www.gracedowntown.org.  Make sure to find the other titles in this series or check out a different series or one of our sermons from Grace on our Most Certainly True Podcast channel.  We'd love to have you grow even more with us.  Thanks for listening!

What is the cost of speaking out against Christian nationalism? In this episode, Amanda Tyler talks with Rob Reiner and Dan Partland, two people behind a new film that discusses the dangers of Christian nationalism to the country, to the faith, and to pluralism. They share candidly about what they learned while making “God & Country,” the cost for Christians who are speaking out against the political ideology, and what new conversations they are hoping to create with this film.   SHOW NOTESSegment 1 (starting at 00:35): Rob Reiner and Dan Partland on Christian nationalism “God & Country” will be in theaters on February 16. Learn more at GodAndCountryTheMovie.com. The phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the U.S. Constitution, but the concept is laid out several times, including Article VI's prohibition on any religious test for office, the First Amendment's prohibition of a government establishment of religion, and the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion. Read more in Brent Walker's “Top 5 Myths of the Separation of Church and State.” Learn more about the Christians Against Christian Nationalism campaign – a project BJC began in 2019 – by visiting ChristiansAgainstChristianNationalism.org.   Segment 2 (starting at 20:58): Post-screening Q&A with Partland and Reiner BJC and the Freedom From Religion Foundation released a comprehensive report on the role of Christian nationalism in the January 6 attack on the Capitol. You can access it here. Dan Partland mentioned The Power Worshippers, a book by Katherine Stewart on the rise of religious nationalism. It serves as a basis for the movie.    Segment 3 (starting at 41:18): Closing Michelle Boorstein covered the screening for The Washington Post in this article: ‘God & Country' film spotlights Christian nationalism's threat to democracy Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

The Roman Catechism of Trent (RCT) p. 80-82 The Creed, Article VI, Section B.

The Roman Catechism of Trent (RCT) p. 76-80. The Creed, Article VI, Section A. Donate: https://padreperegrino.org/donate/

Session 6 - Preamble and Articles of the Constitution. Part 6: Federalism - The Division of Powers Between Federal and State Governments. Welcome back to the sixth part of our session on the Preamble and Articles of the U.S. Constitution. In the previous segments, we examined the significance of the Preamble, scrutinized each Article of the Constitution, discussed the Amendments, and explored the principles of judicial review. Today, we will delve into another core principle of our constitutional system: federalism and the intricate balance of powers between the federal government and the states. Introduction to Federalism. Federalism is a fundamental aspect of the U.S. Constitution that shapes the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the federal government and individual state governments. This system was designed to strike a delicate balance, preventing either level of government from becoming too dominant. Federal Powers - Enumerated and Implied. The Constitution grants certain powers explicitly to the federal government. These are known as enumerated powers and are primarily found in Article I, Section 8. Some key federal powers include: Regulating commerce among the states and with foreign nations. Levying and collecting taxes. Coining money and establishing a national currency. Providing for the common defense and general welfare. Declaring war and maintaining the armed forces. These enumerated powers are the foundation of federal authority. In addition to these explicit powers, the federal government also possesses implied powers necessary to carry out its functions. These were affirmed in the landmark case of McCulloch v. Maryland. State Powers - Reserved and Concurrent. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people. These reserved powers encompass a wide range of functions, including: Regulating intrastate commerce. Conducting elections. Establishing and maintaining schools. Enforcing criminal laws. Managing public health and safety. States also exercise concurrent powers, which are shared with the federal government. This means that both levels of government can act in areas such as taxation, law enforcement, and environmental regulation. The Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution, establishes that the federal Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the supreme law of the land. This clause clarifies the hierarchy of laws in cases of conflict between federal and state laws. When state laws clash with federal laws or the Constitution itself, federal law prevails, and state laws are invalidated. This principle ensures that the federal government's authority is maintained when there is a need for uniformity in areas of national concern. The Role of the States. States play a crucial role in our federal system. They serve as laboratories of democracy, experimenting with different policies and approaches to address local needs. States also have the power to amend their own constitutions and pass laws in areas not explicitly reserved to the federal government. States are responsible for a wide range of policy areas, including education, healthcare, transportation, criminal justice, and environmental regulation. The diversity of state laws and regulations reflects the unique priorities and values of each state's citizens. Federalism as a Check on Government Power. Federalism serves as a check on government power, preventing any single entity from accumulating too much authority. It promotes competition and innovation in governance, as states can pursue their own policies to address specific challenges. The dual sovereignty of federalism also safeguards individual rights. If one level of government infringes on rights, individuals may find protection at the other level. This balance of power ensures that government remains responsive to the needs and preferences of its citizens. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

As we continue to "Explore the Baptist Faith & Message," Bro. Derrick teaches us about Article VI. The Church. VI. The ChurchA New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its two scriptural offices are that of pastor/elder/overseer and deacon. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation. Matthew 16:15-19; 18:15-20; Acts 2:41-42,47; 5:11-14; 6:3-6; 13:1-3; 14:23,27; 15:1-30; 16:5; 20:28; Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 3:16; 5:4-5; 7:17; 9:13-14; 12; Ephesians 1:22-23; 2:19-22; 3:8-11,21; 5:22-32; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:18; 1 Timothy 2:9-14; 3:1-15; 4:14; Hebrews 11:39-40; 1 Peter 5:1-4; Revelation 2-3; 21:2-3.**Note: This article was amended June 14, 2023, by action of the 2023 Southern Baptist Convention**

1. Seth continues his review of Matthew 22 examining the greatest commandment.2. Seth responds to a question in the inbox about freedom of religion. 3. Seth discusses a broader application of BFM Article VI.

