Podcasts about John Marshall

On this episode, Cody and Steve discuss the founder to whom all other Chief Justices are measured, John Marshall.Sources· Currie, David. The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The First Hundred Years, 1789-1888. Chicago, IL: U. of Chicago Press, 1992.· Hobson, Charles F. The Great Chief Justice: John Marshall and the Rule of Law. Abilene, KS: U. Press of Kansas, 1996.· Newmyer, R. Kent. John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State U. Press, 2001.· Stites, Francis N. John Marshall: Defender of the Constitution. Boston, MA: Little & Brown, 1981.· See General Sources page on the website to see the complete list of general sources Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This Day in Legal History: Marbury v. MadisonOn February 24, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison, a case that permanently reshaped American constitutional law. The dispute arose after President John Adams appointed several “midnight judges” in the final hours of his administration. One of those appointees, William Marbury, never received his commission because it was not delivered before Thomas Jefferson took office. Jefferson instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the commission, prompting Marbury to seek relief directly from the Supreme Court.Presiding over the case was Chief Justice John Marshall, whose involvement added a striking layer of irony. Before becoming Chief Justice, Marshall had served as Secretary of State under Adams and had been responsible for sealing the very commissions at issue. In other words, Marshall was now reviewing the legal consequences of actions taken by his former office. Rather than recuse himself, he authored the opinion that would define the Court's authority.Marshall concluded that Marbury had a legal right to his commission but held that the statute granting the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus conflicted with Article III of the Constitution. Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, Marshall reasoned, any conflicting statute must be void. In declaring part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, the Court asserted the power of judicial review for the first time.The decision simultaneously denied Marbury his remedy while expanding the Court's institutional authority. It avoided a direct political confrontation with Jefferson while firmly establishing the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government. What began as a minor political dispute over an undelivered commission became the foundation for the Supreme Court's power to strike down unconstitutional laws.A federal judge has permanently blocked the Justice Department from releasing a prosecutor's report concerning the classified documents case against President Donald Trump. The ruling was issued by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who concluded that making the report public would amount to a “manifest injustice” because the case never went to trial. She reasoned that publishing detailed allegations of criminal conduct without a jury verdict would undermine basic fairness principles.The case had been brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith and accused Trump of unlawfully retaining sensitive national defense materials at his Mar-a-Lago property and obstructing government efforts to recover them. Trump and his co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, pleaded not guilty and described the prosecution as politically motivated. In 2024, Cannon dismissed the charges, finding that Smith had not been lawfully appointed.After Trump returned to office, the Justice Department supported efforts to keep the report confidential. Although special counsels are typically required to submit reports explaining their charging decisions, Cannon held that releasing this one would conflict with her earlier rulings, including her determination that Smith's appointment was invalid. She also cited concerns about exposing grand jury material.The decision prevents public disclosure of substantial details about one of the four criminal cases Trump faced after leaving office. It follows the Supreme Court's recent decision limiting Trump's tariff authority and marks another significant legal development in the ongoing disputes surrounding his post-presidency investigations.US judge permanently blocks release of report on Trump documents case | ReutersThe chief judges of two major federal appeals courts have announced plans to step back from active service later this year, creating new vacancies for President Donald Trump to fill. Debra Ann Livingston of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Jeffrey Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit both notified the president that they intend to take senior status. Livingston plans to assume senior status on July 1, while Sutton will do so on October 1.Their decisions come ahead of the November midterm elections, when control of the U.S. Senate could shift, potentially complicating confirmation of successors. Because judicial vacancies have been relatively scarce during Trump's second term, the openings present an opportunity to expand his appellate appointments. During his first term, Trump appointed 54 appellate judges, significantly influencing the judiciary's ideological direction.Both judges were originally appointed by President George W. Bush. Livingston, who has served on the Second Circuit since 2007 and became chief judge in 2020, has at times issued notable dissents, including in cases involving LGBTQ workplace protections and congressional subpoenas tied to Trump's business records. Sutton, on the Sixth Circuit since 2003 and chief judge since 2021, has been an influential conservative jurist. He authored a 2014 opinion upholding same-sex marriage bans that the Supreme Court later overturned in Obergefell v. Hodges.Senior status allows eligible judges to continue hearing cases on a reduced basis while enabling the president to nominate full-time replacements. Their departures will hand Trump two high-profile appellate vacancies at a time when few others are available.Two chief US appellate judges to leave active service, handing Trump vacancies | ReutersIn my weekly column for Bloomberg Tax, I examine the Trump administration's proposed 0.125% “land port maintenance tax” and question whether it is truly infrastructure policy or contingency planning after the Supreme Court curtailed its tariff authority. The proposal is framed as a parity measure to mirror the Harbor Maintenance Fee, but I argue the timing is hard to ignore. Just this week, the Court in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, reaffirming that Congress controls taxing power absent clear delegation. In my view, that ruling narrows executive trade authority and invites efforts to find alternative mechanisms embedded elsewhere in the customs code.I suggest the land port tax looks like one such alternative. Although labeled a “maintenance” fee, it would be imposed at the border and function economically like a tariff, with costs passed to US importers and consumers. Because most land-based trade flows through Canada and Mexico, I note that the charge would operate in practice as a North American supply chain tax. Calling it infrastructure policy does not change its price effects.I also argue that the Harbor Maintenance Fee analogy falls apart on inspection. Whatever its flaws, the HMF at least carries a user-fee logic tied to dredging and port upkeep. By contrast, the new proposal appears loosely connected to land-border infrastructure and bundled within a broader maritime industrial policy agenda. If shipbuilding is a national security priority, I contend Congress should fund it transparently through the Defense Department and regular appropriations. If the HMF distorts shipping routes, it should be reformed directly rather than replicated inland.Ultimately, I maintain that after Learning Resources, any border charge that operates like a tariff will face legal skepticism. If policymakers intend to subsidize maritime industry, they should say so clearly, define measurable goals, and subject the costs to democratic accountability. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This is Part Two of our conversation.Since opening in 1932 as Paintsville's first “talkie,” the historic SIPP Theatre in Paintsville, Kentucky, has been a centerpiece of the community — hosting films, live performances, and gatherings for generations. With nearly a century of history inside its walls, it's also become a location where some believe unexplained activity may still be taking place.John Marshall of Ghost Hunter Guys joins us to discuss reported paranormal experiences inside the SIPP Theatre, including organized ghost hunts, unexplained sounds, and moments investigators haven't been able to easily explain. As we explore the theatre's history and the activity reported there, we also discuss the Stafford House and the personal experiences that first drew John into the paranormal — experiences that continue to shape how he approaches investigations today.On this episode of The Grave Talks, we examine the mystery surrounding the SIPP Theatre and the stories that keep people searching for answers.#TheGraveTalks #SIPPTheatre #PaintsvilleKY #KentuckyHauntings #HauntedTheatre #GhostHunterGuys #ParanormalInvestigation #GhostHunts #ParanormalInvestigations #ParanormalInvestigator #SmallTownHauntings #JohnMarshallLove real ghost stories? Want even more?Become a supporter and unlock exclusive extras, ad-free episodes, and advanced access:

