Podcasts about Commerce Clause

This lecture outlines the foundational principles of federalism in the United States, explaining the division of power between the federal government and individual states. It defines federalism by contrasting it with unitary and confederate systems, then details how the U.S. Constitution establishes this structure through enumerated powers for the federal government and reserved powers for the states via the Tenth Amendment. The lecture also highlights crucial constitutional clauses like the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and the Commerce Clause, discussing their impact on the balance of power and examining their interpretation through landmark Supreme Court cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland, Gibbons v. Ogden, and United States v. Lopez, showcasing the evolving nature of federal authority.Federalism as a Core Principle: The lecture emphasizes that federalism is not merely a theoretical concept but is "at the very core of the United States constitutional system." It represents a "sophisticated division of powers" between the national government and the individual states, designed to achieve a "balance between national unity and the preservation of state autonomy." This system contrasts with unitary systems (centralized power) and confederations (states retaining dominant sovereignty).Constitutional Basis for Federalism: The document outlines the specific constitutional provisions that establish and delineate federalism:Enumerated Powers (Article One, Section Eight): The Constitution lists specific powers granted to the federal government, such as regulating interstate commerce, coining money, declaring war, and raising armies. These are presented as a "carefully selected set of responsibilities deemed essential for the national government to effectively function."Implied Powers (Necessary and Proper Clause, Article One, Section Eight): This clause grants Congress the power to enact laws "necessary and proper" for carrying out its enumerated powers. It is described as a "vital source of flexibility," allowing the federal government to adapt and effectively exercise its responsibilities.Reserved Powers (Tenth Amendment): This amendment states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This reinforces the principle of limited federal power and affirms the states' broad authority over matters not specifically assigned to the national government, including "health, safety, welfare, and morals" (police powers).Supremacy Clause (Article Six, Clause Two): This clause establishes the hierarchy of law, declaring the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties as the "supreme Law of the Land." It ensures that "federal law will prevail" in cases of direct conflict with state law and prevents states from undermining valid federal laws.The Significance of the Commerce Clause: The Commerce Clause (Article One, Section Eight, Clause Three), granting Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes," is highlighted as a "most significant and frequently litigated sources of federal authority." Its interpretation has "profoundly influenced the balance of power between the federal government and the states," reflecting "evolving societal needs and philosophical perspectives."Landmark Supreme Court Cases and their Impact: The lecture reviews key cases illustrating the evolution of federalism and the interpretation of federal power:Federalism, Division of Powers, Constitutional Law, Supreme Court, State Sovereignty, Commerce Clause, Judicial Review, Implied Powers, Sovereign Immunity, Civil Rights

This lecture explores the concept of federalism and the division of powers between the federal government and the states, highlighting constitutional provisions, landmark Supreme Court cases, and ongoing debates surrounding the balance of power. It emphasizes the practical applications of federalism in areas such as civil rights and environmental regulation, while also addressing criticisms and proposals for reform.TakeawaysFederalism is a system where power is divided between national and state governments.The Constitution enumerates specific powers for the federal government.The Necessary and Proper Clause allows for implied powers.The Supremacy Clause establishes federal law as the highest authority.The Commerce Clause has been interpreted in various ways by the Supreme Court.Landmark cases like McCulloch v. Maryland shaped federalism.Debates continue over the balance of power between state and national governments.Sovereign immunity limits individuals' ability to sue states.Federalism can promote local solutions but may also entrench inequality.Reform proposals include re-examining sovereign immunity and federal power limits.Federalism, Division of Powers, Constitutional Law, Supreme Court, State Sovereignty, Commerce Clause, Judicial Review, Implied Powers, Sovereign Immunity, Civil Rights

For many, government can inadvertently or purposefully get in the way of doing business. In this largely unknown Supreme Court decision, the court majority had some rather unusual and fantastical imaginations for justifying an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause. Learn how this case could justify government regulations for the most absurd and improbable hypotheticals.Support the showVisit georgewashingtoninstitute.org to sign up for our e-mail list! The site is the one-stop shop of all things Friends & Fellow Citizens and George Washington Institute!JOIN as a Patreon supporter and receive a FREE Friends & Fellow Citizens mug at the $25 membership level!IMPORTANT NOTE/DISCLAIMER: All views expressed by the host are presented in his personal capacity and do not officially represent the views of any affiliated organizations. All views presented by guests are solely those of the interviewees themselves and may or may not reflect the views of their affiliated organizations, the host, Friends & Fellow Citizens, and/or The George Washington Institute.

Send us a textEnjoy this episode? Please share it with at least ONE friend who you think needs to hear it!Sovereign law expert, author, and legal researcher Brandon Joe Williams reveals shocking truths about U.S. citizenship, hidden legal definitions, and the contractual traps shaping your identity in episode 193 of the Far Out with Faust podcast.A seasoned legal expert and advocate for personal sovereignty, Brandon specializes in unraveling the complexities of the legal system. He is the author of Don't Get Fooled Again and founder of the Amnesty Coalition, where he educates individuals on reclaiming their rights within the U.S. legal framework. His work delves into how birth certificates, social security numbers, and hidden clauses in the legal system redefine the concept of personal freedom.In this episode, Brandon and Faust take a deep dive into the true meaning of U.S. citizenship, uncovering the legal sleight of hand that classifies individuals as entities within the corporate framework of the government. They explore the 14th Amendment, the implications of the Slaughterhouse Cases, and the financial structures that turn individuals into unwitting participants in a system designed for control. Brandon also sheds light on the concept of doing business as a foreign entity, the influence of artificial intelligence in legal contracts, and the overlooked legal mechanisms that dictate modern life.Topics include:• The hidden legal meaning of U.S. citizenship• How the 14th Amendment redefined personal identity• The Slaughterhouse Cases and their impact on sovereignty• Are U.S. states under federal jurisdiction, or are they sovereign entities?• The legal status of U.S. territories and their relationship with the federal government• How birth certificates and social security numbers create corporate entities• The role of the Commerce Clause in personal finance and taxation• The legal loopholes surrounding taxation and business identity• AI contracts and their potential to exploit personal likeness• How legal definitions shape government authority and personal rights• Understanding domicile vs. residence in the eyes of the law… and much more! Gain a new perspective on the legal framework that controls modern life and discover how to navigate it with informed awareness.