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Friday, June 16th, 2023. It’s been awhile guys, how about we start today with a little “On this day in history!” June 16th, on this day in history: 1779 Spain declares war on Great Britain in support of France and the USA, starting the Great Siege of Gibraltar which goes on to last 3 years, 7 months and 2 weeks 1858 Abraham Lincoln says "A house divided against itself cannot stand" accepting Illinois Republican Party's nomination for the Senate 1963 Soviet space mission Vostok 6 is launched with Valentina Tereshkova onboard, who becomes the 1st woman in space 2000 Israel complies with UN Security Council Resolution 425 after 22 years, which calls on Israel to completely withdraw from Lebanon. Israel withdraws from all of Lebanon, except the disputed Sheba Farms Film & TV 1960 "Psycho", psychological horror film directed by Alfred Hitchcock, starring Janet Leigh, Anthony Perkins, and Vera Miles, opens in New York City 1978 Film "Grease" opens, starring John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John, based on the 1971 musical https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/southern-baptists-pass-first-approval-of-constitutional-amendment-over-women-pastors/ Southern Baptists pass first approval of constitutional amendment over women pastors A motion to clarify Southern Baptists’ stance on women and men filling the role of pastor was passed by messengers on June 14. The motion, first brought last year by Virginia pastor Mike Law, received the required two-thirds vote by messengers. Another two-thirds vote of approval is necessary at next year’s annual meeting to proceed with the amendment to Article III of the SBC Constitution. The motion that was passed was amended from its original version, which was referred to the SBC Executive Committee last year at the SBC annual meeting in Anaheim, Calif. Juan Sanchez, senior pastor of High Pointe Baptist Church in Austin, Texas, offered the amendment to Law’s motion. Both pastors had discussed and agreed on its merits the previous weekend, Sanchez told fellow messengers. Article III lists five points that place churches within the definition of cooperation with the SBC. The amended motion calls for a sixth, adding churches that affirm, appoint, or employ “only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.” Sanchez initially presented his amendment as a “substitute motion.” SBC President Bart Barber, with no objection from the crowd, clarified later that it was being treated as an amendment. The Executive Committee agreed at its meeting on June 12 to bring Law’s motion to the messengers at this year’s meeting. However, the EC’s recommendation included EC opposition to the motion itself, stating that matters of belief ought to be addressed in the Baptist Faith and Message rather than the constitution. Article VI of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 addresses The Church, stating that “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” Bob Bender, pastor emeritus of Cross Fellowship Church in Colorado Springs, Colo., spoke in opposition to the motion. “Southern Baptist brothers and sisters, I beg of you,” he said. “Do not do this. All the liberals have left us. It looks like we conservatives are left to fight amongst ourselves.” Women in associate pastoral roles need to be recognized for their contributions, Bender said. Denny Burk, a messenger from Kenwood Baptist Church in Louisville, Ky., said the amendment “does nothing to diminish [women’s] calling and their work among us.” “We all believe they must be a part of the Great Commission,” said Burk, who also serves as the director of the Center for Gospel and Culture at Boyce College. The heart of the amendment, he continued, “is about how to apply our doctrinal statement to our cooperation when it comes to female pastors.” The vote took place at noon just prior to scheduled luncheons by seminaries and other groups. Before the final vote, a motion to extend time was defeated. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2023/06/14/ma-middle-schoolers-foment-a-pronoun-rebellion-during-pride-month-and-the-media-is-aghast-n2624491 Middle Schoolers' USA Rebellion at Pride Event Causes Libs to Melt Down As the kids say nowadays, these middle schoolers are based. And by that, I mean they did something that sent shockwaves through a local Massachusetts community, stunned the local school board, and sent the liberal media into meltdown mode. Marshall Simonds Middle School in Burlington, Massachusetts, just outside of Boston, saw an LGBT event wrecked by a pronoun rebellion. Pride flags were destroyed, and chants of 'USA' rang throughout the school. To be more precise, they were chanting, “My pronouns are USA,” while decked out in patriotic colors. The event caused some local school board members to lose sleep over the incident, which proves that some people in this community need to go outside and touch some grass. Now, the LGBT mob is pushing to punish these kids for exercising their constitutional right to free speech and expression… Listen to the reaction they caused: https://twitter.com/i/status/1669005086167560194 -Play Video Nancy Bonassera, co-chair of the Burlington Equity Coalition, said that students were invited to wear rainbow clothing on June 2 in celebration of Pride Month. The coalition is calling for "consequences" for the students who participated in the counter-protest and is urging the district to fill a diversity, equity and inclusion role that they say has been vacant for almost a year. Select Board member Michael Espejo said a "bad light has been cast over our town." "I was very upset, I've lost sleep over it," Espejo said about the incident. "It kind of shocked me to my core. I didn't think something like that could happen in Burlington." Burlington School Committee Chair Martha Simon condemned the incident at a meeting Tuesday night, but declined any specifics on disciplinary actions, stressing the offenders were mere eighth graders. But a room full of parents, mostly of LGBTQ kids, argued that school officials needed to take a stronger stand and use the incident as a "teaching moment" refuting the notion that overt pride displays are somehow not appropriate for schools. This is just a reminder to get your kids out of public school, and here’s a way to do that! Classical Conversations Classical Conversations supports homeschooling parents by cultivating the love of learning through a Christian worldview in fellowship with other families. They provide a classical Christ-centered curriculum, local like-minded communities across the United States and in several countries, and they train parents who are striving to be great classical educators in the home. For more information and to get connected, please visit their website at ClassicalConversations.com. Again that’s ClassicalConversations.com. https://thenationalpulse.com/2023/06/14/farage-climate-lockdowns-are-coming-mark-my-words/ Farage: Climate Lockdowns Are Coming, ‘Mark My Words’. Brexit leader Nigel Farage has foretold of impending, authoritarian measures by Western governments designed to limit people’s movements and vehicle usage under the guise of “climate change” action. Speaking to supporters via social media, Farage warns: “climate lockdowns are coming,” citing a recent limit placed on automobile usage by the far left Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. In response to one of Khan’s tweets, which encouraged Londoners to “avoid unnecessary car journeys,” Farage argued: “he’s telling us: don’t use your car unnecessarily, no engine idling, no burning of wood or waste.” Khan has often warned of the dangers of climate change and used it to justify London’s “Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ),” which charges Brits £12.50 per day to drive in the capitol. https://twitter.com/i/status/1668555766670802944 - Play Video Now it’s time for my favorite topic, sports! https://www.breitbart.com/sports/2023/06/14/huston-report-mlb-quietly-tells-teams-to-ditch-pride-uniforms/ MLB Quietly Tells Teams to Ditch ‘Pride’ Uniforms Major League Baseball has quietly told teams that they can stop forcing players to wear uniforms and hats adorned with gay pride rainbow colors during their “Pride Night” games. The decision comes as the L.A. Dodgers are taking major heat for inviting the radical, anti-Catholic hate group, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, to its gay pride night game on June 16. And also as several major corporations, including Bud Light and Target, are facing serious economic losses thanks to their wild-eyed support of the far-left LGBTQ agenda. The Tampa Bay Rays was the first MLB team to announce that players would not wear any rainbow-colored patches or jerseys during the June pride game this year. But, the league kept this change to its pride celebrations very quiet since giving teams dispensation to dump the pride colors and special jerseys back in February, according to the Washington Examiner. The Rays had trouble with the pride night plans last year when several players balked at being forced to wear rainbow colors. At the time, several players rebelled against the pride jerseys and refused to wear them during last year’s pride game. Not all teams are dumping the forced fealty to the groomer agenda. The L.A. Dodgers and San Francisco Giants have announced their intentions to continue wearing the pride jerseys. There has been one team that has eschewed the pride business from the beginning. The Texas Rangers is the only team that has consistently refused to indulge in any demonstrations of “pride” and has never scheduled any “Pride Night” games. Pro baseball is not the only sport to see growing resistance to having “pride” forced on players, games, and their sport. A growing number of NHL players and teams are also turning away from blatant expressions of the groomer agenda. Teams, including the Chicago Blackhawks and the Buffalo Sabres, have experienced issues with using pride jerseys. In addition, San Jose Sharks goalie James Reimer opted out of wearing the jersey, citing his religious convictions. In January, Philadelphia Flyers defenseman Ivan Provorov also decided not to wear his team’s gay pride jersey for similar reasons. And that same month, the New York Rangers opted out of wearing the gay pride jersey. It seems to all be part of a growing trend of Americans finally getting sick and tired of the gay agenda being shoved down everyone’s throats by multi-billion-dollar corporations. Major League Baseball was one of the last major sports to succumb to the extreme woke agenda. It’s time it goes back to being the sport that welcomes everyone to come play baseball, not to be inundated with politics.

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Friday, June 16th, 2023. It’s been awhile guys, how about we start today with a little “On this day in history!” June 16th, on this day in history: 1779 Spain declares war on Great Britain in support of France and the USA, starting the Great Siege of Gibraltar which goes on to last 3 years, 7 months and 2 weeks 1858 Abraham Lincoln says "A house divided against itself cannot stand" accepting Illinois Republican Party's nomination for the Senate 1963 Soviet space mission Vostok 6 is launched with Valentina Tereshkova onboard, who becomes the 1st woman in space 2000 Israel complies with UN Security Council Resolution 425 after 22 years, which calls on Israel to completely withdraw from Lebanon. Israel withdraws from all of Lebanon, except the disputed Sheba Farms Film & TV 1960 "Psycho", psychological horror film directed by Alfred Hitchcock, starring Janet Leigh, Anthony Perkins, and Vera Miles, opens in New York City 1978 Film "Grease" opens, starring John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John, based on the 1971 musical https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/southern-baptists-pass-first-approval-of-constitutional-amendment-over-women-pastors/ Southern Baptists pass first approval of constitutional amendment over women pastors A motion to clarify Southern Baptists’ stance on women and men filling the role of pastor was passed by messengers on June 14. The motion, first brought last year by Virginia pastor Mike Law, received the required two-thirds vote by messengers. Another two-thirds vote of approval is necessary at next year’s annual meeting to proceed with the amendment to Article III of the SBC Constitution. The motion that was passed was amended from its original version, which was referred to the SBC Executive Committee last year at the SBC annual meeting in Anaheim, Calif. Juan Sanchez, senior pastor of High Pointe Baptist Church in Austin, Texas, offered the amendment to Law’s motion. Both pastors had discussed and agreed on its merits the previous weekend, Sanchez told fellow messengers. Article III lists five points that place churches within the definition of cooperation with the SBC. The amended motion calls for a sixth, adding churches that affirm, appoint, or employ “only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.” Sanchez initially presented his amendment as a “substitute motion.” SBC President Bart Barber, with no objection from the crowd, clarified later that it was being treated as an amendment. The Executive Committee agreed at its meeting on June 12 to bring Law’s motion to the messengers at this year’s meeting. However, the EC’s recommendation included EC opposition to the motion itself, stating that matters of belief ought to be addressed in the Baptist Faith and Message rather than the constitution. Article VI of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 addresses The Church, stating that “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” Bob Bender, pastor emeritus of Cross Fellowship Church in Colorado Springs, Colo., spoke in opposition to the motion. “Southern Baptist brothers and sisters, I beg of you,” he said. “Do not do this. All the liberals have left us. It looks like we conservatives are left to fight amongst ourselves.” Women in associate pastoral roles need to be recognized for their contributions, Bender said. Denny Burk, a messenger from Kenwood Baptist Church in Louisville, Ky., said the amendment “does nothing to diminish [women’s] calling and their work among us.” “We all believe they must be a part of the Great Commission,” said Burk, who also serves as the director of the Center for Gospel and Culture at Boyce College. The heart of the amendment, he continued, “is about how to apply our doctrinal statement to our cooperation when it comes to female pastors.” The vote took place at noon just prior to scheduled luncheons by seminaries and other groups. Before the final vote, a motion to extend time was defeated. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2023/06/14/ma-middle-schoolers-foment-a-pronoun-rebellion-during-pride-month-and-the-media-is-aghast-n2624491 Middle Schoolers' USA Rebellion at Pride Event Causes Libs to Melt Down As the kids say nowadays, these middle schoolers are based. And by that, I mean they did something that sent shockwaves through a local Massachusetts community, stunned the local school board, and sent the liberal media into meltdown mode. Marshall Simonds Middle School in Burlington, Massachusetts, just outside of Boston, saw an LGBT event wrecked by a pronoun rebellion. Pride flags were destroyed, and chants of 'USA' rang throughout the school. To be more precise, they were chanting, “My pronouns are USA,” while decked out in patriotic colors. The event caused some local school board members to lose sleep over the incident, which proves that some people in this community need to go outside and touch some grass. Now, the LGBT mob is pushing to punish these kids for exercising their constitutional right to free speech and expression… Listen to the reaction they caused: https://twitter.com/i/status/1669005086167560194 -Play Video Nancy Bonassera, co-chair of the Burlington Equity Coalition, said that students were invited to wear rainbow clothing on June 2 in celebration of Pride Month. The coalition is calling for "consequences" for the students who participated in the counter-protest and is urging the district to fill a diversity, equity and inclusion role that they say has been vacant for almost a year. Select Board member Michael Espejo said a "bad light has been cast over our town." "I was very upset, I've lost sleep over it," Espejo said about the incident. "It kind of shocked me to my core. I didn't think something like that could happen in Burlington." Burlington School Committee Chair Martha Simon condemned the incident at a meeting Tuesday night, but declined any specifics on disciplinary actions, stressing the offenders were mere eighth graders. But a room full of parents, mostly of LGBTQ kids, argued that school officials needed to take a stronger stand and use the incident as a "teaching moment" refuting the notion that overt pride displays are somehow not appropriate for schools. This is just a reminder to get your kids out of public school, and here’s a way to do that! Classical Conversations Classical Conversations supports homeschooling parents by cultivating the love of learning through a Christian worldview in fellowship with other families. They provide a classical Christ-centered curriculum, local like-minded communities across the United States and in several countries, and they train parents who are striving to be great classical educators in the home. For more information and to get connected, please visit their website at ClassicalConversations.com. Again that’s ClassicalConversations.com. https://thenationalpulse.com/2023/06/14/farage-climate-lockdowns-are-coming-mark-my-words/ Farage: Climate Lockdowns Are Coming, ‘Mark My Words’. Brexit leader Nigel Farage has foretold of impending, authoritarian measures by Western governments designed to limit people’s movements and vehicle usage under the guise of “climate change” action. Speaking to supporters via social media, Farage warns: “climate lockdowns are coming,” citing a recent limit placed on automobile usage by the far left Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. In response to one of Khan’s tweets, which encouraged Londoners to “avoid unnecessary car journeys,” Farage argued: “he’s telling us: don’t use your car unnecessarily, no engine idling, no burning of wood or waste.” Khan has often warned of the dangers of climate change and used it to justify London’s “Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ),” which charges Brits £12.50 per day to drive in the capitol. https://twitter.com/i/status/1668555766670802944 - Play Video Now it’s time for my favorite topic, sports! https://www.breitbart.com/sports/2023/06/14/huston-report-mlb-quietly-tells-teams-to-ditch-pride-uniforms/ MLB Quietly Tells Teams to Ditch ‘Pride’ Uniforms Major League Baseball has quietly told teams that they can stop forcing players to wear uniforms and hats adorned with gay pride rainbow colors during their “Pride Night” games. The decision comes as the L.A. Dodgers are taking major heat for inviting the radical, anti-Catholic hate group, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, to its gay pride night game on June 16. And also as several major corporations, including Bud Light and Target, are facing serious economic losses thanks to their wild-eyed support of the far-left LGBTQ agenda. The Tampa Bay Rays was the first MLB team to announce that players would not wear any rainbow-colored patches or jerseys during the June pride game this year. But, the league kept this change to its pride celebrations very quiet since giving teams dispensation to dump the pride colors and special jerseys back in February, according to the Washington Examiner. The Rays had trouble with the pride night plans last year when several players balked at being forced to wear rainbow colors. At the time, several players rebelled against the pride jerseys and refused to wear them during last year’s pride game. Not all teams are dumping the forced fealty to the groomer agenda. The L.A. Dodgers and San Francisco Giants have announced their intentions to continue wearing the pride jerseys. There has been one team that has eschewed the pride business from the beginning. The Texas Rangers is the only team that has consistently refused to indulge in any demonstrations of “pride” and has never scheduled any “Pride Night” games. Pro baseball is not the only sport to see growing resistance to having “pride” forced on players, games, and their sport. A growing number of NHL players and teams are also turning away from blatant expressions of the groomer agenda. Teams, including the Chicago Blackhawks and the Buffalo Sabres, have experienced issues with using pride jerseys. In addition, San Jose Sharks goalie James Reimer opted out of wearing the jersey, citing his religious convictions. In January, Philadelphia Flyers defenseman Ivan Provorov also decided not to wear his team’s gay pride jersey for similar reasons. And that same month, the New York Rangers opted out of wearing the gay pride jersey. It seems to all be part of a growing trend of Americans finally getting sick and tired of the gay agenda being shoved down everyone’s throats by multi-billion-dollar corporations. Major League Baseball was one of the last major sports to succumb to the extreme woke agenda. It’s time it goes back to being the sport that welcomes everyone to come play baseball, not to be inundated with politics.