This Day in Legal History: Aaron Burr Arrested (But Not For That)On February 18, 1807, former Vice President Aaron Burr was arrested in the Mississippi Territory on charges of treason against the United States. Once one of the most powerful men in the young republic, Burr had fallen from political grace after killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel and drifting to the margins of national life. Federal authorities accused him of plotting to carve out an independent nation in the western territories, possibly including lands belonging to Spain. The allegations sparked fear that the fragile Union could splinter only decades after independence.Later that year, Burr stood trial in Richmond, Virginia, before Chief Justice John Marshall, who was riding circuit. The case quickly became a constitutional showdown between executive power and judicial restraint. President Thomas Jefferson strongly supported the prosecution, but Marshall insisted that the Constitution's Treason Clause be applied strictly. The Constitution requires proof of an “overt act” of levying war against the United States, not merely evidence of intent or conspiracy.Marshall ruled that prosecutors had failed to present sufficient proof that Burr had committed such an overt act. As a result, the jury acquitted him. The decision established an enduring precedent that treason must be narrowly defined and carefully proven. By demanding clear evidence of action rather than suspicion or political hostility, the court reinforced limits on the government's power to punish alleged disloyalty. Burr's trial remains one of the earliest and most significant tests of constitutional safeguards in American legal history.Bayer AG and its Monsanto subsidiary have proposed a $7.25 billion nationwide class settlement to resolve current and future claims that Roundup exposure caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Filed in Missouri state court, the agreement would run for up to 21 years and provide capped, declining annual payments. People diagnosed before or within 16 years after final court approval could seek compensation through the program. The settlement must still receive judicial approval.The proposal is part of a broader strategy tied to the U.S. Supreme Court's pending review of Durnell v. Monsanto, which could determine whether federal pesticide labeling law blocks certain state failure-to-warn claims. Bayer has indicated that a favorable ruling could significantly limit future lawsuits, while the class program is designed to address claims regardless of the Court's decision. Plaintiffs' attorneys say the deal would cover both occupational and residential exposure and protect the rights of future claimants, while allowing individuals to opt out and pursue separate suits.Roundup litigation has generated tens of thousands of cases, with more than 40,000 already pending or subject to tolling agreements. Bayer inherited the legal challenges after acquiring Monsanto in 2018, and the ongoing litigation has weighed heavily on the company financially and reputationally. Previous jury verdicts have resulted in multibillion-dollar awards, some later reduced on appeal or by judges. The new proposal would replace an earlier settlement effort that collapsed in 2020 and aims to create a longer-term, more predictable compensation system.Bayer AG Unveils $7.3B Deal For Roundup Users - Law360Bayer proposes $7.25 billion plan to settle Roundup cancer cases | ReutersA Seattle federal jury found inventor Leigh Rothschild, several of his patent-holding companies, and his former attorney liable for violating Washington's anti-patent trolling law after asserting patent infringement claims against Valve Corp. Jurors concluded the defendants acted in bad faith under the Washington Patent Troll Prevention Act and also violated the state's consumer protection statute. Valve was awarded $22,092 in statutory damages.The jury also determined that Rothschild and his companies breached a 2016 global settlement and licensing agreement with Valve. Under that agreement, Valve paid $130,000 for rights to certain patents in exchange for a promise not to sue over them. Despite that covenant, Rothschild's entities later filed a 2022 infringement lawsuit and sent a 2023 letter threatening additional litigation. The jury awarded Valve $130,000 for the first breach and $1 for the second, finding no valid justification for repudiating the agreement.In addition, jurors ruled that one asserted patent claim was invalid because it would have been obvious to a skilled professional at the time of filing. The dispute stemmed from Valve's 2023 lawsuit accusing Rothschild of repeatedly pursuing claims covered by the prior settlement. The defense argued any mistakes were unintentional and not profit-driven, but the jury sided with Valve after a four-day trial.The case also involved procedural controversies, including sanctions over delayed financial disclosures and allegations that a defense filing contained fabricated quotations and citations generated by artificial intelligence. Post-trial motions are expected as the defense challenges aspects of the verdict.Valve Jury Says Rothschild, Atty Broke Anti-Patent Troll Law - Law360Beginning July 1, 2026, new federal limits will cap loans for professional degree students at $50,000 per year and $200,000 total, significantly changing how aspiring lawyers finance law school. Administrators and financial aid experts warn that the cap may push students to rely on private loans, which often carry higher interest rates and fewer protections. Unlike federal loans, private loans are generally not eligible for Public Service Loan Forgiveness, making them riskier for students planning lower-paying public interest careers.Some admitted students are already reconsidering their options, choosing less expensive schools or withdrawing altogether after calculating potential debt burdens. Law schools may need to increase scholarships or other aid to support students who cannot secure private loans. Private lending has been minimal in legal education since 2006, when federal policy allowed graduate students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance, so there is uncertainty about how lenders will respond to renewed demand.Data show that about one-quarter of ABA-accredited law schools currently have average annual federal borrowing above the new $50,000 cap. At some elite institutions, graduates tend to earn high salaries, which may reassure private lenders. However, other schools with high borrowing levels report much lower median earnings, raising concerns about repayment risks. Experts warn that students at lower-ranked schools or from disadvantaged backgrounds could be hit hardest.In response, some schools are creating new financial strategies. The University of Kansas School of Law has launched an in-house loan program with a fixed 5% interest rate for borrowing above the cap. Santa Clara University School of Law is offering guaranteed scholarships to reduce tuition below the federal limit, and applications there have surged. Overall, the loan cap introduces financial uncertainty that could reshape enrollment decisions, access to legal education, and the long-term cost of becoming a lawyer.US law schools, students fear rising costs from new federal loan cap | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has introduced new software designed to help identify potential conflicts of interest involving the justices. The tool will compare information about parties and attorneys in pending cases with financial and other disclosures maintained by each justice's chambers. These automated checks are intended to supplement, not replace, the justices' existing internal review process when deciding whether to step aside from a case.Under current practice, each of the nine justices independently determines whether recusal is necessary. The move comes after the Court adopted its first formal code of conduct in 2023, which states that a justice should withdraw when their impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Critics have pointed out that the code lacks an enforcement mechanism and leaves recusal decisions solely in the hands of the justices themselves.To support the new system, the Court is also strengthening filing requirements. Parties will need to provide more detailed disclosures, including fuller lists of involved entities and relevant stock ticker symbols. These updated requirements will take effect on March 16. Advocacy groups welcomed the technological upgrade as a step toward better ethics oversight, noting that similar conflict-checking systems have long been standard in lower federal courts.US Supreme Court adopts new technology to help identify conflicts of interest | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Since opening in 1932 as Paintsville's first “talkie,” the historic SIPP Theatre in Paintsville, Kentucky, has been a centerpiece of the community — hosting films, live performances, and gatherings for generations. With nearly a century of history inside its walls, it's also become a location where some believe unexplained activity may still be taking place.John Marshall of Ghost Hunter Guys joins us to discuss reported paranormal experiences inside the SIPP Theatre, including organized ghost hunts, unexplained sounds, and moments investigators haven't been able to easily explain. As we explore the theatre's history and the activity reported there, we also discuss the Stafford House and the personal experiences that first drew John into the paranormal — experiences that continue to shape how he approaches investigations today.On this episode of The Grave Talks, we examine the mystery surrounding the SIPP Theatre and the stories that keep people searching for answers.#TheGraveTalks #SIPPTheatre #PaintsvilleKY #KentuckyHauntings #HauntedTheatre #GhostHunterGuys #ParanormalInvestigation #GhostHunts #ParanormalInvestigations #ParanormalInvestigator #SmallTownHauntings #JohnMarshallLove real ghost stories? Want even more?Become a supporter and unlock exclusive extras, ad-free episodes, and advanced access:

Tenure of Office: January 1, 1819 - August 31, 1823 Explore the life of Smith Thompson, a transitional figure in American political history who served as Secretary of the Navy under U.S. President James Monroe before ascending to the Supreme Court. This episode analyzes his leadership style, contrasting his role as a trusted lieutenant focused on political patronage with his independence as a jurist who often challenged Chief Justice John Marshall. Discover how Thompson's principled dissents and persistent political ambitions shaped the evolving legal landscape of the Early Republic. Sources used for this episode can be found at https://www.presidenciespodcast.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 1922, archeologist Howard Carter stunned the world by discovering King Tut's tomb in Egypt. Two years later, his contemporary John Marshall published the results of his excavations of the Indus Valley.  Marshall's findings reconstructed the timeline of urban civilization in South Asia, revealing cities with overlapping, sophisticated planning and sanitation systems. Although it lacked golden artifacts, the discovery demonstrated that ancient South Asia was as advanced and complex as Egypt. Learn more about the rise and fall of the Indus Valley civilizations on Everything, Everywhere, Daily. Sponsors Quince Go to quince.com/daily for 365-day returns, plus free shipping on your order! Mint Mobile Get your 3-month Unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com/eed Subscribe to the podcast!  https://everything-everywhere.com/everything-everywhere-daily-podcast/ -------------------------------- Executive Producer: Charles Daniel Associate Producers: Austin Oetken & Cameron Kieffer   Become a supporter on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/everythingeverywhere Discord Server: https://discord.gg/UkRUJFh Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/everythingeverywhere/ Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/everythingeverywheredaily Twitter: https://twitter.com/everywheretrip Website: https://everything-everywhere.com/  Disce aliquid novi cotidie Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Marbury v. MadisonOn January 20, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison, a case that began as a minor dispute over an undelivered judicial commission and ended by redefining American constitutional law. The story traces back to the final days of the Adams administration, when outgoing President John Adams rushed to appoint Federalist judges before Thomas Jefferson took office. John Marshall, then serving simultaneously as Secretary of State and incoming Chief Justice, sealed the commissions but failed to deliver several of them. One of the would-be judges, William Marbury, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to force Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, to hand over the commission.The case placed Marshall in a precarious position, as he was being asked to rule on a problem he had helped create. Marshall first held that Marbury had a legal right to his commission and that the law ordinarily provided a remedy when such rights were violated. He then turned to the Judiciary Act of 1789, which appeared to grant the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. Marshall concluded that this provision conflicted with Article III of the Constitution, which strictly limits the Court's original jurisdiction. Rather than ordering Madison to act, Marshall declared that the statute itself was unconstitutional.By denying Marbury his commission while simultaneously asserting the power to strike down an act of Congress, Marshall executed a strategic legal maneuver that avoided a direct confrontation with the executive branch. The Court emerged stronger despite losing the immediate case. In explaining why the Constitution must prevail over conflicting statutes, Marshall articulated the principle of judicial review. That reasoning transformed the Supreme Court from a relatively weak institution into the ultimate interpreter of constitutional meaning.The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to a Hawaii law that restricts carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the owner's explicit permission. The case was brought by three licensed concealed-carry holders and a local gun rights group after Hawaii enacted the law in 2023. Under the statute, individuals must have clear verbal or written authorization, including posted signage, before bringing a handgun onto most business premises. A lower federal court initially blocked the law, but the Ninth Circuit later ruled that the measure likely complies with the Second Amendment.Hawaii has argued that the law appropriately balances gun rights with property owners' authority to control access to their premises. The challengers contend that the rule effectively prevents lawful gun owners from engaging in everyday activities such as shopping, dining, or buying gas. The challengers are supported by the Trump administration, which claims the law severely burdens the practical exercise of Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court declined to review other portions of the law involving bans in sensitive places like beaches and bars.The dispute unfolds against the backdrop of the Court's recent expansion of gun rights, particularly its 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which recognized a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense. That decision also reshaped how courts evaluate gun regulations by focusing on historical analogues rather than modern policy goals.US Supreme Court to hear challenge to Hawaii handgun limits | ReutersA federal judge has allowed Dominion Energy to resume construction on its $11.2 billion offshore wind project off the coast of Virginia, marking another courtroom loss for President Donald Trump's efforts to curb offshore wind development. Judge Jamar Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Dominion could restart work while it continues to challenge a stop-work order issued by the Interior Department. That order had halted several offshore wind projects based on newly cited, classified national security concerns related to radar interference.Walker found that the government's suspension was overly sweeping as applied to Dominion's project and emphasized that the cited security risks related to turbine operations, not ongoing construction. Earlier in the week, other offshore wind developers had secured similar rulings, allowing their projects to move forward despite the administration's objections. Dominion has already invested close to $9 billion in the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project, which is expected to supply electricity to hundreds of thousands of homes. The company said it would focus on safely resuming construction while continuing to pursue a long-term resolution with federal regulators.The decision underscores the legal and financial stakes for the offshore wind industry, as project delays can threaten multi-billion-dollar investments. At the same time, lawsuits challenging federal actions and the administration's opposition to offshore wind continue to create uncertainty for the sector. Several states, particularly along the East Coast, view offshore wind as critical to meeting growing energy demand and reducing emissions as electricity use increases.US judge allows Dominion offshore wind project to restart, another legal setback for Trump | ReutersFlorida has joined Texas in scaling back the American Bar Association's role in determining which law school graduates may sit for the state bar exam. In a 5–1 decision, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled that the ABA will no longer serve as the sole accrediting body for Florida bar eligibility, though graduates of ABA-accredited schools will remain eligible. The court said it plans to allow graduates of law schools approved by other federally recognized accrediting agencies to take the bar, even though no such agencies currently specialize in law school accreditation.The court framed its decision as an effort to expand access to affordable legal education while protecting academic freedom and nondiscrimination. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis praised the move, criticizing the ABA as overly partisan and arguing it should not control entry into the legal profession. The ABA responded that the ruling reaffirms state authority over licensing and said it would continue to promote the value of national accreditation standards.Florida's decision follows a similar move by the Supreme Court of Texas, which recently announced plans to develop its own criteria for approving non-ABA law schools. Other states, including Ohio and Tennessee, are also reviewing their accreditation rules. These developments come amid escalating conflict between the ABA and President Donald Trump's administration, which has taken steps to reduce the organization's influence across multiple areas, including judicial nominations and legal education.Within the ABA, the controversy has prompted internal reforms aimed at reinforcing the independence of its law school accreditation arm. One Florida justice dissented, warning that abandoning exclusive reliance on the ABA was an unnecessary and risky departure from a system that had functioned well for decades.Florida joins Texas in limiting ABA's law school oversight role | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I argue that the Internal Revenue Service's partnership audit program has effectively been dismantled under the second Trump administration, with specialized auditors fired, pushed out, or leaving altogether. These weren't ordinary revenue agents but highly trained experts who understood the most complex partnership structures and could spot abuse hidden deep inside tiered entities. Once that kind of institutional knowledge walks out the door, it can't simply be rebuilt by restoring funding later. There is no meaningful private-sector substitute for this expertise, and when these specialists leave government, they often stop doing enforcement work entirely.I explain that this collapse isn't just a federal tax problem—it's a looming state budget issue. High-income states that rely heavily on progressive income taxes are especially vulnerable when wealthy taxpayers shift income through opaque pass-through structures. For decades, states have relied on federal audits and enforcement as a backstop, but that dependency has now become a serious liability. I suggest that states step into the vacuum by hiring former IRS partnership specialists and building dedicated partnership audit units within their own revenue departments.With relatively modest investment, states could recover revenue that would otherwise vanish into complex and lightly monitored structures. I also propose a multistate enforcement compact that would allow states to share audit resources, staff, and findings, creating a decentralized alternative to federal enforcement. The core message is that while federal capacity has been allowed to wither, the expertise still exists—and states may be the last institutions capable of preserving it.IRS Partnership Audit Brain Drain Is an Opportunity for States This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Fr. John Marshall joins The Morning Blend to talk about the Baptism of the Lord.Subscribe to the Morning Blend on your favorite podcast platform.Find this show on the free Hail Mary Media App, along with a radio live-stream, prayers, news, and more.Look through past episodes or support this podcast.The Morning Blend is a production of Mater Dei Radio in Portland, Oregon.