Welcome to the award-winning FCPA Compliance Report, the longest running podcast in compliance. In this episode, Tom welcomes back Corporate Transparency Act expert and maven Jonathan Wilson for a look at judicial insights and recent developments in the Corporate Transparent Act (CTA) litigation.  Tom and Jonathan discuss the recent developments, including a preliminary injunction by Judge Kernodle in the Smith v. Treasury case, and its implications on CTA enforcement. Important differences between this injunction and previous ones, such as the Texas Top Cop Shop case, are highlighted. Wilson offers insights into the constitutional debates, particularly regarding the Commerce Clause, and reviews key decisions from federal district courts, including the persuasive Boyle decision from the District of Maine. They also touch on upcoming appeals and the potential impacts on the CTA's nationwide enforcement. Key Highlights  ·       Current Status of the Corporate Transparency Act ·       Judge Kernodle's Injunction and Legal Arguments ·       Supreme Court's Involvement and Implications ·       Analysis of the Boyle Decision ·       Procedural Updates and Future Outlook Resources Jonathan Wilson on LinkedIn FinCEN Report Tom Fox Instagram Facebook YouTube Twitter LinkedIn For more information on the Ethico Toolkit for Middle Managers, available at no charge by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the award-winning FCPA Compliance Report, the longest-running podcast in compliance. In the first episode of the 2025 FCPA Compliance Report, Tom welcomes back Jonathan Wilson, founder and CEO of the FinCEN Report, to discuss recent legal machinations surrounding the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). They delve into a December court ruling by the Eastern District of Texas, which issued a universal injunction against the CTA, claiming it oversteps Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause. The Fifth Circuit stay panel initially stayed this ruling but was later reinstated by the merits panel, leading the government to appeal to the Supreme Court. The episode also covers historical context, potential impacts on businesses, and predictions for future court actions regarding the CTA. Key highlights: Texas Top Cop Shop Case Overview Court Rulings and Injunctions Supreme Court Involvement Government Response and Filing Process Implications of Administration Change Resources: Jonathan Wilson on LinkedIn FinCEN Report Tom Fox Instagram Facebook YouTube Twitter LinkedIn For more information on the Ethico Toolkit for Middle Managers, available at no charge, click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is a lecture outline on US Constitutional Law focusing on federalism—the balance of power between the federal government and individual states. The lecture details the constitutional framework governing this relationship, emphasizing key clauses like the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause. It explores landmark Supreme Court cases illustrating the evolution and application of these clauses, particularly concerning preemption (federal law overriding state law) and the limits of congressional power. Further, the lecture examines the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments, concerning state sovereignty and immunity from lawsuits, respectively, and the Dormant Commerce Clause, which restricts states from unduly burdening interstate commerce. Finally, the State Action Doctrine is introduced, clarifying when private actions are subject to constitutional review. The overall purpose is to provide a comprehensive understanding of federalism's complexities and its practical application in contemporary legal issues. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Federalism is the division of power between the federal government and the states. The Constitution establishes this framework by outlining enumerated powers for the federal government, reserved powers for the states, and the Supremacy Clause to resolve conflicts between federal and state laws. The Supremacy Clause and preemption ensure federal law overrides conflicting state law. Express preemption occurs when a federal statute explicitly states its supremacy, while implied preemption occurs when federal and state laws conflict or federal regulation occupies an entire field. The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Its interpretation has evolved, from expansive interpretations in cases like Gibbons v. Ogden and Wickard v. Filburn to modern limitations in United States v. Lopez and NFIB v. Sebelius. Key doctrines include the substantial effects test, channels and instrumentalities of commerce, and the aggregation principle. The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government for the states, emphasizing state sovereignty. Printz v. United States established that the federal government cannot compel states to implement federal programs. The Eleventh Amendment protects states from being sued in federal court without their consent, codifying the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Seminole Tribe v. Florida reinforced states' immunity from private lawsuits. The Dormant Commerce Clause prohibits state laws that unduly burden or discriminate against interstate commerce. The discrimination test and Pike balancing test are used to evaluate state laws. Granholm v. Heald struck down state laws favoring in-state wineries over out-of-state competitors. The State Action Doctrine distinguishes private conduct from government action for purposes of constitutional analysis. Shelley v. Kraemer and Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority are key cases in this area. Understanding federalism and the powers of the states is crucial for analyzing constitutional issues and understanding the balance between national and state authority. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Join Jay Scott as he uncovers the Anti-Federalist group that stood against George Washington, the Federalist, and the Constitution in the 1780's!  Natural Freedom, Equal Treatment, Right to Bear Arms, Accountability, and Limits to Power were some of the key points the Anti-Federalist group rallied for. They saw similarities of an Aristocracy rule in the first Constitution. VERY DANGEROUS!  Also important, no clear declarations of individual human rights were written. (Thank these guys for The Bill of Rights we have now.) Learn how these Hero's put their neck on the line for true freedom at a delicate moment in the beginning stages of the USA. You will never think of our origins the same again! Disclaimer: For legal reasons... !!! This show is for entertainment purposes only !!! ~ ENJOY! ____________________________________________________ ❤️Help -keeping it REAL- by being a supporter of the podcast! Support is as simple as giving whatever you feel the show is worth to you. I will always be dedicated to bringing you value. Please consider returning some value in return! Even a like, comment, or share helps. You have my gratitude.