April 17, 2023 Rockingham County Commissioners MeetingAGENDA1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN RICHARDSON2. INVOCATION3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Aubree Herndon, 8 years old, Monroeton Elementary, Avery Herndon, 6 years old, Monroeton Elementary4. RESOLUTION - Lance Metzler, County ManagerApproval - Resolution honoring the work of Robert "Bob" Wray Carter, County Historian for his lifetime work in genealogy and Rockingham County history.5. APPROVAL OF APRIL 17, 2023 AGENDA6. CONSENT AGENDA (Consent items as follows will be adopted with a single motion, second and vote, unless a request for removal from the Consent Agenda is heard from a Commissioner)A. Pat Galloway, Finance DirectorApproval - Transfer the June 2023 outstanding principal balance of the 2020B (NTE Reidsville Energy Center) debt in the amount of $961,000 from a Water Sewer Enterprise Fund debt classification to a General Government debt classification. The project was suspended prior to construction of an enterprise system asset and is more appropriately classified as a General Government debt type as discussed during the February 2023 annual bUdget planning retreat.2 Approval - Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Audit Contract and Engagement Letter with audit firm Thompson, Price, Scott, Adams & Co. PA The audit fees are $50,500 for the County audit and $2,625 for the Tourism Development Authority audit. The County fee "is $2,000 less than the prior fiscal year due to transitioning the writing of the annual financial report from the audit firm to the County Finance Department.3. Approval - Appropriate $22,000 of Northwest Fire District restricted fund balance that is due to Northwest Fire Department.4. Approval - Transfer funds of $2,208 to install an awning at the entrance of the Board of Elections Building. Funding will be provided by eXisting budget appropriations as follows:Board of Elections Building Repair line $1,000 Public Buildings - All County Buildings Repair $1,2085. Approval - Appropriate $12,845 of fund balance restricted for the Sheriff Department to purchase rifles and related equipment in order to assign a patrol rifle to sworn personnel who currently are not issued a county owned rifle. B. Todd Hurst, Interim Tax AdministratorApproval- Tax collection and reconciliation reports for March including refunds for March 22, 2023 thru April 4, 2023.C. Susan Washburn, Clerk to the BoardApproval - Recessed Board minutes for February 10, 2023 and Regular meeting minutes for April 3, 2023.D. Ben Curtis, Rockingham County Register of DeedsApproval - Resolution authorizing the Rockingham County Register of Deeds, to temporarily transfer records to an off-site or out-of-County location for reproduction, repair or preservation.7. PUBLIC COMMENT8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:A. Hiriam "Marzy" Marziano, Community Development Director1. Case 2023-03 - Zoning Amendment: Rezoning from Residential Protected (RP) and Residential Agricultural (RA) to Residential Agricultural (RA) Applicant: Elizabeth Suzanne Knight - Tax PINs: 7903-01-48-7699 -Address: 466 Eden Church Rd. - Huntsville Township.2. Case 2023-04 - Zoning Amendment: Rezoning from Highway Commercial Conditional District (HC-CD) to Highway Commercial (HC) - Applicant: George Daniel Carter, 111- Tax PINs: 7923-01-18-2000 -Address: 2804 US Highway 220 - Huntsville Township.3. Case 2023-05 - Zoning Amendment: Rezoning from Residential Protected (RP) to Residential Agricultural (RA) - Applicant: Trent Prater, Clayton Homes - Tax PINs: 7061-09-25-4439 - Address: Odie Ln (Parcel # 175179) Leaksville Township.4. Case 2023-07 - A text amendment request to the UDO Permitted Use Table and Supplemental Regulations to permit Religious Schools and Places of Worship in the Residential Protected (RP) district when located on the same parcel - Applicant: Corey Engebretson, Floyd Missionary Baptist Church UDO Amendments Permitted use Table, Article IV, Section 41.04; Supplemental Regulations Article VI, Section 62.79.5. Case 2023-08 - A request to amend various sections of the UDO related to the following:i. Manufactured Homes on Individual Lotsii. Landscape Design Standardsiii. Major Subdivision Reviewiv.. Wireless Telecommunication Towersv. Accessory Dwelling Unit/Guesthousevi. Shipping ContainersApplicant: Rockingham County Community Development Department, UDO Amendments: Article III, Section 3401, Article IV, Section 41.04; Article V, Section 54.01; Article VI, Section 62.01, Section 62.39, Section 62.66, Section 62.79, Section 62.81, Section 62.88.B. Lance Metzler, County ManagerResolution requesting establishment of a "No Wake Zone" for Belews Lake at the Carolina Marina.9. PRESENTATION: Victoria Whitt, Sandhills CenterSandhills Center County General Budget funding request and program update.10. PRESENTATION: Lance Metzler, County ManagerApproval - Adoption of a resolution and approve a budget amendment for NC Opioid Settlement funding to establish a Behavioral Health Urgent Care (BHUC) in Rockingham County.11. NEW BUSINESS12. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS13. CLOSED SESSION:Pursuant to: N.C.G.S. 143-318.11 (a)(1) Approve Closed Session Minutes; and N.C.G.S. 143-31811(a)(5) Instruct Negotiating Agents14. ADJOURN###

In this episode we commence our study of Article VI of The Apostles Creed. The sixth article is divided into two parts. The first part is "He Ascended into Heaven." and the second part is "Sitteth at the Right Hand of the Father Almighty." We explore the way in which Christ ascended into heaven both as man and as God. We also discuss the meaning of the words "sitteth" and "at the right hand." To aid us in our study we take a brief look at four articles from the third part of the Summa Theologica concerning the Ascension of Christ. (S.T. Q 57. a. 1-3 and Q. 58. a.1)