"Mighty John" Marshall of moneymusic.com vinyl record appraisals tells Jack and his listeners what their vinyl is worth. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Trump administration's second-term strategy leans toward consolidating acquisition, HR and financial management under a centralized approach. That's a departure from the marketplace model of its first term. John Marshall and Steve Goodrich are here to discuss what that means for agency autonomy and service quality. John is the founder and CEO of the Shared Services Leadership Coalition. Steve chairs the SSLC board.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Lecture Notes: Constitution Law 2025 – Full Outline (thelawschoolofamerica.com/ConstitutionLaw2025.html) Understanding Judicial Review: The Backbone of Constitutional Law This episode dives into the power of judicial review and why it sits at the core of United States constitutional law. We walk through the political brilliance of Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, the birth of the Court's authority to strike down acts of Congress, and how that decision still frames modern debates about the separation of powers. You will hear how a late–night flurry of “midnight judges,” a refused commission, and a seemingly impossible dilemma gave Marshall the opportunity to announce a simple but revolutionary idea: the Constitution is supreme law, and it is the judiciary's duty to say what the law is. What we unpack in this episode The origin story of judicial review and the stakes in Marbury v. Madison. The “six rules” emerging from Marshall's opinion: remedy, constitutional supremacy, conflict resolution, judicial duty, and review of executive and criminal actions. How Article III justiciability cabins judicial power: no advisory opinions, only real “cases or controversies.” The role of Congress and the Exceptions Clause, including the lesson of Ex parte McCardle. Why some issues are unreviewable political questions left to other branches. Timing, Injury, and Justiciability Judicial power does not extend to every interesting dispute. Timing is everything: come too early and you face a ripeness problem; come too late and the case is moot. The plaintiff also needs a concrete, non-speculative injury to establish standing. When the alleged wrong is a vague “what if,” the Court steps back and the issue often becomes an unreviewable question better suited to the political branches. Across all of this runs a single theme: separation of powers. Judicial review is powerful, but it operates inside a constant negotiation with Congress and the Executive over who decides what, and when. Quick Takeaways Marshall's opinion in Marbury is a blueprint of political genius. Judicial review makes the Constitution enforceable, not just inspirational text. Cases that are too early (ripeness) or too late (mootness) fall outside Article III power. Keywords: judicial review, Marshall's political genius, ripeness, mootness, standing, unreviewable questions, political question doctrine, separation of powers, legal principles, landmark court cases.

Commonwealth Club World Affairs welcomes back Jeffrey Rosen, this time to explore the clashing visions of Hamilton and Jefferson about how to balance liberty and power in a debate that continues to define—and divide—our country. Hamilton pushed for a strong federal government and a powerful executive, while Jefferson championed states' rights and individual liberties. This ongoing tug-of-war has shaped all the pivotal moments in American history, including Abraham Lincoln's fight against slavery and Southern secession, the expansion of federal power under Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, and Ronald Reagan's and Donald Trump's conservative pushes to attempt to shrink the size of the federal government. Rosen will explain how Hamilton's and Jefferson's disagreement over how to interpret the Constitution has shaped landmark debates in Congress and the Supreme Court about executive power, from John Marshall's early battles with Andrew Jackson to the current divisions among the justices on issues from presidential immunity to control over the administrative state. More than ever, the clash between Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian ideals resonates today in our most urgent national debates over the question of whether modern presidents have been consolidating power and subverting the Constitution—the very threat to American democracy that both Hamilton and Jefferson were determined to avoid. Rosen explores all of this in his new book The Pursuit of Liberty, and he'll join us in-person to offer a compelling history of the opposing forces that have shaped our country since its founding, and the ongoing struggle to define the balance between liberty and power. A Humanities Member-led Forum program. Forums at the Club are organized and run by volunteer programmers who are members of The Commonwealth Club, and they cover a diverse range of topics. Learn more about our Forums. OrganizerGeorge Hammond  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Send us a textThe night before Thanksgiving, we sat down with community energy buzzing—clippers humming, a dog chiming in, and playoff scores rolling across our screens—and took stock of where our teams stand. We started with football: Skyline fighting through overtime, Strasburg rolling, Martinsburg and Jefferson setting up big West Virginia matchups. Then we pulled apart Handley's playoff loss with respect for the kids and honesty about the margins: a young quarterback thrust into the spotlight, physicality that traveled well, a blocked punt that flipped field position, and the hard truth that adjustments win in November.Then the gym lights switched on. Assistant coach and area photographer Taralle Hayden joined us to map a senior-heavy Handley squad that feels ready to make history. We dug into roles and identity: Will Braun-Duin spacing the floor as a premier shooter, Christian Dinges punishing downhill, Jaevon Brisco and Amari Brown setting the defensive tone, and Kyren Oglesbee owning the paint. The schedule is a statement—Huguenot to open, a marquee date with Oak Hill, real 4A tests with Denbigh and Varina, and a Central matchup that elevates the region. Terrell explained why non-conference choices are strategic, why in-state power games boost rankings, and how last year's seven-man feel can expand to eight or nine when practice habits demand it.What stood out most was culture. The staff is clear about buy-in, film, and reps that translate to college-level habits; they're just as clear that moments belong to players who welcome pressure. We swapped stories about Spring Mills chatter, John Marshall's ripple effects, and a youth pipeline that's hungry for varsity minutes. Above it all: a simple, pointed goal—bring a banner back to Winchester Public Schools. If you care about local sports, role clarity, and how great teams are built across a season, this conversation will pull you in.If you enjoyed the show, subscribe, share it with a friend, and leave a quick review to help more folks in the Valley find us. Happy Thanksgiving—see you at the gym.Support the showThanks for all the support and please subscribe to our podcast. Subscribe and we will give you a shoutout. Give feedback as well. Subscription :https://www.buzzsprout.com/1737579/support↗️Email: brotherswithopinions@gmail.com YouTube: @brotherswithopinionsFacebook: Brothers With Opinions-B.W.O.Instagram: @brotherswithopinionspodcastX: @browopodcastTikTok: @brotherswithopinionsIntro and Outro music credit to Wooka Da Don