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

This lecture outlines key modern constitutional law issues, emphasizing the application of established doctrines—like the First and Fourth Amendments, and the Commerce Clause—to contemporary challenges. It examines the intersection of constitutional principles with technology and privacy, campaign finance, commercial speech, executive power, and emerging areas such as environmental regulation and healthcare. The lecture also addresses the evolving role of federalism and the impact of the “major questions” doctrine. Landmark Supreme Court cases are used to illustrate these concepts, providing students with a framework for analyzing hypothetical scenarios. Finally, it emphasizes the need to apply fundamental constitutional principles to twenty-first-century problems. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

We were going to take up the transcendent matters appropriate for the climax of Advent, but the headlines won't let us! The dam started breaking this week about Joe Biden's unfitness for office, which, as the Wall Street Journal reported, began during the 2020 campaign. Just who has been president for the last four years? And aside from the perfidy of the complacent and compliant (to Democrats) news media, should there be a serious congressional investigation into what is clearly one of the greatest coverups in American history. Biden's senior staff and cabinet should have to answer uncomfortable questions about this, and perhaps face charges for decisions and actions they may not have had legal authority to make.We also review the drama of the last 72 hours over the Continuing Resolution to avoid a "government shutdown," with Steve arguing the outcome was a minor victory for conservatives, but needs to be followed up with more serious steps in the new Congress.From there, we note the important of Fani Willis getting her fanny handed to her, and then take up briefly some listener reaction to our mid-week show, especially Hadley Arkes's long note about what we missed about the Commerce Clause and the nearly forgotten case of Hammer v. Dagenhart. We ran out of time for a complete consideration, so next week!

This Day in Legal History: Alcohol Control Administration CreatedOn December 4, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Federal Alcohol Control Administration (FACA) by executive order, a pivotal moment in the transition away from Prohibition. This action came under the National Industrial Recovery Act, as part of Roosevelt's broader New Deal agenda aimed at economic recovery. FACA was designed to regulate the burgeoning alcohol industry, which was reemerging after years of prohibition, ensuring it operated within fair competition guidelines. The administration focused on creating voluntary codes for brewers, distillers, and wineries to prevent monopolistic practices and maintain equitable market conditions.FACA's creation coincided with the formal repeal of Prohibition under the 21st Amendment, which took effect later that month. However, the agency's lifespan was short-lived. By August 1935, it was replaced by the Federal Alcohol Administration (FAA) through new legislation. The FAA consolidated alcohol regulation within the Treasury Department, laying the groundwork for modern alcohol oversight. Today, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), a successor to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), continues to fulfill the regulatory role first envisioned by FACA. The establishment and swift evolution of alcohol regulation reflect the complexities of ending Prohibition and integrating alcohol back into the economy under federal oversight.A federal judge in California dismissed Hunter Biden's tax case but criticized the presidential pardon issued by President Joe Biden. Judge Mark C. Scarsi expressed skepticism about the validity of the pardon, noting that it was supported only by a press release and could be interpreted as covering actions beyond its signing date. He questioned the argument that the charges against Hunter were politically motivated, highlighting that the investigation was conducted under the supervision of the President's own Department of Justice.The judge also pointed out inconsistencies in statements by the President, who claimed his son was treated unfairly compared to others with similar tax issues. However, Hunter Biden had admitted to evading taxes while sober, contrary to claims of addiction-related leniency. Despite these critiques, Scarsi determined that the part of the pardon covering Hunter's past conduct required dismissal of the charges in his Los Angeles tax case. The case underscores the legal and political complexities surrounding Hunter Biden's prosecution and the implications of presidential pardons.Judge Slams Hunter Biden Pardon but Tosses California Tax CaseCoinbase CEO Brian Armstrong issued a warning to law firms that hiring former government officials involved in crypto enforcement could result in losing Coinbase as a client. In a Dec. 2 post, Armstrong criticized Milbank LLP for hiring Gurbir Grewal, the former SEC enforcement director who led numerous actions against crypto companies, including Coinbase. Armstrong called this move a mistake, stating Coinbase would never work with Milbank as long as Grewal was there.Paul Grewal, Coinbase's general counsel, supported Armstrong's stance, emphasizing the importance of holding former government lawyers accountable for their actions while in office. He hoped the statement would spark a broader conversation about the “revolving door” between Washington and private law firms. Armstrong's post aims to influence firms not yet on Coinbase's roster to consider the implications of their hiring choices. At a legal panel, Gurbir Grewal defended his actions at the SEC, denying any bias against the crypto industry but acknowledging frustrations with the agency's strict enforcement. Legal experts noted that public ultimatums like Armstrong's are rare, though private client concerns about hiring conflicts are common. Coinbase continues to navigate regulatory tensions, having been charged by the SEC in June 2023 for operating without proper registration and filing its own legal challenges against the agency.Coinbase CEO Threatens Law Firms Over Government Hires (1)A federal court in Texas has issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which requires U.S. businesses to report their beneficial owners to the Treasury Department. Judge Amos L. Mazzant III ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, including a firearms retailer and the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, who argued that the law exceeded Congress's constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause by targeting all incorporated entities, even those not engaged in commercial activity.The CTA aimed to combat anonymous shell companies and deter financial crimes like money laundering and terrorism financing. However, Judge Mazzant criticized the law as a "quasi-Orwellian statute" that oversteps constitutional limits, asserting that Congress cannot mandate such disclosures solely for law enforcement purposes. He emphasized that the act does not directly regulate commerce, undermining its constitutional basis.The injunction affects an estimated 32.6 million businesses required to comply by 2025. The Justice Department has not yet commented on the ruling. The plaintiffs were represented by S|L Law PLLC and the Center for Individual Rights in the case Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland.Corporate Transparency Act Blocked Nationwide by Texas CourtThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear a pivotal case on the rights of transgender minors, focusing on a Tennessee law that prohibits gender-affirming medical care such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy for those under 18. The Biden administration argues that the law violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause by discriminating based on sex and transgender status. This case represents a critical examination of individual rights and the role of government in regulating personal healthcare decisions.Tennessee defends the law as a measure to protect minors from what it calls "risky and unproven" medical treatments, citing international debates and instances of treatment regret. However, major medical associations counter that gender-affirming care is effective and can be life-saving for individuals experiencing gender dysphoria, which is linked to higher suicide rates if untreated.The law has significant consequences for families like that of plaintiff Brian Williams, whose 16-year-old transgender child depends on this care to thrive. Advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal, argue that the law unjustly targets vulnerable youth, while Tennessee officials claim it safeguards children.The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, will decide on the legality of this ban by June. This decision could set a precedent for similar laws in 23 other states, highlighting critical questions about equality and healthcare access for transgender individuals.US Supreme Court set to hear major transgender rights case | 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