Recently I interviewed Brian Concannon for my podcast, The Neoliberal Round. Little did I know that there was a situation that he is involved with as a Human Rights Advocate on Haitian justice and democracy. Brian is the Executive Director for The Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti. It's a US based Human Rights agency that is actively involved in working here in the US to advocate for the Haitians. While conducting the interview, I learned that the US through Canada is actively seeking CARICOM to intervene in the Haitian crisis since the assasination of the Haitian President October 2022. The US has since installed a Prime Minister that Haitians oppose and this has created internal conflicts especially against the US backed PM who is calling for the US to intervene, despite the objection of Haitians. Mr. Concannon shared a letter from a human rights and advocacy group in Haiti, written by Mario Joseph the Managing Attorney to CARICOM. The letter, written November 2022 stated: BUREAU DES AVOCATS INTERNATIONAUX 3, 2ème rue Lavaud B.P. 19048 Port-au-Prince, Haiti November 4, 2022 Dr. Carla Natalie Barnett Secretary-General Caribbean Community Re: Proposed International Intervention in Haiti Dear Dr. Barnett: We are writing you in relation to the armed international intervention in Haiti that has been requested by Dr. Ariel Henry, the de facto Prime Minister of Haiti, and supported by the United States and Canada, to explain that any support for the intervention by the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) would violate CARICOM's democratic principles, betray Haitians' centuries-long struggle for democracy and sovereignty, and implicate CARICOM in attacks against civilians exercising their basic human rights. Ever since the intervention was proposed, Haitians have taken to the streets by the tens of thousands to oppose it. We have issued statements, spoken out in the media, and done anything else we could to let the world know that the intervention is designed to prop up the unconstitutional, corrupt and repressive de facto government and stifle legitimate dissent. De facto Prime Minister Henry ascended to his post not through any Haitian procedure, but through an announcement by the US-led Core Group. He had been nominated by President Jovenel Moïse of the Parti Haitienne Tet Kale party (PHTK), whose mandate had expired five months previously. The PHTK has not run an election that was either fair or timely in the decade it has maintained power. Haiti's Parliament became inoperative in January 2020, and the terms of all local elected officials ended in July of that year. Haiti's Supreme Court has lacked enough members to constitute a quorum since March. This situation constitutes a sharp departure from the right to a fair and open democratic system guaranteed by Article VI of the CARICOM Charter of Civil Society. PHTK governance has been demonstrably brutal...We want CARICOM to once again insist that the international community stop supporting an unconstitutional, imposed regime, and allow Haitians to find a democratic, sustainable solution to our political crisis." In solidarity, MArio Josephs Managing Attorney. You can see the entire letter at https://theneoliberal.com. "Serving the world today, to solve tomorrow's Challenges By making popular what was the monopoly, which is the aim of our communication" Rev. Renaldo McKenzie is a Lecturer, Author of Neoliberalism.... Host of The Neoliberal Round Podcast. Support us at https://anchor.fm/theneoliberal/support. Email Renaldo at renaldocmckenzie.com. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/theneoliberal/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/theneoliberal/support

Series: Firm Foundations Speaker: Michael Baines

Article VI not Article V Why enforcing the Constitution is better than changing it. 

Buckle up, we are going to cover a lot of ground today!  As we have learned, the grand structures of our government were created in earlier articles in the US Constitution: Congress, the Presidency, the Judiciary, the Amendment Process, the guarantee of republicanism.  Article VI codified that debts incurred by the previous government would be recognized and paid back by the new government under the Constitution.  Why was this important in making our new country a player on the international stage?  Why were the Supremacy Clause and Oath Clause in Article VI revolutionary for its time and how did they work to bind the states into one unified country? And why wouldn't our country exists if not for Article VII which changed our system for ratifying the new Constitution?  Join our student panel and guest, Former Assistant to the President for Economic Policy Andrew Olmem for our discussion into Articles VI and VII of the US Constitution.

Audio of the 1958 unanimous opinion of the Court in Cooper v. Aaron. A few years after the Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the Arkansas legislature and Governor Orval Faubus openly resisted the Supreme Court's decision to desegregate public schools. So, the February following the integration crisis at Little Rock High School, members of the Little Rock school board and Superintendent filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, urging suspension of the plan to integrate schools - they were asking the courts for black students to be returned to their former segregated schools for the next two-and-one-half years while they figured out a more permanent solution to avoid integration. When the case made its way before the Supreme Court, the question before them was whether Arkansas officials were bound by federal court orders mandating desegregation. In a unanimous per curiam opinion the Court broke it down like this: it was constitutionally impermissible under the Equal Protection Clause to deprive black students of their equal rights under the law, and that since the Supremacy Clause of Article VI made the U.S. Constitution the supreme law of the land, and Marbury v. Madison made the Supreme Court the final interpreter of the Constitution, the precedent set forth in Brown v. Board of Education was the supreme law of the land and was therefore binding on all the states. Yes, even Arkansas.   I omit citations when reading SCOTUS opinions in order to provide a better listening experience; you may access the opinion here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/358/1/#tab-opinion-1942101   Music by Epidemic Sound

It's Thursday, August 4th, A.D. 2022. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Ten Christian aid workers in Ukraine released by Russian soldiers Praise God! Ten Christians with the ministry Orphan's Promise have been released in Ukraine. The group consisted of aid workers, volunteers, and refugees. Russian troops abducted the group as they were evacuating people from Mariupol. The troops beat and tortured the volunteers before releasing them. One is in the hospital. Orphan's Promise is asking for prayer for another volunteer named Valentina. Russian troops abducted her last March as she was distributing food to people in bomb shelters near Mariupol.   Psalm 102:19-20 says, “For He looked down from the height of His sanctuary; from heaven the LORD viewed the earth, to hear the groaning of the prisoner, to release those appointed to death.” Sam Brownback heading up Nat'l Committee for Religious Freedom U.S. Ambassador Sam Brownback is leading the new National Committee for Religious Freedom to fight for the free exercise of religion in America. Brownback served as President Trump's Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom and established the first global ministerial on religious freedom. Brownback told CBN News he's now concerned about religious liberty violations right here in the U.S. BROWNBACK: “After working on international religious freedoms for so many years, I came back home and found we're losing ground here. We're losing ground in our schools, in our health care system. You keep getting government and big business crowding in on your right to freely practice your faith.” To illustrate, Brownback said his organization's bank account was cancelled without explanation. Pro-life, Christian Republican Congresswoman killed in car accident Republican Congresswoman Jackie Walorski of Indiana, age 58, and two of her staffers were killed in a car crash on Wednesday, reports NBC News. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said, "This news is absolutely devastating. Jackie was a dear friend, trusted advisor, and the embodiment of integrity who achieved the admiration and respect of all her colleagues in the House." Walorski District Director Zachery Potts, age 27, and her Communications Director Emma Thomson, age 28, also died in the two-car collision. According to a sheriff's Facebook post, a car collided with Walorski's car head on. The driver of that car was also killed. Congresswoman Walorski and her husband, Dean, were devout Christians, spent four years as missionaries in Romania, and were faithful members of South Gate Church in the Assemblies of God denomination. She was dedicated to protecting the lives of unborn babies.  In this particular speech from the floor of the House, she was especially enraged that her Democrat colleagues universally championed baby-killing by abortion. WALORSKI: “My colleagues remain obsessed with killing unborn babies in the name of female empowerment. “I've witnessed the cruelty of abortion and it's ugly. “In South Bend, Indiana. Dr. Ulrich Klopfer provided abortions for decades. When he died in 2019. His family found the medically preserved remains of 2,411 children hidden in his garage. That is 2,411 human babies preserved in formaldehyde in jars in his garage. It was national news for a week. This abortionist left a legacy of death and destruction. That is what extreme looks like. “Abortion sold as healthcare is a sickening violation of human dignity that Americans should not and cannot tolerate. As a nation, we have an obligation to future generations to reject abortion on demand and to fight for life.” With the death of Congresswoman Jackie Walorski, the unborn babies lost a true champion. Please pray for her husband, Dean, as well as for the families of her staffers that God would comfort them as they grieve. Join me and can send a card of sympathy to Dean Swihart, to 2410 Grape Rd. Suite 2A, Mishawaka, IN 46545. 43 abortion mills closed since Roe v Wade overturned The Guttmacher Institute reports 43 abortion mills across 11 states have stopped offering to murder unborn babies since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.  The 11 states in the South and Midwest have banned nearly all abortions. Before the Supreme Court ruling, these states had 71 facilities offering abortions. Now, there are 28. Several states have shut down all abortion mills including Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas. Hispanics turning to Republican Party Since the 2018 midterms, a new CBS Poll found that more Hispanic voters are turning to the Republican Party In 2018, 69% of Hispanics supported Democrats, and 29% supported Republicans. This year, 45% of Hispanics support Democrats, and 42% support Republicans. Hispanic voters, along with women and voters under 30, have been key Democrat voting groups in the past. Florida v. “woke” businesses and government Florida officials are standing up to "woke" government and business. On July 28, the Florida Department of Education told schools they do not have to follow the Biden administration's new transgender policies for bathrooms and sports teams. And, on Monday, Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis tweeted, “Florida has put WOKE banking on notice.” DeSantis held an event last Wednesday on ending institutional discrimination against people for their political beliefs. Days after the event, Paypal reversed its account lock on the conservative group called “Moms for Liberty”.  Southern Baptists: Role of pastor limited to men And finally, several Southern Baptist leaders released a clarification on the definition of “pastor” from the Southern Baptist Convention's statement of faith. The signatories included Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  The statement affirmed Article VI of the SBC statement of faith which says, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” The statement comes during controversy in the denomination after Saddleback Church, an SBC member congregation, appointed female pastors last year. 1 Timothy 3:2 says, “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach.” Close And that's The Worldview in 5 Minutes on this Thursday, August 4th, in the year of our Lord 2022. Subscribe by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