As retail investor activity become a more significant driver of US equities, how is their behavior shaping markets – and what opportunities could be opening up as a result? John Marshall, head of derivatives research in Goldman Sachs Research, discusses with Chris Hussey.  Recorded on November 5, 2025.  The opinions and views expressed herein are as of the date of publication, subject to change without notice, and may not necessarily reflect the institutional views of Goldman Sachs or its affiliates. The material provided is intended for informational purposes only, and does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation from any Goldman Sachs entity to take any particular action, or an offer or solicitation to purchase or sell any securities or financial products.  This material may contain forward-looking statements.  Past performance is not indicative of future results. Neither Goldman Sachs nor any of its affiliates make any representations or warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the statements or information contained herein and disclaim any liability whatsoever for reliance on such information for any purpose.  Each name of a third-party organization mentioned is the property of the company to which it relates, is used here strictly for informational and identification purposes only and is not used to imply any ownership or license rights between any such company and Goldman Sachs.    A transcript is provided for convenience and may differ from the original video or audio content.  Goldman Sachs is not responsible for any errors in the transcript. This material should not be copied, distributed, published, or reproduced in whole or in part or disclosed by any recipient to any other person without the express written consent of Goldman Sachs.    Disclosures applicable to research with respect to issuers, if any, mentioned herein are available through your Goldman Sachs representative or at http://www.gs.com/research/hedge.html © 2025 Goldman Sachs. All rights reserved.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the fifth in a series of six episodes regarding America's fallen founder, Aaron Burr.  Colonel Burr is finally apprehended in the backwoods of Alabama.  From there he is transported into Chief Justice John Marshall's courthouse.  Acting as his own lawyer, Aaron Burr will have to muster everything he has to not be strung up for treason.   Contact the show at resourcesbylowery@gmail.com or on Bluesky @EmpiresPod If you would like to financially support the show, please use the following paypal link. Or remit PayPal payment to @Lowery80.  And here is a link for Venmo users. Any support is greatly appreciated and will be used to make future episodes of the show even better.   Expect new shows to drop on Wednesday mornings from September to May. Music is licensed through Epidemic Sound

Aughie and Nia explore the contributions and impact of the Marshall Court. In part one, they discuss Chief Justice John Marshall's personal history and the formalizing of the U.S. Supreme Court rules under his leadership.

This week, the GovNavigators sit down with John Marshall and Steve Goodrich of the Shared Services Leadership Coalition to chart the past, present, and what's next in federal shared services, from payroll consolidation and NASA's model to today's QSMOs and a legislative plan to turn modernization from pilots into standard practice.Show NotesSSLC: Shared Services Leadership Coalition NSSC: NASA Shared Services CenterEvents on the GovNavigators' RadarOct. 9, 2025: FedInsider / Carahsoft Innovation SummitOct. 26-28, 2025: ACT-IAC Imagine Nation ELC 

This week we explore how how John Marshall helped create the Private Corporation.

Did you know that “essential” grocery store workers' average earnings are less than a living wage? Join Food Sleuth Radio host and Registered Dietitian, Melinda Hemmelgarn for her conversation with John Marshall, CFA, Director of Capital Strategies for the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) 3000, and Assistant to the President at UFCW 324. Marshall will discuss the report, “Bullies at the Table: Consequences of Understaffing by Kroger and Albertsons.” He will also pull back the curtain on unseen challenges faced by grocery store workers, discuss the benefits of labor unions, and compare e-commerce vs. in-store shopping on supermarket bottom lines. Marshall references the role of Wall Street and negative impacts of mergers in this presentation: Kroger/Albertsons merger analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=als1GdcKSzU and Consumer Reports investigation into overcharging at Kroger stores: https://www.consumerreports.org/money/questionable-business-practices/kroger-stores-overcharging-shoppers-on-sale-items-a9659540552/ . Learn more about UFCW here: https://www.ufcw.org/about/Related Websites: Bullies at the Table: https://economicrt.org/publication/bullies-at-the-table/

John Marshall arrived at Campbell in the fall of 1980 from his home in Henderson, N.C., to join a golf team that was in its early years of competing at the NCAA Division I level. While competing under three different head coaches, John not only helped lay the groundwork for what would become a mid-major college golf powerhouse program, but he also discovered a career path. He graduated in 1984, and soon after enrolled in Campbell's Law School. He has been practicing law since 1989 and in the fall of 2023 was sworn into the United States Supreme Court bar. John also is a member of Campbell's AD's Advisory Board and actively supports his alma mater's athletics program. In the next episode of Tales from the Creek, Fighting Camel golf standout John Marshall talks with Stan Cole about golf, his path to Campbell and later to law school, raising a family, playing the guitar, his career journey, and much more.

What is the importance to our salvation that Mary was assumed into heaven? Fr. John Marshall, pastor at St. John the Baptist Catholic Church, joins The Morning Blend to help us understand more fully this dogma of the Church.Subscribe to the Morning Blend on your favorite podcast platform.Find this show on the free Hail Mary Media App, along with a radio live-stream, prayers, news, and more.Look through past episodes or support this podcast.The Morning Blend is a production of Mater Dei Radio in Portland, Oregon.

Mighty John Marshall of musicmoney.com gives the latest on valuable vinyl on national vinyl day.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today's Homily Highlight is from Fr. John Marshall, Pastor at St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in Milwaukie.Subscribe to the Morning Blend on your favorite podcast platform.Find this show on the free Hail Mary Media App, along with a radio live-stream, prayers, news, and more.Look through past episodes or support this podcast.The Morning Blend is a production of Mater Dei Radio in Portland, Oregon.

This week we explore how Jefferson attempted to weaken the Supreme Court, and what Marshall did to strengthen it.

We welcome you to this in-depth, investigative, fact-finding episode of Light ‘Em Up.Thank you for joining us — as we march one step closer to achieving an enormous milestone, our 100th episode!In this episode we are diving into complex and impactful topics. We'll drill down on the concept of Birthright Citizenship — enshrined by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  The 14th Amendment does not equivocate. It states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”  A president cannot change those facts with a stroke of his pen.We will introduce to you in detail the concepts of jus soli and jus sanguinis.Jus soli: The principle of law also known as birthright citizenship is the principle that a person's citizenship is determined by the place of their birth, regardless of the parents' nationality.It contrasts with jus sanguinis, which determines citizenship based on parentage.On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order trying to end birthright citizenship. Specifically, the order states that after February 19, 2025, citizenship will only be granted to babies born in the United States if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.Birthright citizenship stems from the principle of jus soli, that all children born in the United States are U.S. citizens. Birthright citizenship has remained a bedrock of our country and was enshrined in our constitution in 1868 when the states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified to repudiate the infamous Dred Scott decision that denied Black people the protections of U.S. citizenship. In 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents were entitled to U.S. citizenship in the case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.Over 250 years ago our founding fathers, in the constitution, established 3 separate branches of government: the Executive, Judicial and Legislative. The Supreme Court (and the MAGA 6 on the court) have ceded a great deal of the other 2 branches' power to the Executive Branch — doing tremendous harm to the country.Chief Justice John Marshall famously said, “It has always been the duty and responsibility of the Federal Judiciary to say what the law is, both as to constitutional and statutory law” The Federal Judiciary is not a political role, at all.  Donald Trump has sought to “weaponize” the law and the judiciary to appease his whims.  Rich people can afford their whims.We examine in depth how Trump's large-scale deportations will have devastating impact on employment across our nation.  The nativist Trump administration is waging a war against the rule of law.When all the migrant workers who pick and process the oranges in sunny Florida are arrested, detained and deported and when a glass of orange juice at your golf course county club will cost $35 — you'll clearly understand the true costs and the real human effects of Trump's campaign of xenophobic arrests, detentions and deportations will have on the economy and workforce of the U.S.Barely 2 months into his administration he has issued over 100 executive orders. More shenanigans will ensue.  Trump has declared war on the Federal Judiciary and the rule of law.America is in a crisis, and many aren't even aware of it.  The Constitution is being tested like never before.  Will it break?  Will the Supreme Court continue to help make Donald Trump a dictator?  The courts gave power to Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini.Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.Tune in for all the powerful facts and figures.Follow our sponsoWe want to hear from you!