This Day in Legal History: William Rehnquist BornOn October 1, 1924, William Hubbs Rehnquist, the 16th Chief Justice of the United States, was born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Appointed to the Supreme Court in 1972 by President Nixon, Rehnquist became a polarizing figure, known for his staunch conservatism and originalist approach to the Constitution. His judicial philosophy often focused on restricting federal authority and bolstering states' rights, positions that critics argued rolled back civil rights protections and hindered federal progress on social justice issues. In 1986, President Reagan elevated Rehnquist to Chief Justice, a decision that pushed the Court further right. At his swearing-in, Reagan hailed him as a defender of constitutional values, but opponents viewed his appointment as the solidification of an increasingly reactionary judiciary. The same ceremony saw Antonin Scalia, another conservative, sworn in, signaling a shift that would influence rulings on affirmative action, voting rights, and church-state separation.Rehnquist's tenure included controversial rulings, notably his role in Bush v. Gore (2000), which critics argue undermined democratic principles by halting the Florida recount and effectively deciding a presidential election. His leadership on the Court was also marked by decisions that curtailed congressional power under the Commerce Clause, weakening federal authority in areas like civil rights and environmental regulation. While his supporters celebrated him as a guardian of limited government, his legacy remains contentious, with lasting impacts on the Court's direction and the balance between federal and state power.A fun Rehnquist fact is that you'll see in any official pictures or portraits of him as Chief Justice, his sleeves have yellow arm bands. Rehnquist insisted on adding four gold stripes on each sleeve to distinguish himself from the associate justices. He was inspired by the costume of the Lord Chancellor in a production of the Gilbert and Sullivan opera Iolanthe. Rehnquist's addition of the stripes was an unusual departure from the traditional plain black robes worn by justices, and it became a symbol of his unique approach to the role.New York Mayor Eric Adams has brought on three high-profile litigators as he faces federal criminal charges. William Burck, a former George W. Bush White House lawyer and current Fox Corp. board member, is one of the lawyers advising Adams. Burck, known for representing figures like Stephen Bannon and Don McGahn, joins Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan partners John Bash III and Avi Perry on Adams' defense team. Alex Spiro, a partner at Quinn Emanuel with experience defending high-profile clients like Elon Musk, is leading the defense. The charges involve allegations that Adams accepted lavish travel perks and had improper ties to the Turkish government. Adams has denied wrongdoing and vowed to continue as mayor while fighting the charges. His legal team has requested the case's dismissal.Meanwhile, a legal defense fund for Adams has paid over $877,000 to law firm WilmerHale, and several staffers have left his administration amid ongoing investigations. Additionally, Theresa Hassler was recently appointed general counsel for the Mayor's Fund to Advance New York City, a nonprofit under scrutiny for its fundraising practices.Ex-Bannon Lawyer With Fox News Ties Joins NYC Mayor Defense TeamToday, on October 1, 2024, a Georgia judge will hear a challenge from Democrats against new election rules introduced by the Republican-led Georgia Election Board. These rules, approved in August, allow county officials to investigate discrepancies in vote counts and scrutinize election-related documents before certifying results. Democrats argue that these changes, which came just before the November 5 election, are designed to erode trust in the process and could delay certification. The rules were backed by three board members who are allies of Donald Trump, who continues to challenge his 2020 loss in Georgia. Trump has praised these board members for their efforts to increase election security, though critics, including Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, say the changes could undermine voter confidence and strain election workers.A separate lawsuit was also filed to block a new requirement for a hand count of ballots. Democrats contend that these rules create confusion and provide too much leeway for local officials to investigate alleged fraud, potentially delaying results. The trial in Fulton County Superior Court is part of a broader national focus on battleground states like Georgia, where both Republicans and Democrats are intensely focused ahead of the upcoming presidential election.Challenge by US Democrats to Georgia election rules goes to trial | ReutersAs artificial intelligence (AI) continues to transform industries, more U.S. law firms are appointing executives to lead AI initiatives. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and McDermott Will & Emery both announced new AI leadership hires, with Akin appointing Jeff Westcott as director of practice technology and AI innovation, and McDermott hiring Christopher Cyrus as director of AI innovation. These moves reflect the growing belief that AI will have a permanent role in the legal profession, particularly in areas like research, drafting legal documents, and reducing administrative tasks.Law firms are responding to client expectations and the surge in AI technologies, which have expanded dramatically in the past two years. Other firms, such as Covington & Burling, Latham & Watkins, and Reed Smith, have similarly created AI and data science roles since the rise of tools like ChatGPT. Westcott will focus on how Akin Gump can strategically invest in AI technology, assessing whether to develop tools in-house, purchase products, or partner with vendors.Additionally, legal AI startup Harvey's chief strategy officer, Gordon Moodie, transitioned to Debevoise & Plimpton as a partner specializing in mergers and acquisitions. These developments underscore the legal industry's growing focus on AI integration as firms aim to remain competitive and adapt to technological advances.More US law firms turn to executives for AI leadership roles | 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