In response to the recent Dobbs decision and the Supreme Court's clear, consistent support for religious liberty throughout this term, many progressives are warning of an imminent “Christian theocracy.” Among the loudest voices predicting our collective doom are mainstream media outlets. For example, a recent story in Reuters claimed, “U.S. Supreme Court Takes Aim at Separation of Church and State.”   What's missing in virtually all of these pieces is a proper understanding of the “establishment clause.” The establishment clause is derived from the opening lines of the First Amendment which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” There are two ways this statement is commonly misunderstood.   First, it is often described as establishing a “wall of separation between church and state.” In fact, those words are found nowhere in the Constitution. The phrase actually was coined later in a letter by Thomas Jefferson. Second, and more importantly, it is assumed that if organized religion cannot be supported by the state, then secularism is somehow “neutral.” Thus, by default, anything goes as long as it's “secular.”  Understanding the historical context is essential. In the 18th century, an “established” religion referred to an official state church. In the U.S., individual states had already established churches, such as the Anglican Church in Virginia. The First Amendment specifically applied to Congress and prohibited a national church. To prefer the Anglican Church over the Congregationalists or Presbyterians would, at the time, mean alienating certain citizens and entire states. States continued to have established churches well into the 19th century.   In addition, the First Amendment was not intended to prohibit religious activities in governmental institutions. From the very beginning, Congress started each session with prayer. That continues today and is led by an official chaplain.   Our founding fathers, particularly James Madison, believed that religious liberty was an innate right, and inseparable from the freedom of conscience. He also believed that religion would better flourish in a free marketplace of ideas. That thinking was the basis for the free exercise clause.   This understanding of the freedom of conscience is the foundation for the other freedoms protected in the First Amendment. Without conscience rights, we cannot truly speak, write, assemble, or advocate freely from our deepest beliefs. That's why the freedom of religion is often called “the first freedom.” Its position in the Bill of Rights highlights its importance.  Although the rights of conscience should not be controversial, somehow, that's what they have become. How this happened is worth considering. By claiming secularism to be neutral, proponents of secularism ,as far back as the 19th century, attempted to broadly apply laws originally intended by Protestants to prevent Catholic schools from accessing state funds. In the 20th-century, secularists embraced the concept of “a living Constitution” in order to transform the meaning of the First Amendment, attempting to keep religious institutions from accessing state funds and allowing only “secular” views in the public arena.  Though many court cases illustrate this, among the more important was Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), which declared unconstitutional Maryland's requirement that officeholders state belief in God. Rather than ruling on the basis of Article VI, which prohibits religious tests for public office, the Supreme Court ruled on the basis of the establishment clause of the First Amendment and of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from violating the rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens. The same line of reasoning has since been used to challenge prayers at public meetings, Bible studies in schools, and nativity scenes on public property. In the process, the First Amendment was turned on its head, taking a clause intended to keep the state from backing any one denomination and construing it to position the state in opposition to all organized religions.  In footnote 11 of the Torcaso v. Watkins decision, Justice Hugo Black listed secular humanism as one of a number of religions “which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God.” Calling humanism a religion was not outlandish.  For a century, humanists such as John Dewey and Julian Huxley had defined their beliefs as a religion. After all, secularism involves certain claims about the cosmos, existence, and human nature.   And yet in 1994, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District that while “religion” should be broadly interpreted for free exercise clause purposes, “anything ‘arguably non-religious' should not be considered religious in applying the establishment clause.” In other words, secular organizations were able to play both sides, qualifying as a religion for the free exercise clause but free from constraints from the establishment clause.   To further determine whether religious activities could utilize public spaces, the Supreme Court derived the so-called “Lemon Test” in the case Lemon v. Kurzman (1991). According to this rule, a religious activity is only licit on public grounds if it performs a secular purpose, neither advances nor inhibits religion, and does not foster excessive government entanglement in religion. This test maintained an obviously secular bias: Secular organizations were not required to pass any tests to obtain access.  In the recent decision in the Coach Kennedy case, the Supreme Court continued its long-overdue corrections to the anti-religious way the First Amendment had been interpreted. Particularly by unequivocally tossing the “Lemon Test,” the Court has stopped the active suppression of religious beliefs and practice. We ought not fear an impending theocracy, but instead welcome a redress to the unjust and ahistorical understandings of religion. 

Photo: 2/2   #PRC: In violation of the NPT Article VI; & What is to be done? Henry D. Sokolski @HenrySokolski, Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC).  Henry #Sokolski  @NuclearPolicy https://npolicy.org/arresting-nuclear-adventurism-china-article-vi-and-the-npt-occasional-paper-2201/

Photo: 1/2   #PRC: In violation of the NPT Article VI; & What is to be done? Henry D. Sokolski @HenrySokolski, Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC).  Henry #Sokolski  @NuclearPolicy https://npolicy.org/arresting-nuclear-adventurism-china-article-vi-and-the-npt-occasional-paper-2201/