HLPster founder, John Marshall, returns to unpack how one might define networking as compared to relationships. Reach out to John at john@hlpster.com For more great insight on professional relationships and business networking contact Frank Agin at frankagin@amspirit.com.

Goldman Sachs Research's John Marshall explains the factors behind the recent rally in meme stocks, and what that resurgence means for the broader market. This episode was recorded on July 24, 2025. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John Marshall from Xcel Energy joined Tom Hauser from KSTP TV for a look at restoring power to members of the community because of the storms.

John Taylor smacked down Chief Justice John Marshall - who followed Alexander Hamilton's playbook to twist the meaning of words - like the necessary and proper clause - to support a national bank. Taylor called it “construction,” and saw a catastrophe coming. He was no mere critic. He was prophetic. The post Supreme Court Power Grab! How Judges Stole Your Constitution first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

This week we explore the Judiciary. We look at the relationship Americans of the Early Republic had with Judges, taking the story up to the appointment of John Marshall to the Supreme Court.

Please visit answersincme.com/KTK860 to participate, download slides and supporting materials, complete the post test, and obtain credit. In this activity, an expert in gastrointestinal cancers discusses strategies for treatment of patients with colorectal cancer using tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Upon completion of this activity, participants should be better able to: Identify patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who are suitable for tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment; Outline practical, patient-centered strategies to maximize quality of life in patients receiving later-line TKI treatment for mCRC; and Review approaches to manage adverse events associated with later-line TKI treatment for mCRC.

"Mighty" John Marshall tells Jack and his audience how much dough they can get for their vinyl. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: “A Friend of the Constitution”On July 15, 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall took the unusual step of anonymously defending one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions in American history—McCulloch v. Maryland. Writing under the pseudonym A Friend of the Constitution, Marshall authored a series of essays published in the Philadelphia Union and the Alexandria Gazette, responding to public criticism of the Court's expansive interpretation of federal power. The decision, issued earlier that year, had upheld Congress's authority to establish a national bank and struck down Maryland's attempt to tax it, solidifying the doctrine of federal supremacy.Marshall's public defense was significant because it revealed the political sensitivity of the ruling and the extent to which the legitimacy of the Court's reasoning was contested. The McCulloch opinion laid out the principle of implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause, asserting that the federal government could take actions not explicitly listed in the Constitution if they furthered constitutionally enumerated powers. The decision also famously stated, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy,” rejecting state efforts to control or burden federal institutions.Critics, particularly from states' rights factions, argued the decision centralized too much power in the federal government and eroded state sovereignty. Marshall's essays, though unsigned, were unmistakably in his judicial voice and aimed to calm anxieties about federal overreach by appealing to reason, constitutional structure, and the logic of a functioning union. His public engagement reflected an early awareness of the need to build public confidence in the judiciary's authority.This episode was rare in that a sitting Chief Justice chose to participate in public constitutional debate beyond the bench. It also underscored the foundational role McCulloch would come to play in defining the American system of federalism. The decision has remained a touchstone in constitutional law for over two centuries, cited in debates over congressional authority ranging from the New Deal to the Affordable Care Act.Marshall's intervention on July 15, 1819, was both defensive and visionary—a recognition that legal rulings do not exist in a vacuum and often require articulation beyond the courtroom to be enduring.The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to proceed with its plan to dramatically reduce the size and scope of the Department of Education. In a brief unsigned order, the Court lifted a lower court's injunction that had temporarily reinstated about 1,400 laid-off employees and blocked the transfer of key department functions to other agencies. The decision marks a major victory for President Trump, who has pushed to return educational control to states and fulfill a campaign promise to minimize federal involvement in schools.Three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor warning that the ruling effectively grants the president power to dismantle congressional mandates by eliminating staff necessary to carry them out. The Biden-appointed district judge who had issued the initial injunction found the layoffs would likely paralyze the department. Critics of the plan, including 21 Democratic attorneys general, school districts, and unions, argue that the move could delay federal aid, weaken civil rights enforcement, and harm disadvantaged students.Trump has stated that vital services like Pell grants and special education funding will continue, though responsibilities would shift to agencies such as the Small Business Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services. Education Secretary Linda McMahon praised the Court's decision, calling it a win for students and families. The legal battle continues in lower courts, but the Supreme Court's decision enables Trump to move forward with an aggressive downsizing strategy that would cut the department's staff by half compared to its size at the start of his presidency.US Supreme Court clears way for Trump to gut Education Department | ReutersGermany's Federal Constitutional Court dismissed a lawsuit brought by two Yemeni nationals seeking to hold the German government accountable for U.S. drone strikes conducted from Ramstein Air Base. The plaintiffs, whose relatives were killed in a 2012 strike, argued that Germany shared responsibility because Ramstein served as a key communications hub for U.S. drone operations. They claimed that Germany failed its duty to protect life by allowing the base to be used in actions that allegedly violated international law.The court ruled that while Germany has a general obligation to protect human rights, especially regarding foreign policy, this duty was not activated in the case. The judges found no clear evidence that the U.S. was applying unlawful criteria in distinguishing between legitimate military targets and civilians in Yemen. They also concluded that the German government had acted within its discretion by relying on the U.S. interpretation of international law.The decision reaffirmed Berlin's broad latitude in conducting foreign and security policy, including alliance cooperation. Germany's foreign and defense ministries welcomed the ruling, stating it validated their legal position. The plaintiffs criticized the outcome as setting a dangerous precedent by shielding states that facilitate U.S. drone operations from accountability when civilians are harmed. The case reignited debate over Germany's role in supporting U.S. military actions from its territory.Germany's top court dismisses complaint against US drone missions | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit temporarily blocked the Trump administration's attempt to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for thousands of Afghans living in the United States. The court issued an administrative stay through July 21 in response to a request from the advocacy group CASA, which is challenging the Department of Homeland Security's April decision to revoke TPS for Afghans and Cameroonians. CASA argues the move was arbitrary, discriminatory, and would cause irreparable harm to those affected.TPS allows individuals from countries facing conflict or disaster to stay and work legally in the U.S. for renewable periods, typically between six and eighteen months. The lawsuit is part of broader resistance to Trump's long-standing efforts to roll back TPS protections, many of which were halted by courts during his first term. Afghan advocates say ending TPS now would put lives at risk, particularly among those who supported U.S. operations in Afghanistan and women facing repression under the Taliban.The court's stay is not a final ruling but gives time for the legal challenge to proceed. The administration has until July 17 to respond. AfghanEvac, a coalition of veterans and resettlement advocates, supports the legal fight and urges the administration to restore TPS protections. Over 70,000 Afghans were admitted to the U.S. under temporary parole following the 2021 Taliban takeover, many of whom could be deported without continued legal status.US appeals court temporarily upholds protected status for Afghans | ReutersCongress has finally corrected the costly mistake it made with Section 174, restoring immediate expensing for research and development. But I don't view this as a victory—it's a reset. For three years, businesses operating at the forefront of innovation were forced to amortize R&D costs, a move that was not only economically damaging but entirely unnecessary. While lawmakers delayed fixing their own error, peer nations like China and Singapore advanced forward-looking tax regimes that actively incentivize both research and commercialization.Restoring immediate expensing brings us back to where we were before 2017, but stability in the tax code shouldn't be treated as a favor to innovators—it should be the baseline. R&D thrives on long timelines and clear signals, not temporary fixes and partisan reversals. If Congress wants to take innovation seriously, it needs to treat R&D expensing like core infrastructure and embed automatic responsiveness into the tax code. For example, if GDP growth stalls or domestic R&D spending drops below a certain threshold, the deduction should automatically increase—just as China did with 120% expensing for integrated circuits and industrial machinery.Beyond that, we need to rethink what we're rewarding. Under current rules, companies receive tax breaks for spending on research whether or not those ideas ever generate revenue, jobs, or real-world application. I'm not arguing against basic research, but I believe we should offer enhanced incentives for firms that meet defined commercialization benchmarks—like securing patents, licensing products, or manufacturing IP domestically.Repealing amortization was the right move, but the three-year delay already did serious harm to sectors both parties claim to support. Immediate expensing should now be seen as the floor—not the ceiling—of effective R&D policy. We can't afford to let innovation incentives swing with the political winds. That's why I believe Congress should require full economic scoring from the Joint Committee on Taxation or CBO before any future attempt to undo R&D expensing. You can't bind future lawmakers—but you can make them confront the cost of setting another fire.Fixing the R&D Tax Code Blunder Isn't a Victory, It's a Reset This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