www.watchdogonwallstreet.com 

It's the Ranch It Up Radio Show Herd It Here Weekly Report!  A 3-minute look at cattle markets, reports, news info, or anything that has to do with those of us who live at the end of dirt roads.  Join Jeff 'Tigger' Erhardt, the Boss Lady Rebecca Wanner aka 'BEC' by subscribing on your favorite podcasting app or on the Ranch It Up Radio Show YouTube Channel. EPISODE 43 DETAILS Current Cattle Industry News JBS Cattle Outlook for 2025 & Beyond According to MeatingPlace.com, JBS expects 2025 to continue to be a challenging year for the US beef industry, with cattle availability increasing to higher levels in 2026, according to the JBS USA chief executive officer. He went on to say that we are pretty optimistic about the beginning of (cattle) retention in the US. We see cow slaughtering coming down by 15% year-over-year. We think that is a huge sign of retention starting.  The moment that is very important for us to watch out for is going to be this fall, and we're going to see what happens. He said JBS Beef North America will continue to capture gains from improvements in industrial processes, which should contribute to increasing the unit's margins in the future. In the second quarter of 2024, JBS USA's beef margins were pressured by low cattle availability Florida Sued Over Cultivated Meat Ban Upside Foods filed a lawsuit recently over a Florida law that bans the sale of cultivated meat in the state. Berkeley, Calif.-based Upside Foods, one of two companies approved to sell cultivated meat in the United States, contends the Florida law that took effect July 1 is unconstitutional, according to court documents. Specifically, the lawsuit argues that the ban violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by federal laws regulating meat and poultry products, and that it violates the dormant aspect of the Commerce Clause by purposely “insulating” Florida ag businesses from out-of-state competition. Florida was the first state to ban cultivated meat, with Gov. Ron DeSantis saying Florida was “fighting back” against the “global elite” who were allegedly forcing consumers to eat cultivated meat. He said his administration was protecting Florida farmers and ranchers in an effort to “save our beef.” Alabama was the second state to ban cultivated meat. “UPSIDE doesn't want to force anyone to eat cultivated meat,” the company's lawsuit states. “But it does want the opportunity to distribute its product to willing consumers, so that those consumers can decide for themselves whether UPSIDE's product is worth eating. And UPSIDE has a right to do so, because SB 1084 is unconstitutional.” SPONSORS Trans Ova Genetics https://transova.com/ @TransOvaGenetics American Gelbvieh Association https://gelbvieh.org/ @AmericanGelbvieh Allied Genetic Resources https://alliedgeneticresources.com/ @AlliedGeneticResources Ranch Channel https://ranchchannel.com/ @RanchChannel Axiota Animal Health https://axiota.com/ @MultiminUSA Questions & Concerns From The Field? Call or Text your questions, or comments to 707-RANCH20 or 707-726-2420 Or email RanchItUpShow@gmail.com FOLLOW Facebook/Instagram: @RanchItUpShow SUBSCRIBE to the Ranch It Up YouTube Channel: @ranchitup Website: RanchItUpShow.com https://ranchitupshow.com/ The Ranch It Up Podcast is available on ALL podcasting apps. https://ranchitup.podbean.com/ Rural America is center-stage on this outfit. AND how is that? Because of Tigger & BEC... Live This Western Lifestyle. Tigger & BEC represent the Working Ranch world by providing the cowboys, cowgirls, beef cattle producers & successful farmers the knowledge and education needed to bring high-quality beef & meat to your table for dinner. Learn more about Jeff 'Tigger' Erhardt & Rebecca Wanner aka BEC here: TiggerandBEC.com https://tiggerandbec.com/ #RanchItUp #StayRanchy #TiggerApproved #tiggerandbec #rodeo #ranching #farming REFERENCES https://www.meatingplace.com/Industry/News/Details/115653 https://www.meatingplace.com/Industry/News/Details/115613

How legislators learned to stop worrying about the constitutionality of federal drug and gun laws by abusing the Commerce Clause.

Summary of Chapter 4: Congressional Powers. Chapter 4 explores the essential powers granted to Congress by the Constitution, enabling it to effectively govern and address the nation's needs. These powers include the Enumerated Powers, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the Taxing and Spending Powers. Enumerated Powers: These are specific authorities listed in Article I, Section 8, including the power to levy taxes, regulate commerce, coin money, establish post offices, promote the progress of science and the arts through patents and copyrights, raise and support armies, and declare war. These powers allow Congress to create laws and policies that support national governance and public welfare. Necessary and Proper Clause: Found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, this clause gives Congress the flexibility to pass laws needed to execute its enumerated powers. It ensures that Congress can adapt to changing circumstances and address new issues. Landmark cases like McCulloch v Maryland and the Affordable Care Act demonstrate the broad application of this clause. Commerce Clause: Located in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, the Commerce Clause grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with Indian tribes. This clause aims to create a unified national economy and has been expanded significantly through judicial interpretation, allowing Congress to regulate various economic activities. Key cases such as Gibbons v Ogden and Wickard v Filburn highlight its extensive reach. Taxing and Spending Powers: Outlined in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 2, these powers enable Congress to levy taxes, collect revenue, and allocate funds for the nation's general welfare. This includes funding government operations, implementing public policies, and promoting economic stability. Notable examples include the Social Security Act, Medicare and Medicaid programs, and federal grants to states and local governments. Together, these powers equip Congress with the necessary tools to legislate effectively, ensure national prosperity, and address both immediate and long-term challenges facing the United States. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 4: Congressional Powers. Chapter 4 explores the essential powers granted to Congress by the Constitution, enabling it to effectively govern and address the nation's needs. These powers include the Enumerated Powers, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the Taxing and Spending Powers. Enumerated Powers: These are specific authorities listed in Article I, Section 8, including the power to levy taxes, regulate commerce, coin money, establish post offices, promote the progress of science and the arts through patents and copyrights, raise and support armies, and declare war. These powers allow Congress to create laws and policies that support national governance and public welfare. Necessary and Proper Clause: Found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, this clause gives Congress the flexibility to pass laws needed to execute its enumerated powers. It ensures that Congress can adapt to changing circumstances and address new issues. Landmark cases like McCulloch v Maryland and the Affordable Care Act demonstrate the broad application of this clause. Commerce Clause: Located in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, the Commerce Clause grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with Indian tribes. This clause aims to create a unified national economy and has been expanded significantly through judicial interpretation, allowing Congress to regulate various economic activities. Key cases such as Gibbons v Ogden and Wickard v Filburn highlight its extensive reach. Taxing and Spending Powers: Outlined in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 2, these powers enable Congress to levy taxes, collect revenue, and allocate funds for the nation's general welfare. This includes funding government operations, implementing public policies, and promoting economic stability. Notable examples include the Social Security Act, Medicare and Medicaid programs, and federal grants to states and local governments. Together, these powers equip Congress with the necessary tools to legislate effectively, ensure national prosperity, and address both immediate and long-term challenges facing the United States. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