This is Toby Sumpter with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Friday, March 6, 2020 Nothing is Going on in the PCA, Especially Not in Missouri, Shut Up http://www.boom.lgbt/index.php/art-enter/144-a-e/1907-the-q-collective-announces-cast-of-transluminate-2020?fbclid=IwAR3q-htun27nHZRCunI2gX6bs_A-k4KhIPqNhO7nOaeK4bfaEX-syM18828 The Missouri Presbytery of the PCA and Greg Johnson's Memorial Presbyterian Church are back in the news today with the revelation that they recently hosted the Transluminate Arts Festival. The event describes itself as “a short-play festival and celebration of transgender, agender, non-binary, genderqueer, and genderfluid artists.” The event was held Feb. 27-29 and Feb. 29-March 1 at The Chapel, which is an event venue and ministry partner operated by volunteers from Memorial Presbyterian Church.  Plays that were performed included a homosexual couple discussing their testosterone shots -- presumably implying that they are women trying to be men? Another description reads: “Joe, a transgender man, and Shawna, a transgender woman, are married, and Joe is carrying their child. The bottom of the page includes a content warning: Plays may contain adult language and frank sexual situations. Remember, Greg Johnson and Memorial Presbyterian were in the news back in 2018 when they hosted the first Revoice Conference, celebrating LGBT+ and other sexual minorities and helping them live in the traditional sexual ethic. If that sounds like a contradiction to you, you wouldn't be the only one. Greg Johnson was interviewed by CrossPolitic, and you can find that discussion in our show archives at crosspolitic dot com or on our youtube page. Included in their breakout sessions were titles like What Queer Treasure will be in the New Jerusalem? This kicked up quite a dust storm, which resulted in Missouri Presbytery forming a study committee to investigate Pastor Greg Johnson and Memorial Pres.  This resulted in a presbytery committee that ultimately found that Greg Johnson and Memorial Pres did not commit any grave or serious errors at Revoice 2018 and nothing that took place there struck at the vitals of religion and it is too early to pass any judgment on whether the emphasis on the need for ‘gay spaces' is a grave or serious doctrinal error. The Missouri Presbytery also voted to commend the practice of same-sex back rubs but promised to revisit the issue next year.  Likewise, the scandal elicited a response from Mark Dalbey, President of Covenant Theological Seminary – the official seminary of the PCA, located in St. Louis in March of 2019. Dalbey responded to criticisms and questions about Revoice 2018 . While he affirmed biblical sexuality and clearly identified homosexual identity, lust, and activity as sinful, his strongest admonition was for those who have publicly accused Covenant Seminary of compromise. The video captures quite well why conservatives consistently lose ground in these discussions. President Dalbey's most vehement condemnation was for people who may have shared speculations about Covenant's involvement or influence on Revoice. He effectively called the public questions and concerns “abominations” and “perversions” and “vile affections” and called sodomy and sodomite lust merely “sin.” The clearest thing from the video is that God hates slander, hates gossip, and hates anyone who raises questions and concerns publicly that might be construed by anyone as slander or gossip. So shut up. There was not a word of rebuke for Greg Johnson or Memorial Pres or the Missouri Presbytery for causing the confusion.  Finally, remember that Greg Johnson “came out” as wishing he was a sodomite in Christianity today last year shortly before repeating the line on the floor of the PCA general assembly and receiving a round of applause. The assembly barely passed a resolution affirming the Nashville Statement (over Pastor Johnson's objections), but when another pastor read through the major Bible passages on homosexuality, his speech was objected to and a formal complaint was filed by a number of PCA delegates calling his speech intemperate. So notice that the great and heinous sin in the PCA is intemperate speech, asking questions, raising concerns publicly about public events. Sure homosex is technically a sin, but the real scandal is not churches hosting gay spaces and queer treasure inquiries. The real scandal is people being bothered by it and asking Covenant Seminary if they have anything to do with it.  Don't forget the political nature of all of this: Jesus said that His people are the light of the world and the salt of the earth. The reason President Trump would have no problem appointing a sodomite to his cabinet is because the largest conservative Reformed denomination in America cannot speak clearly on the matter. The only thing they can say clearly is that you should talk very softly and with a lisp and only raise questions privately and after an ever more private back rub, while remaining completely celibate. Don't worry no grave or serious doctrinal error will take place.   Ilhan Omar Wants Your Children https://parentalrights.org/convention-on-the-rights-back/?fbclid=IwAR3MqGCCktl2jUIu1SpahQkRfXlEsBWQOtNgfKUyLLmgIuOcI4ue06sr5Q8 From Parental Rights dot org we learn that In February, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) introduced a resolution, House Resolution 854, to call for the US Senate to ratify theUnited Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (the Convention, or CRC). In so doing, she once more opened the door—or at least knocked on it—for international law to override parental rights in our country. On November 20, 1989, the UN General Assembly approved the CRC and opened it for ratification. Within ten months, the requisite 20 nations had adopted the treaty, bringing it into force. Since then, every nation except the United States has ratified the CRC. The United States signed the treaty under President Bill Clinton in 1995, signaling our intention to become a party to it. But it has never been ratified with the constitutionally required consent of two-thirds of the Senate as our Constitution requires, so we remain the lone holdout. But there are three solid reasons to give the Convention a solid raspberry, beyond the fact that Rep. Omar is the one who has re-introduced it into congress.  The first reason is the content of the treaty itself. The worst part is a provision that states, “in all matters concerning children, the best interest of the child shall be the primary consideration.” But for the government to make “best interest of the child” its primary consideration, it must first decide—and get to decide—what the best interest of the child actually is. In our courts today, a judge or bureaucrat doesn't get to make that determination without first reaching a finding that the child's parents are unfit (abusive or negligent). Until then, American law presumes that “natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their child” (Parham v. J.R.(1979), emphasis added). So who decides what your child's “best interest” is? Well, at least for the time being, you do, not the government. The CRC would change that by removing this presumption that favors parents and jumping straight to the part where a judge or bureaucrat gets to decide. In every case. The treaty also claims to protect a child's “right to access information,” which could be used to override a parent's efforts to protect their child from pornography or other harmful web content; or a “right to access to medical care,” which can be used to cut parents out of their child's medical decisions, like pumping chemicals into their bodies, like puberty blockers or abortions. Another appalling part of the Treaty is the Committee on the Rights of the Child (the Committee), an oversight panel set up by the provisions of the treaty. Since beginning their work in 1990, the Committee has exercised unchecked authority in deciding what the treaty does or does not mean and what nations must do to be in compliance. For example, when the treaty first went into effect fewer than 10 nations worldwide had any kind of ban on corporal discipline (i.e. the biblical practice of spanking), and no nation expressed any concern that it violated the rights of children. But the Committee, of its own accord and with nothing in the Convention to support it, began telling nations that they were not in compliance because they had not outlawed corporal discipline of children in every setting, including the home. As a result, dozens of nations have since enacted such laws, believing it is their international treaty obligation to do so. And that brings us to the third and biggest reason this treaty is trouble: under Article VI of our own Constitution, a ratified treaty becomes “the supreme Law of the Land.” So ratification of this treaty, which for other nations is an aspirational statement at best (and for many, such as Iran, China, and North Korea, a mere political smokescreen), in America would have the effect of passing a massive new federal law on the family. Today, nearly all family law is at the state level. And these statutes, as bad as some of them are, are still bound by the Constitution and our courts to respect the role of parents as their child's first and best line of defense. Under the CRC, those laws would become the responsibility of the United States Congress, and respect for parents would be gone. Our system—the CRC system—would then depend on judges and bureaucrats to decide what is in a child's “best interests” as defined by Congress, and ultimately, as defined by the CRC. Ratifying the Convention would leave it to that elitist, foreign committee to decide when or if our treatment of children was acceptable under the CRC. Right, a committee in Switzerland is supposed to know what is best for your child.  Fortunately, there is no significant threat of the CRC being taken up by President Trump or sent to the Senate, and there is no significant threat of this Senate giving its two-thirds consent. But lawmakers like Rep. Omar are dedicated incrementalists and groomers. They know that the way to get this eventually passed is by bringing it up over and over and over again.  Of course Christians should oppose this kind of totalitarian nonsense with every fiber of their being. But they should also recognize that the government has already made a significant claim on your children by the very existence of the public school systems, especially the Department of Education in Washington D.C. Until that office is shut down, the Feds are already claiming an interest in parenting your children, and that is wicked and evil and tyrannical. But the same thing goes for the State as well. And as my colleague Gabe has pointed out numerous times, it's also a bit of Republican insanity that continues to fund public schools that disciple children to be hard lefty progressives. It would be like we had a Muslim invasion and the Muslims opened up free schools everywhere, and Christians just mindlessly send their kids to the Muslim schools and are confused by why their kids keep turning out at Muslims. The Republican Party needs to officially repudiate the socialism of public schools and begin working to defund and privatize them all. Until then, Republicans are all soft-socialists without cajones. At least Bernie is bold enough to admit it.   This is Toby Sumpter with Crosspolitic News. You can find this show and all the others on the Fight Laugh Feast Network at Crosspolitic.com or Fightlaughfeast.com or on our app, which you can download at your favorite app store, just search “Fight Laugh Feast”. Support Rowdy Christian media, and become a Fight Laugh Feast Club Member, and for a limited time you can get your very own Fight Laugh Feast t-shirt. You can't get these anywhere else except by becoming a member while supplies last. You are also getting access to tons of content, including most recently, 2.5 hours with David French at a BBQ joint in Nashville, over an hour with Economist Walter Williams in his living room in Philadelphia, a couple of hours with Black Guns Matter Maj Toure and Pastor-Rapper Curt Kennedy in a look bookshop in Fishtown, Philly, as well as Gary Demar's God and Government and No Limits Eschatology, and our very own Worldview Shotgun Series. You also get $100 off your registration for our first annual Fight Laugh Feast Conference, where we hope to meet many of you in Nashville, TN October 1st through the 3rd. Go to fightlaughfeast.com to register now. Have a great weekend. https://flfnetwork.com/coming-soon/

What is faith, and what is the relationship of faith and good works? Learn what "new" means in regards to obedience, whether good works are necessary for the Christian, and what we mean when we say that good works are "bound to happen". Also, hear about how true worship is a good work, why it's wrong to "rely on good works," and how you might tell the difference between relying on works and just doing them. Rev. Michael Schuermann, pastor of University Lutheran Church in Champaign, IL joins host Rev. Sean Smith to discuss the New Obedience in Article VI of the Augsburg Confession. Find your copy of The Augsburg Confession - Concordia Reader's Edition at cph.org or read online at bookofconcord.org/augsburg-confession.

We come to Article VI of the Augsburg Confession on Justification, the article by which the church stands or falls. Why is this article so critical? Also, learn the differences between the Lutheran and Roman Catholic concepts of "the grace of God" and the doctrine of justification, what we believe about justification and who does the work, and the implications of this article on justification for how we will read the rest of the Augsburg Confession. Rev. Charles Henrickson, pastor of St. Matthew Lutheran Church in Bonne Terre & Grace Lutheran Church in DeSoto, Missouri, joins host Rev. Sean Smith to discuss Article IV of the Augsburg Confession. Find your copy of The Augsburg Confession - Concordia Reader's Edition at cph.org or read online at bookofconcord.org/augsburg-confession.

Podcast Host John Ericson interviews Author Tony Williams on the role of religion in the Constitution. This episode focuses on Article VI, which prevents religious tests for holding public office, and the 1st Amendment, which guarantees that the federal government will not establish religion or interfere in the free exercise of religion. Williams expounds on the challenges that continue to test us and how Religious Freedom is still an evolving idea. What does the Constitution say about public religious displays? Prayer in public schools? What are the origins of the separation of Church and State? What other contentious issues do we continue to wrestle with in our time? Tony Williams is a Senior Fellow at the Bill of Rights Institute in Arlington, Virginia and the author of six books including Washington and Hamilton: The Alliance that Forged America, with co-author Stephen Knott, and Hamilton: An American Biography. Williams has degrees from Ohio State University and Syracuse University. Intro and outro created by Thomas Fosdick. Project supported by a grant from Virginia Humanities.

In this program, I will be reading, and commenting on, several articles that discuss the aftermath of the January 6 demonstration while inserting my comments. Among the articles, portions of which I will read, include: “FBI confirms there was no insurrection on Jan. 6” by Conn Carroll, Commentary Editor, which appeared in the Washington Examiner on August 20, 2021. “Exclusive: FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated – sources” By Mark Hosenball and Sarah N. Lynch, which appeared in Reuters.com on August 20, 2021. “'Horror story': Navy vet, never set foot in Capitol on Jan. 6, but held in solitary” Accused of leading 'military-style attack' despite no evidence by Art Moore, which was published on October 5, 2021, by World Net Daily.com. The disparity in viewpoints in these articles illustrates the difference in assessment they portray of the people who exercised their First Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly, and Freedom to Petition for a Redress of Grievances based on whether the article's author accepts the bogus narrative that the mostly peaceful demonstration at the US Capitol on January 6 was an insurrection. This emphasizes the importance of adhering to the Biblical admonition of Psalm 1:1 “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly This program continues to discuss the response to the events surrounding the mostly peaceful demonstration that occurred at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 in which citizens protested the fraudulent 2020 election because the treatment of these demonstrators vividly illustrates the destruction of our Constitutional Republic. Numerous citizens who exercised their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to petition for a redress of grievances because of the blatant fraud that occurred during the 2020 election have been vilified by the treasonous Bible-mocking media and by deceitful, self-serving politicians. Many of those who peacefully demonstrated on January 6 have been incarcerated and tortured without a trial, thus violating the Fifth Amendment (deprived of liberty without due process), Sixth Amendment (deprived of a right to a speedy trial), and Eighth Amendment (deprived of reasonable bail and subject to cruel and unusual punishment). As stated in Article VI of the US Constitution, the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, so the fact that various levels of government are blatantly violating the clearly stated rights codified in the Bill of Rights makes this exceptionally execrable. This outrageous criminal action by our government against law-abiding citizens is indicative of what the ruling class wants to do to any who question them or obstruct them in any way and is a message from our Deep State rulers to us to cower us into submission by giving us vivid examples of how cruel, sadistic, and criminal their behavior can be towards those who oppose them. As I said in a previous program, you are guaranteed to have friendly relations with liberals if you hand over your possessions, hand over your children, hand over your liberty, and keep your mouth shut. I intend to do none of these. The program title, Liberty and Posterity, comes from the US Constitution, the preamble of which states that one of the reasons for writing and ratifying the Constitution was to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” our posterity being our children and descendants not yet born. As a reminder, on the Liberty and Posterity program, we view all events and activities in relation to reality, truth, and Biblical morality. If you have a problem with that, the problem is on your end, not ours. James Madison, Fourth President of the United States and one of the authors of the US Constitution wrote: “The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded.” Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Psalm 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. John Dickinson, one of the founding fathers of the United States and the author of the first draft of the Articles of Confederation, the agreement under which the thirteen colonies coordinated their actions after the Declaration of Independence in 1776, wrote: “Honor, justice, and humanity, call upon us to hold, and to transmit to our posterity, that liberty which we received from our ancestors. It is not our duty to leave wealth to our children, but it is our duty to leave liberty to them.” Five people died during the January 6, 2021 demonstration at the US Capitol, but the only death by violence was that of Ashli Babbitt, callously shot by a Capitol Police Officer. Never forget Ashli Babbitt. My email address is freedom@libertyandposterity.com. © Copyright 2021 Liberty and Posterity