X: @JasonMiyaresVA @americasrt1776 @ileaderssummit @NatashaSrdoc @JoelAnandUSA @supertalk Join America's Roundtable (https://americasrt.com/) radio co-hosts Natasha Srdoc and Joel Anand Samy with Attorney General Jason Miyares, Commonwealth of Virginia. The conversation on America's Roundtable focuses on AG Jason Miyares's leadership in fighting opioids, reducing overdose deaths and reducing violence, thus making communitites in Virginia safer. The data released by Virginia Department of Health Office of the Chief Medical Examiner show fentanyl-related overdose deaths in Virginia declined 44 percent year-over-year and are down over 46 percent from its peak in 2021. Virginia led the nation in annual percentage declines in drug overdose deaths in 2024.   The recent celebration of America's Independence Day on July 4th 2025, reminds us of America Founding Fathers' ingenuity in creating America's Founding Documents: The Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Virginia played a historic role in the founding of the American Republic - 249 years ago. America's Founding Fathers George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, James Monroe, Patrick Henry and John Marshall were all Virginians. The timely discussion elevates the importance of combating anti-Semitism, and advancing principled policies based on the rule of law as well as affirming the significance of peace through strength. Bio | Jason S. Miyares (https://jasonmiyares.com/about/) Attorney General Jason Miyares' story doesn't start in Virginia Beach, Virginia, but in Havana, Cuba when his mother, Miriam Miyares, fled communist Cuba, penniless and homeless. She taught Jason a love for freedom, democracy, and that America is indeed the “last best hope on earth.” A product of Virginia public schools, Jason graduated with a Bachelor's in Business Administration from James Madison University and received his J.D. from the College of William and Mary School of Law. He previously served as a prosecutor in the Virginia Beach Commonwealth's Attorney Office, where he worked alongside law enforcement to keep violent criminals off our streets and our communities safe. In 2015, almost fifty years to the day that she fled Cuba, Miriam was able to vote for her son Jason Miyares to represent her in the oldest democracy in the Western Hemisphere, the Virginia House of Delegates. While representing Virginia Beach, Jason was recognized as “Legislator of the Year” in both 2018 and 2019 from the College Affordability and Public Trust for his work on transparency and affordability in higher education, as well as by the Hampton Roads Military Officers Association of America in 2018. He was also recognized in 2019 by the Safe House Project for his work combatting human trafficking, an issue that his administration is prioritizing. Jason Miyares is the first Cuban American elected to the General Assembly, the first Hispanic elected statewide in Virginia, and the first son of an immigrant ever elected to be Attorney General. He is passionate about preserving the American Miracle for the next generation of Virginians. americasrt.com (https://americasrt.com/) https://summitleadersusa.com/ | https://jerusalemleaderssummit.com/ America's Roundtable on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/americas-roundtable/id1518878472 X: @JasonMiyaresVA @americasrt1776 @ileaderssummit @NatashaSrdoc @JoelAnandUSA @supertalk America's Roundtable is co-hosted by Natasha Srdoc and Joel Anand Samy, co-founders of International Leaders Summit and the Jerusalem Leaders Summit. America's Roundtable (https://americasrt.com/) radio program focuses on America's economy, healthcare reform, rule of law, security and trade, and its strategic partnership with rule of law nations around the world. The radio program features high-ranking US administration officials, cabinet members, members of Congress, state government officials, distinguished diplomats, business and media leaders and influential thinkers from around the world. Tune into America's Roundtable Radio program from Washington, DC via live streaming on Saturday mornings via 68 radio stations at 7:30 A.M. (ET) on Lanser Broadcasting Corporation covering the Michigan and the Midwest market, and at 7:30 A.M. (CT) on SuperTalk Mississippi — SuperTalk.FM reaching listeners in every county within the State of Mississippi, and neighboring states in the South including Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee. Tune into WTON in Central Virginia on Sunday mornings at 6:00 A.M. (ET). Listen to America's Roundtable on digital platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, Google and other key online platforms. Listen live, Saturdays at 7:30 A.M. (CT) on SuperTalk | https://www.supertalk.fm

Are our prayers for peace making a difference in the world? Fr. John Marshall tells us his thoughts and invites all of us to pray together at the annual Peace Mass in honor of Our Lady, Queen of Peace.More information from Center for Peace West.Subscribe to the Morning Blend on your favorite podcast platform.Find this show on the free Hail Mary Media App, along with a radio live-stream, prayers, news, and more.Look through past episodes or support this podcast.The Morning Blend is a production of Mater Dei Radio in Portland, Oregon.

It was a pleasure to welcome John Marshall, Head of Derivatives Research at Goldman Sachs, to the Alpha Exchange. Our conversation explores a number of critical topics starting with the meaningful growth of equity funds deploying options as part of a risk management overlay. John describes how covered call ETFs and systematic vol-selling funds have quietly reshaped the supply/demand dynamics for index optionality. He makes the point that this cohort—unlevered, yield-focused, and largely buy-and-hold—is proving more resilient than the vol-selling programs of past cycles, with implications for both market stability and the vol risk premium.Next, John shares his team's efforts to find what he calls “asymmetry alpha” in the options market, focused on event-driven, catalyst-based trades at the single-stock level.  We learn that option pricing is increasingly being informed by company-specific fundamentals. John explains how his team connects metrics like free cash flow yield, return on equity, and event-driven catalysts to the pricing of volatility and skew.Rather than relying solely on historical vol or peer group comparisons, this approach seeks out asymmetries in option markets that are grounded in the evolving health—and risk—of individual balance sheets. John argues that these additional, company specific variables are often overlooked by traditional volatility frameworks and as a result, can help identify mis-pricings in the tails, informing more precise use of calls, puts, and risk reversals.I hope you enjoy this episode of the Alpha Exchange, my conversation with John Marshall.

On the sixty-second episode of the Constitutionalist, Ben, Shane, and Matthew discuss the Mayflower Compact, and its implications for American political life as one of the nation's earliest constitutional compacts. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast co-hosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

Today's Homily Highlight is from Fr. John Marshall, Pastor at St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in MilwaukieSubscribe to the Morning Blend on your favorite podcast platform.Find this show on the free Hail Mary Media App, along with a radio live-stream, prayers, news, and more.Look through past episodes or support this podcast.The Morning Blend is a production of Mater Dei Radio in Portland, Oregon.