From the early 20th century debates over opium regulation to the expansive reading of the Commerce Clause in modern times, we witness a dramatic transformation in how the government justifies its authority to address national concerns. Jacob Sullum from Reason emphasizes that our constitutional history reveals not only the ingenuity of lawmakers but also the malleability of foundational legal concepts in the face of changing circumstances. As we examine this progression, we each need to reflect on the delicate balance between effective governance and the preservation of constitutional limitations, a tension that continues to shape American democracy today.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comAre we all originalists now? Definitely not; originalism has no shortage of critics.But as the latest Term of the U.S. Supreme Court made clear, originalism is the dominant mode of constitutional interpretation at One First Street today. As the justices debate the doctrine's finer theoretical points, such as the proper use of history and tradition, it's clear that the debate is no longer “originalism or not originalism,” but “which originalism” or “whose originalism.”So it's more important than ever to understand the originalist mindset. And if you're looking for help on that front, I have a book recommendation: Professor Randy Barnett's new memoir, A Life for Liberty: The Making of an American Originalist. As promised by its subtitle, the book provides excellent insight into originalism as a theory—but as an engaging and enjoyable memoir, it's far more fun to read than any casebook or treatise.What drew Randy Barnett to originalism? Why does he view his losses in two landmark Supreme Court cases—Gonzales v. Raich, a Commerce Clause challenge to criminalizing medical marijuana, and NFIB v. Sebelius, a nearly successful effort to topple the Affordable Care Act—as victories of a sort? Why did he decide to write a memoir—and why does he think you should, too? All this and more is revealed—on the latest episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast. Show Notes:* Randy E. Barnett bio, Georgetown University Law Center* A Life for Liberty: The Making of an American Originalist, Amazon* Libertarianism Updated, by Randy E. Barnett for Law & LibertyPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in National Pork Producers Council v Ross In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a California law that prohibits the in-state sale of pork from animals confined in a manner inconsistent with California standards violate the “dormant” component of the Constitution's Commerce Clause? The case was decided on May 11, 2023 The Supreme Court held that California's Proposition 12 does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored an opinion in which a majority of the Court voted to affirm the judgment of the U-SCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. State laws violate the dormant aspect of the Commerce Clause when they seek to “build up…domestic commerce” through “burdens upon the industry and business of other States.” An antidiscrimination principle is at the core of the dormant Commerce Clause; an “almost per se” rule against state laws that have extraterritorial effects is unsupported. A state law that does have extraterritorial effects but does not purposefully discriminate does not necessarily violate the dormant Commerce Clause. Under the balancing test established in Pike v Bruce Church, a court must assess “the burden imposed on interstate commerce” by the state law and prevent its enforcement if the law's burdens are “clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.” A majority of the Court concluded that under this test, Proposition 12 does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, concluded that the petitioners failed to plausibly allege a substantial burden on interstate commerce and thus voted with the majority. Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, concluded that the petitioners did allege a substantial burden on interstate commerce, but the benefits and burdens of Proposition 12 are incommensurable. Chief Justice John Roberts filed an opinion, joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Chief Justice Roberts argued that the petitioners did allege a substantial burden on interstate commerce and that the judgment should be vacated and the case remanded to the court below to decide whether the petitioners had stated a claim under Pike. Justice Kavanaugh authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, largely agreeing with the Chief Justice but pointing out also that state economic regulations like California's Proposition 12 may raise questions not only under the Commerce Clause, but also under the Import-Export Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Send us a Text Message.New York State's cannabis program has been a magnet for lawsuits that have stymied progress in issuing licenses and growing the industry. Is the problem the agency's implementation of the governing law, or is it the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act itself that is the problem? In this episode Herb speaks with attorney Fatima Afia and covers the full range of lawsuits that have been filed against the NYS Office of Cannabis Management's adult use program.      Further Reading:New York's OCM distracted with over 20 lawsuitsState's cannabis office facing over 20 lawsuitsNew York hit with another lawsuit challenging marijuana social equityJoint Session: Diverse Voices in NYS Cannabis is produced by Herb Barbot, with additional production and engineering by Matt Patterson, with Rebecca Malpica producing our digital marketing/social media.  In addition, thank you to Cannabis Wire for contributing our cannabis news.Please contact us at herb.jointsession@gmail.com if you have any questions or comments, including topics to cover. Follow the show on Instagram at jointsession.pod, and on LinkedIn at Joint Session Podcast. If you're enjoying the show, leave us a rating and review on your favorite podcast platform. It helps new listeners find the show.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.minimumcomp.comAdministrative Update: We have an important update for Minimum Competence. Moving forward, our newsletter will be available exclusively to paid members, while the podcast will remain free for everyone. This change will allow us to dedicate more time and resources to enhancing the quality and content of Minimum Competence. We believe this is the best route forward to ensure we continue providing valuable insights and updates. We sincerely thank everyone for their understanding and continued support.This Day in Legal History: First Federal Child Labor Law Deemed UnconstitutionalOn June 3, 1918, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Hammer v. Dagenhart that the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act was unconstitutional. This landmark decision marked a significant moment in the legal battle over child labor laws in the United States. The Keating-Owen Act, passed in 1916, aimed to regulate child labor by prohibiting the interstate shipment of goods produced by children under certain ages and conditions. However, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, found that the Act exceeded the powers granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