This program will continue to discuss the response to the events surrounding the mostly peaceful demonstration that occurred at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 in which citizens protested the fraudulent 2020 election. I am continuing to do this because the treatment of these demonstrators vividly illustrates the destruction of our Constitutional Republic. Numerous citizens who exercised their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to petition for a redress of grievances because of the blatant fraud that occurred during the 2020 election have been vilified by the treasonous Bible-mocking media and by deceitful, self-serving politicians. Many of those who peacefully demonstrated on January 6 have been incarcerated and tortured without a trial, thus violating the Fifth Amendment (deprived of liberty without due process), Sixth Amendment (deprived of a right to a speedy trial), and Eighth Amendment (deprived of reasonable bail and subject to cruel and unusual punishment). As stated in Article VI of the US Constitution, the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, so the fact that various levels of government are blatantly violating the clearly stated rights codified in the Bill of Rights makes this exceptionally execrable. This outrageous criminal action by our government against law-abiding citizens is indicative of what the ruling class wants to do to any who question them or obstruct them in any way and is a message from our Deep State rulers to us to cower us into submission by giving us vivid examples of how cruel, sadistic, and criminal their behavior can be towards those who oppose them. As I said in a previous program, you are guaranteed to have friendly relations with liberals if you hand over your possessions, hand over your children, hand over your liberty, and keep your mouth shut. I intend to do none of these. Specifically, in this program, I will be reading, and commenting on, the death of Steven Anderson of St Augustine, Florida, who was identified as one of eight people from North Florida involved in the January 6, 2021, protests at the US Capitol. He had been indicted in March on charges that included civil disorder and assaulting or resisting officers. Mr. Anderson claimed that he never assaulted anyone; that he collapsed after being sprayed and was assisted by Capitol Police officers. Prosecuting attorneys had suppressed the video that would have corroborated Mr. Anderson's account; by failing to provide exculpatory evidence to Mr. Anderson and his attorney, the prosecutors in Mr. Anderson's case appear to have violated the Brady Rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), which requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the government's possession to the defense. It seems obvious to me that the incarceration of those involved in the mostly peaceful demonstration at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 is meant to provide the rationale for the demonization and persecution of those who oppose the current regime in Washington, DC. Five people died during the January 6, 2021 demonstration at the US Capitol, but the only death by violence was that of Ashli Babbitt, callously shot by a Capitol Police Officer. Never forget Ashli Babbitt. My email address is freedom@libertyandposterity.com. © Copyright 2021 Liberty and Posterity

After 20 years of military operations in the Middle East, we are finally out. If Congress never declared war, how did we get there in the first place? What is an AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) and how did President George W. Bush use it to get us into the Middle East and at what cost? Why did we leave so much military equipment when we pulled out? So many questions.  Join Robert Owens to learn the answers and more in this episode of Constitution Corner. Resources: Read the latest articles about Afghanistan in The New American Issue, “Afghanistan: Planned Disaster?” Thousands of Afghans are flooding into the U.S.  Learn more about our Action Project, “Stop Mass Migration”.  Learn how to “Reign in Big Government with Article VI, Not V”.  Join us in Dallas for a two-day conference featuring speakers, workshops, great food and more. Get involved and Join The John Birch Society. 

Few know or care about Article VI of the Constitution. But any person of faith, whatever the belief, should know about the content of this very special constitutional provision and be prepared to both understand and defend it. Here the words: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” If you qualify and consequently are nominated to office, federal office of any kind, or federal public trust of any kind, you can be a person of any religious belief you wish without disqualification, or for that matter none at all. Religious belief can not be investigated, vetted, much less required and no test of any kind regarding that religious belief shall ever be given to any qualified candidate for office of the United States of America.  Rather plain, clear and direct words, are they not? But of course, this constitutional prohibition was completely ignored by Democrats, you know those progressive, ultra–liberal – radical individuals who now inhabit and control the democratic party, when Judges Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett were nominated by then President Trump for confirmation as Justices of the United States Supreme Court. The confirmation of those three Judges, all good, incredibly intelligent, well versed and experienced in the law and the Constitution would make the composition of the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) CATHOLIC, with seven out of nine Justices professing such faith. SEVEN OF NINE ROMAN CATHOLIC! Anti–religionists, and perhaps quite clearly anti–Roman Catholic Senators obviously disliked that fact fearful that the:          “Dogma runs deep” in the judicial veins of those Justices and that they would be tempted to vote Supreme Court decisions on the basis of their Catholic faith. That was anathema to Senator Schumer, Feinstein, themselves Jewish of some sort and with Justices Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Sotomayor already in place, three more Catholics on the Supreme Court comprising 80% of all Justices would simply be far too much. They therefore set about in confirmation hearings to expose their Catholicism, sincere as it was for these three, with the hope that there would be enough other Senators, themselves perhaps somewhat anti–Catholic or concerned with an overbalance, who would vote against confirmation. They cared nothing at all, these radical, liberal democratic Senators about the Constitution or the prohibitions against any such attempted qualification under the clear terms of Article VI. They wanted what they wanted and nothing, including and especially the Constitution in this case would get in the way. DOGMA RUN DEEP candidates would simply not be acceptable. By the way, in addition to the seven confirmed Roman Catholic Justices of the Supreme Court, the other two, Justices Kagan and Breyer are Jewish. Ironically, there are no Protestants, none at all even though Protestants are the largest religious grouping in the United States, all Christian people of faith included who are not Roman Catholic. I sometimes wonder whether Senators Schumer and Feinstein ever thought about that.  Regardless of their religious belief, these seven Catholic Justices have voted the law, interpreted correctly the Constitution in virtually every case and decided what is fair and right for America, Catholicism notwithstanding. They are honest, fair minded, hardworking, truly American, constitutionally caring interpreters of the law and we the people are fortunate to have them making ultimate and life–guiding and changing decisions. Biden and company now study the possibility of:          PACKING THE SUPREME COURT. That is, adding Justices as many as six, or four, or at least two, each of whom of course would be liberal if not radical with respect to the Constitution in order to make certain that they, the progressives – socialists – Marxists get the decisions they want. Virtually every one of the nine Justices has publicly stated what a horrible decision that would be, turning the court political, biased, and in many ways unconstitutional in decision making, all of which would utterly destroy any confidence which WE THE PEOPLE might have in this once great court of ultimate justice. Seven Roman Catholics and two Jews making ultimate decisions for Americans is simply repugnant to Biden and the radical Democratic party he comes from, and supports, and which supports him. If that packing happens in any form, what a tragic day it would be for we the people and for the America we love. Democrats have absolutely no regard for Article VI and the prohibition against inquiry into a nominee's religious views. Politically for them, it is a day and age of:          ANYTHING GOES! Interestingly, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, herself Roman Catholic, may be the most liberal – radical – organic constitutionalist of any of the nine Justices. She professes a strong Roman Catholic faith on the one hand, and is often on the side of radical decision making some of which may be viewed as contrary to the teachings and principles of the Catholic church. And the same with Chief Justice John Roberts, himself Catholic, and nominated as a supposed conservative regardless of his Catholic beliefs. The Chief Justice has voted in irregular patterns with decision making sometimes contrary to Catholic principles or perhaps his own personal beliefs. And, although their time as Supreme Court Justices has been limited, there is really no clear and certain voting patterns and habits which have been displayed by the new Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. It seems that for some of these Justices, it is one thing to be Catholic and practice the faith in THE PERSONAL LIFE, but quite another thing to go up against Catholicism, the Catholic church and its teachings when it comes to judicial decision making. Many regard that as a supreme case of hypocrisy. Such however is life in America today, politically, judicially and spiritually. Take the most debated Supreme Court decision of all time:          ROE V. WADE,  which legalized abortion on a five – four Supreme Court vote. Five people authorized the killing, the murdering of now approaching 70 million known babies – human beings through the process of abortion. Now comes one case before the Supreme Court this next term, and perhaps even more which will put the issue of abortion and the decision making of Roe before the Supreme Court for elimination or modification. It will be fascinating to see the end results, the votes, especially the votes of those who are Catholic as this matter is decided. There is little doubt that Justices Thomas and Alito will vote against Roe. It cannot be predicted how Chief Justice Robert will vote, and of course, this will be the first opportunity for Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett to evaluate and decide. Many legal scholars think that Roe v. Wade was a clear unconstitutional decision, with no foundation in the Constitution for the so called RIGHT OF ABORTION. These constitutional scholars indicate that the issue of abortion should properly remain with the states and the people, and fall under the terms and conditions of Amendments IX and X which prohibit the Congress or the courts of the United States to expand and add to the Constitution where the power to do so or the ultimate objectives have not been SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED by the Constitution itself. If in fact Roe is overturned or seriously constitutionally modified, the unrest, resistance and protest in America from liberal – radicals will be fearful indeed, no matter how constitutional such a decision might be. Watch carefully, my fellow Americans, what your – our Supreme Court decides in this critical next term. In Article VI of the Constitution, the so called religious test clause and section, the content again deals with the matter of oath upon taking office and the prohibition against religious test clause. At the original constitutional convention, proponents of the OATH CLAUSE wanted public servants to be:          SINCERE FRIENDS TO RELIGION. That so called NOD TO GOD was watered down when oath could be replaced upon confirmation by affirmation. The framers in the First Amendment to the Constitution made FREEDOM OF RELIGION the very first freedom and for so many of those constitutional founders, the most important freedom of all. They knew what would happen in America should the religious wars of Europe occur once again in America. They knew that they must prevent the Congress from establishing any kind of religion, direct or indirect, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof in order to avoid European religious wars. Be a friend, and stay away from establishing or preventing anything RELIGION, direct or indirect. Let it be and let it happen. That was then, and this is now, something entirely different and religion, in so many ways direct and indirect, is on the judicial table and there will be numerous attempts to circumscribe, modify or even eliminate religion, and especially Christianity and perhaps even more especially Roman Catholic Christianity from the public square. The friends of religion in 1776 have turned to the enemies of religion in 2021.  Now it is claimed by Democrats, all of them including the socialist – Marxist side of the Democrat party that Democratic President Joe Biden is a:          DEVOUT CATHOLIC. If that is true, then Biden is perhaps one of the biggest hypocrites in America, professing to believe in and espouse the doctrine, principles and morals of the Catholic church on the one hand personally but working as aggressively and perhaps more so than any President of the United States against those principles in so many ways. Biden and his Administration champion abortion, the expansion of abortion rights and even the codification of Roe, that is turning the decision making of Roe into legislation, aggressively fostering the gay agenda, a proponent of euthanasia, forcing all, including and especially The Little Sisters of the Poor in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to offer abortion and contraceptive coverage in health insurance among any other and many other attempts at legislation or executive orders which fly in the face of Roman Catholic teachings. One Catholic Bishop rightly said that President Joe Biden is a political embarrassment to the Roman Catholic church, an understatement if there ever was one.  Catholic commentator and writer Mary Margaret Olohan writes that what she calls the “fake news media – both secular and Catholic” are going to such great lengths to portray Joe Biden as a “devout Catholic.” Ms. Olohan says that the strategy behind this public posturing by liberal – radical Democrats has one ultimate purpose in mind:          “To make Catholicism indistinguishable from liberal ideology.”  As such, nothing would be a better way to eviscerate Catholicism, water it down and change traditional thinking, principles, and even moral values as liberal – Democrats would want. They want the liberal, often hypocritical Joe Biden to be “the face of what it means to be a Catholic in good standing.” But the orthodox, the traditional, the real Roman Catholics top to bottom will have no part of that, none whatsoever. They know the hypocrisy; they chafe at the tolerance of anything or anyone liberal – radical in the Catholic church – faith who tolerates this and they now begin to take a stand as all men and women of spiritual goodwill should. Our society is deeply secular if not antireligious – Christianity – Catholicism and that cultural – spiritual warfare should be recognized and all good Christians should now be ready and actually involved in:          THE FIGHT OF FAITH. You should know well the contents of Article VI of the Constitution, my fellow Americans. And you should know by heart, by memory all of those very precious terms and conditions, the freedoms and rights granted by the First Amendment to the Constitution. They are the most fundamental, the most necessary, the most indispensable rights and freedoms of a free people. If we wish to stay free, if we wish American democracy to survive, nothing can water down, change much less eliminate the precious protections of Article VI and Amendment I of the finest document ever written, the Constitution of the United States. The war for freedom is on, my fellow Americans. You are in that war, that cancel culture and religion war whether you like it or not. It is time for you to take a stand like we do and with all your might:          FIGHT THE FIGHT OF FAITH.