By David Marcum - Gold was unexpectedly discovered by John Marshall in a Coloma, California creek 177 years ago. This started the gold rush which brought wealth and statehood to California in 1850. Now, California is the fourth largest economy in the world. Almost 2000 years ago, another unexpected event occurred

On the sixty-first episode, Shane and Ben are joined by Joseph Natali, a Ph.D. student at Baylor University dissertating on the constitutionalism of bureaucracy and how Presidents succeed or fail in exercising control over the executive branch. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew K. Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

In this episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and Ret. MN Justice Barry Anderson speak with Wilfrid Prest, Emeritus Professor and Visiting Research Fellow in History and Law at the University of Adelaide in Australia, and biographer of Sir William Blackstone, among the most influential figures in the history of English common law. Prof. Prest discusses Blackstone's formative years in mid-18th-century London and at Pembroke College, Oxford, where a classical education, Enlightenment thought, and legal scholarship shaped his intellectual path. He describes Blackstone's early legal and academic career, including his role as the first Vinerian Professor of English Law and author of An Analysis of the Laws of England. Prest explores how Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England brought clarity and coherence to England's centuries old legal tradition, drawing from foundational documents like Magna Carta and formative figures such as Bracton, Fortescue, and Coke. He examines the Commentaries' lasting impact on American Founding Fathers, including both admirers like Alexander Hamilton and Chief Justice John Marshall and critics like Thomas Jefferson. Prest concludes with reflections on Blackstone's enduring legacy in promoting the rule of law and legal education worldwide. In closing, Prof. Prest reads a passage from his book, William Blackstone: Law and Letters in the Eighteenth Century. 

On the sixtieth episode, Matthew and Ben are joined by Shilo Brooks, Executive Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, to discuss his immensely popular course "The Art of Statesmanship and the Political Life." We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew K. Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

On the fifty-ninth episode of the Constitutionalist, Ben and Matthew discuss Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 7 of Alexis De Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" on the omnipotence of the majority. They discuss Tocqueville's warnings of the detrimental effects of democracy on the citizen. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast co-hosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

Shout out to our sponsors!-Rick Stockel - Your Source for Buying and Selling Homes in Richmond and Central Virginiahttps://rickstockel.com- Dr. O Sports Medicine - http://kwadwoowusuakyawmd.comDr. O Instagram - https://instagram.com/dr.o_forthe804- W.W. Enroughty & Son - https://enroughty.comWhat happens when a so-called “baseball school” becomes the kings of Virginia basketball? In this unfiltered, high-energy episode of BallinVA, we sit down with the 2025 State Champion Atlee Raiders—players and coaches—to unpack their journey from overlooked to unstoppable. From locker room laughs to emotional tributes, behind-the-scenes drama to state-level domination, this is the real story of the team no one saw coming. Trash talk? Check. Redemption arcs? Plenty. Techs, missed dunks, clutch threes, and a heavy dose of Richmond pride.

Send us a textJoin hosts Ben Kornell and Alex Sarlin as they explore the latest developments in education technology, from AI breakthroughs and policy shakeups to new funding rounds and workforce shifts shaping the future of learning.✨ Episode Highlights:[00:00:00] Silicon Valley debates the rise of “AI Slop” and the impact of vibe coding.[00:03:36] Columbia student suspended for AI cheating tool raises $5.3M to commercialize it.[00:04:56] Anthropic's Drew Bent explains why code literacy now means editing AI-generated code.[00:08:09] 200 CEOs and Code.org push for mandatory AI classes in high school.[00:11:13] Federal government's role in AI education policy under debate.[00:14:04] Duolingo plans to replace contract workers with AI, triggering backlash.[00:20:42] Higher ed faces political attacks; Harvard and Columbia push back.[00:23:32] K-12 faces teacher shortages and $4.5B in proposed federal funding cuts.[00:35:21] Google's AI Overviews cut search click-through rates by 34.5%.Plus, special guests:[00:36:08] Brian Malkin, Co-Founder & CEO of Rang, on rewards programs to improve K-12 attendance.[00:50:29] John Marshall, CEO of BrainFreeze, on AI safety and transparency in schools.[01:12:31] Scott Nadzan, Vice President of Product Marketing and Strategic Communications at Panopto, on AI-generated video and the Elai acquisition.

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair says that net zero is politically unachievable without radical rethinking: a shift away from reducing consumption and toward technologies that can remove carbon both at the source and from the atmosphere. So, are carbon capture and carbon removal really viable - and more palatable - alternatives to a rapid fossil fuel phaseout? And is our net zero strategy failing, or simply failing to be explained?Hosts Christiana Figueres, Tom Rivett-Carnac, and Paul Dickinson dive into the heart of these questions and explore what Blair's comments mean for the wider net zero debate. At a time when climate action is becoming increasingly politicised and weaponised, they consider how we might frame net zero as something that improves people's lives, rather than threatening them. And how we can ensure that every credible climate solution stays on the table.With timely and provocative contributions from listeners and friends of the podcast - including former BBC News Science Editor David Shukman and Senior Policy Advisor at Carbonfuture Sebastian Manhart - the hosts ask: can we rescue the net zero brand before it's written off?Learn more

On Monday's Mark Levin Show, the Constitutional crisis we face right now is coming out of the lower courts of the federal judiciary and it must be stopped. We have a federal Judge who ordered President Trump to call back an airplane that was flying vicious criminals back to El Salvador and we have every right to call these Judges out. When Judges act like politicians they must be criticized. This all ties back to Marbury vs Madison and it affects you. Chief Justice John Marshall's decision, which established the Supreme Court's power to strike down laws deemed unconstitutional, was a dangerous overreach not intended by the Founding Fathers. The Constitution does not explicitly grant the judiciary this authority, portraying judicial review as an implied power that Marshall seized to expand the Court's influence. This decision in this case laid the groundwork for the judicial tyranny which has since undermined the republic, allowing unelected judges to override the will of the people and the legislative branch. Also, for the apologists of the Iranian terror regime, a nuclear warhead on an intercontinental missile has the capacity to kill millions of Americans. To pretend otherwise is unconscionable and insane. Trump is 100% right, Iran must never get a nuclear weapon, period! The official position of MAGA: Iran will not get nukes. The President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and National Security Advisor all said in the last 24-36 hours that by hook or by crook, Iran must not and will not get nuclear weapons. Then comes this bizarre claim - Israel's got nukes! Yes, but they've never dropped them on any of their enemies, never even waved them around as a threat because Israel's the core of the Holy Land. From The Mark Levin Show - 3/17/25 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

"Undefined, unbounded, and immense power" - that's what anti-federalists warned we'd eventually get under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Today, it's easily one of the most twisted and abused parts of the Constitution. In this episode, learn about three key views of the clause: the modern view, which began with Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall; the strictly limited view from James Madison and Thomas Jefferson; and a middle ground from one of the clause's authors, Edmund Randolph. The post Necessary and Proper: The Big Lie That Unleashed Big Government first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Almost everything in modern "constitutional law" is based on a myth that dates back to Chief Justice John Marshall and the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. According to the myth, Marshall not only CREATED the power of judicial review but also established judicial SUPREMACY - giving the courts ultimate authority over the other branches, the states, and even the people. In this episode, we smash that myth to pieces and reveal the true story behind Marbury. The post Marbury v. Madison Exposed: The Shocking Truth Behind Judicial Review first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.