This is part 2 of my interview with John S Pennington Jr.  Make sure to listen to Part 1 first. Allen   It seems like I mean, because all the stuff you're mentioning, you know, Ray Dalio in his books, he talks about it too, you know, like, how does one Empire take over from another one? And it's because of the the currency, it's because of you know, and he's been talking about it for a while that there's a collision course coming. And everybody's afraid of it. You know, I mean, I'm even afraid of it. Because if we go to war in 10 years from now, you know, I have two boys that are 13 and 11, they're probably going to be drafted because everybody in the United States is overweight, and they can't fight it. So there's got to be some, right? There's gonna be some serious problem with the Army not having enough people. So my kids are gonna be fighting in a war. I don't want them fighting in and like, everybody's freaking out about it. And like you said, you know, China, they brokered the deal. They're making friends in the Middle East. They're making friends in Africa. They're giving loans like you said, US gave loans to everybody. They gave loans in trillions of dollars, not even billions, but I think it was trillions of worth of loans to build infrastructure in Africa that is then maintained owned and run by Chinese. It's not run by the Africans, the Chinese are in charge of it, the Silk Road Project that they built those highways all the way from China all the way to the, you know, the Mediterranean. I mean, yeah, they've been doing it crazy. And so it seems like everything that you're saying it lines up. And it's like, now that we see John   last year in the last year and a half, while the last few months, India has stopped on some level, not all the way stopped buying Russian oil. They just read some reports this last month that they have, they have curbed their Russian oil purchases. Really. Okay. Now, I don't know exactly why. But I do know, there's tons of companies that have moved from China, to South Korea, Thailand, and India. And I believe India is now choosing Wait a minute, we want to be in good graces with the United States because that's where we're going to suck up all those jobs on China. They're going to come to India. Right. And I think India's Modi, President Modi over there is making a strategic move to go with you know, the US dollar and to do that he's got to appease the the United States by saying you know what, Russia, we even though your oil is cheaper, doesn't matter. We're gonna go with US dollar purchases for oil. That Allen   could be because China is also having territorial disputes now with India over certain areas. It's funny because we have a an oil Options program where we train, we do coaching on oil options, and we you could see it in the news play out when Russia was putting all their tanks on the border of Ukraine, you know, everybody knew it, they're coming in, they're going to invade and everybody was like, when is it gonna happen? When is it gonna happen? I told her, I'll tell all my traders it's like, you know, just wait. It's not going to happen until the Olympics are open. Olympics are over because the Olympics are in China is like they have the closing ceremonies, like four hours later, boom, there's an invasion. It's like, okay, now we can play it now. It's, you know, it's, yeah, he was insane. So now you said, now I'm trying to figure out like, okay, alright, how can I make money off of this? Right. So it's like you said that Russia and China are still buying gold. So is that? Is that an investment that's going to continue to ramp up because I think gold is at all time highs right now? John   Yeah, it's all time high. Silver is kind of trying to get up there. But Silver's having a tough time. So let's go to Okay, let's go to the summer of 2020. All right, summer 2020. The SEC, which is part of the team, you have the team, you know, US dollar, the SEC sues JP Morgan. What are they suing him for? They're suing him for manipulating the precious metals market for nine years. Silver gold, okay. And they lose, JPMorgan loses and they're fined almost a billion dollars a billion dollar fine for nine years and mutilation the SEC. Okay. The point is, JP Morgan figured out how to manipulate and control a market that's 30 times bigger than Bitcoin. Gold and silver and gold for nine years. And they finally SEC found out about it pseudonym wins, finds you billion dollars, but guess what, no one that I know of went to jail. Allen   I mean, it wasn't that big in the news, they get headlines, John   kind of kept quiet, right. So millions of people that buy and sell silver and gold were fleeced out of how know how many much money but no one goes to jail. But you just find they probably made 20 billion but they're only find a billion it was it was 930 million, but I rounded a billion because we talked about a billion seconds earlier. Right? Okay, so nine 30 million, but close to a billion dollars. All right. So my theory in my book that I explain is you have precious metals market that have been manipulated through using futures and all kinds of different manipulations. And a year from there, now you're in summer of 2021. Bitcoin is trading around $31,000. This is July. Okay. So August, September, October, November, four months later, Bitcoin hits all time high $69,000. My theory is that the Federal Reserve, US government viewed Bitcoin as a competitor possible to the US dollar. And so they took the playbook that they learned from JP Morgan, and I think they had JP Morgan personnel help them do it right. Clandestine to control try to control Bitcoin. And that's why it went from 31,000 to 16,000 in a four, three and a half month period of time. So November it hits $69,000. And so how are the way that you control Bitcoin? Well, one JP Morgan used a futures market. Okay, now what I'm about to tell you all these things that I'm gonna tell you happen in November 2021. Okay, one bitcoin hits all time high. Number two, the SEC approves a Bitcoin ETF not I first bought only four futures right and they denied grayscale the spot one Why would you approve one for futures and not one for spot doesn't make any sense. So that happened November also, also November and Allen   hold that for people who are listening to spot means the current price futures means prices in advance. So the actual the actual Bitcoin John   not a Hypothecation the actual non derivative, the actual Bitcoin, right? So the SEC says no you can't you can't operate, we're not gonna allow you to operate a ETF that actually buys Bitcoin, we're only going to allow this other company, an ETF that actually buys futures on contracts, right just contracts, which is the what the way JP Morgan was one of the ways they were able to manipulate the silver and gold market for nine years. Okay, that's the third thing that happened in November, the SEC extends their lawsuit against a ripple XRP coin. Why XRP from the nanosecond XRP was invented. Its one goal was what to do to circumvent the SWIFT system, which would decrease the demand for US dollars. So the SEC extends the EC the lawsuit for no apparent reason. And they just kind of lost it. They lost the SEC last last summer, and then they appealed. So they're this lawsuit still going on against XRP? Okay, a former thing that happened in this month, in November, Hillary Clinton came out and said, Bitcoin could damage the US dollars, reserve world