A reading of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Article VI.If you find this helpful, buy me a coffee:https://ko-fi.com/whatfreshl

What did we learn about religious freedom from the Amy Coney Barrett hearings? To kick off season two of Respecting Religion, Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman put the Senate's confirmation hearings for Justice Amy Coney Barrett into context, spotlighting the religious freedom issues raised – or politicized – during the event. And, after so much talk about the Constitution's prohibition on a religious test for office, they ask an important question: Who was imposing a religious test during the hearings? Plus, in segment three, they look at how religion is showing up in our world today, including in a controversy with one of the Hollywood stars named “Chris” and a recent statement by Pope Francis about civil unions. Segment one: Barrett and Ginsburg, Cruz and Cornyn (starts at 1:09) Amanda mentioned two pieces BJC wrote about the impact and legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: RBG: Defender of equality, principled dissenter, faithful supporter of religious liberty by Holly Hollman, published by Baptist News Global Ruth Bader Ginsburg's legacy in upholding a key religious freedom law by Holly Hollman and Amanda Tyler,  published by The Christian Citizen Click here to read BJC's review of Judge Amy Coney Barrett's church-state record, which was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee before the hearings began. It includes questions BJC suggested that senators ask of her. For clips of discussions of religious liberty during the two days of hearings that involved questions, check out these two articles by Don Byrd on the “Latest News” section of our website: In Day 2 of Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing, some religious liberty discussions, though little depth or insight Religious Liberty discussions on day 3 of Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing   Segment two: What did Judge Barrett say about religious freedom during her hearings? (17:43) Read the most recent State of the First Amendment Survey at this link, published by the Freedom Forum Institute. It says only 4% of respondents can name “petition” as one of the five rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.  Holly mentioned the travel ban issued by President Trump in his first week in office. Read more about that case, which eventually was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court as Trump v. Hawaii: BJConline.org/travelban Holly mentioned the upcoming Fulton v. Philadelphia case, which focuses on nondiscrimination in government-funded foster care. Learn more at BJConline.org/Fulton Holly recently presented during a webinar on the future of the Establishment Clause, hosted by the American Bar Association (ABA). You can watch it at this link. The ABA also did a seminar on the Free Exercise Clause, which is available at this link. Amanda wrote a commentary about Article VI and the “no religious test” principle before the confirmation hearings began. You can read it at this link, published by Good Faith Media:  This article from The Washington Post that includes the number of times “religion” was mentioned: Democrats' non-persecution of Amy Coney Barrett.    Segment three: Where did we see religion in our world? Recent discussions on religion and LGBTQ rights in our culture (38:40) Holly mentioned the story surrounding Chris Pratt and his church's stance on same-sex marriage. Here's an article from The Washington Post: The latest celebrity cause: Defending the honor of Chris Pratt. Read more on BJC's website about the recent statement from Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito about the Court reconsidering the Obergefell case in 2015 that upheld same-sex marriage. Statement from Justices Thomas and Alito on religious liberty and same-sex marriage makes tensions worse Amanda mentioned this New York Times article about Pope Francis and his recent support of civil unions: In Shift for Church, Pope Francis Voices Support for Same-Sex Civil Unions

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution requires Senators and Representatives, members of state legislatures, and all state and federal executive and judicial officers to swear or affirm fidelity to the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream Speech," and the Supreme Court's litigation over the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act each highlight a fundamental question related to that oath: "What does it mean to be faithful to the Constitution?"

Returning guest, now Representative from South Carolina, Stewart Jones, joins the podcast to tell us about his op-ed in The Hill and his letter to Trump condemning Red Flag Laws that he had signed by 40+ colleagues. Read the letter >>> bit.ly/dear_trump and the Op-ed >>> bit.ly/noredflag_thehill Follow Stewart of Twitter @Jones4Liberty and Check out his website >>> votestew.com Episodes mentioned: Kavanaugh/NDAA/Stewart Jones >>> bit.ly/tr_25 Constitution & other text mentions: Article VI. "his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof... shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." Read here >>> bit.ly/tr_constitution Papers of James Madison."In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights." Read here >>> bit.ly/jm_property Links mentioned: The Original Rebellion T-Shirt >>> bit.ly/original_tee

The separation of church and state is one of the fundamental principles of American democracy; Article VI of the Constitution states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Yet there have been plenty of people who've tried to erode that boundary, or at the very least work around it. In the March 2003 issue of Harper's Magazine, Jeff Sharlet published a story that revealed (some of) the inner workings of one religious organization that has been at the task for decades: the Family. Since 1953, the Family has organized the National Prayer Breakfast—a seemingly innocuous nonpartisan event. Yet this annual celebration has allowed leaders from around the world—including dictators, warlords, foreign agents, and legitimate clergy—to covertly access the halls of power and exert influence. Espousing the ambiguous philosophy of “Jesus plus nothing,” the Family's willingness to work with powerful but diabolical leaders arises from their interpretation of predestination—if you're in power, it's because God said so, and isn't it better to have the wolf king on your side? Jeff Sharlet's reporting on the Family has led to several more articles and two books: The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power and C Street: The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy. Netflix and Sharlet recently adapted this reporting into a five-part documentary. Web editor Violet Lucca spoke with Sharlet and director Jesse Moss about adapting this wealth of material into a documentary, the difficulties of getting straight answers out of deeply secretive Family members, and the organization's ascendant power. Read Sharlet's “Jesus Plus Nothing”: https://harpers.org/archive/2003/03/jesus-plus-nothing/ This episode was produced by Violet Lucca and Andrew Blevins.