currency. Now, again, back to probabilities and predictions, you can say she just went to a microphone and just talking. That's you can believe that, or what's the is that a probability high probability? Or is the probability that she had been privy to previous meetings months earlier, that the Federal Reserve was going to try to pinch Bitcoin control, they don't want to kill it, they just want to control it. And so she got in front of microphone, which she loves to do to tell all her memes. Hey, listen to me, I always know the truth. I always give you the truth. Guess what the Bitcoin could take over the US currency, which is our number one product and why so he's she's sending a coded message, maybe? Maybe not. But the probability, I think the probability is high that she had some information that the government was using a clandestine approach to try to control Bitcoin, Allen   because she was a congresswoman and she was sitting on committees and all that, yes, yes. John   One other way you can control a traded commodity or traded stock or whatever or bitcoin is if you can get 45 to 60 days of trading volume, meaning if if bitcoin trades 100 coins a day, you would need 4500 coins. If it trades 1000 coins a day, you would need 45,000 coins are 60,000 coins. This is what how you do it. So let's just say hypothetically, that from July 2021 to November 2021, the Federal Reserve had to obtain 45 days of trading bonds 66 days trading bond that means they have to buy bitcoin. They're buying Bitcoin buying Bitcoin buying Bitcoin buying Bitcoin buying Bitcoin, that means the price is going up, up, up, up up. Once they have 45 or six days of trading volume, they take their 45 Day Trading bond, and they stick it at six $9,000. And they put it there for sale, all this at a limit price 60,000 or so we start buying you buy I buy we're buying. And then we keep hitting 69 69,006 96 Night Out signal, there's a ceiling, there's a price ceiling, the ceiling, and we can see it and we go Wait, there's a big seller at 16,000 or so mean, you start selling. So we start selling everyone starts selling and it goes down to 68,000. Guess who's buying at 60,000 The Federal Reserve, they're replenishing their 60 day supply or 45 day supply of trading volume. So that mean you go Wait, there's a buyer at 68,000 and we start buying again. And it goes to 68,000. They don't let it go to 69 because that would be a bullish chart, right? They can have a they can have a higher high. They can have a lower high and they put their 45 day trading volume boom right there as 68,800 and they start selling and same thing happens. We sell and it goes down. That's one way you can control a market right now. So lately as we know, Bitcoin has hit a new all time high. Yeah. And so maybe maybe what happened was, this is there's another hypothesis. Maybe they realized they alone couldn't do it. Okay. So last summer, the SEC basically told 11 companies Listen, we're going to approve 11 companies all at the same time to try A Bitcoin spot and ETF spot so they approved 11 ETFs to trade Bitcoin spot. Now, what I think happened in October, Bitcoin was trading 31,000 27,000 31,000 31,000 27,000 27,000 If Gessner of the head of the SEC told them Hey, guess what we're going to do? In a few months we're going to let you guys start trading Bitcoin what you guys should do is buy a Bitcoin to control the market. So Bitcoin went from 27,000 to sweat 72,000 Something like that. Right? Yeah, today, but I'm saying I'm saying on January I think was January 11. Okay, all the Bitcoin went up 11 Bitcoin went alive, right? Okay. Now think about what just happened on January 11. There are record number of buying a Bitcoin record number. And in 11, or 12 days, it goes from, from where it's at down to $39,000. Why there's a record number of buyers, it should go up. But wait, if all the ETFs bought at 31,000, knee ETFs, bought at 32,000 35,000 42,000 If they were buying it, so that when the ETFs went live, they could sell it to you. That's why the price went down. There's no other there's no other explanation. Because if they had bought zero, when a record numbers came in to buy bitcoin, they would have to take your US dollars and go buy Bitcoin that would go up, the way it goes down. It went down like 18% in 11 days with record inflows, that means that I believe BlackRock and all the other 1011 ETFs are in on the game of manipulation of Bitcoin, right? And so this is back to my theory that no matter what it is, if it's the yuan, or if it's gold, if it's Bitcoin, and it and it has the potential of damaging the number one product of all time, the Federal Reserve, the US Navy, the president, the SEC, the IRS, even the CIA, that's their number one job. Now, a lot of times Congress forgets their number one job. Allen   I was gonna ask you about that, too. I was like Congress get the memo. Because yeah, John   they don't get it. But but but people criticize. Powell had the federal they criticized him all the time. I don't. I think he's doing a great job. Listen, if we went back in time, okay, we'll go back in time, Alan, we're going back to 30 years, okay. 30 years ago, I said, you're going to be the head of the Federal Reserve. Okay. And I'm going to be Congress, right? Your job is to protect and promote the US dollar. And all I do that Congress, I spend trillion, I spend a trillion, I spend a trillion, I spend a trillion, I spend a trillion. And I say to you, hey, figure out how to pay for it. Right? So you can criticize Powell all you want. But man, he's still we still are 58% of the world reserve currency. And the Congress doesn't stop spending. It's like a couple. You have a couple one spouse spends tons of money on credit cards, and they turn the other spouse pay for it. Right. And Powell must be just for it. If I was I'd be screwed top my lungs, would you guys stop spending? All you got to stop because I'm doing my best to keep this number one product afloat around the world. I'm doing my best. Right. And so I don't criticize Powell. I've actually under the circumstances, I think he's doing a fantastic job, even though people call him stupid. People don't like what he says. But I don't listen to what he says. I just listen when he does. And I and I realize he has a partner called the US Congress. Who is there just out of control spending? Yep. And he's done it. He's doing a great job by keeping our agreements accepted around the world. Yeah, Allen   I agree with you. I mean, you know, after COVID, and all that money that was spent on everything, you know, to maintain it to not even go into recession to have Yeah, inflation was a it could have been a lot worse than who it was. Without all that spending all that money that's just unaccounted for. So John   I think right now, the Congress is spending about $1 trillion every four or five months, six months. That's, that's, that's what's going on right now. That's just amazing. So back to your question. As you can tell, I have long answers. Gold, silver, Bitcoin real estate, okay. If you keep spending a trillion dollars every six months, additionally, items are going to go up in price. Gold, silver, Bitcoin, eventually, it's just going to bubble up you. It's kind of you almost can't stop it. Right. wheat, wheat soybeans, I mean, real estate farmland, if you just give a trillion dollars every six months, and how long can the us do this? I bet they can. You know, look, look the US Dollar might be the greatest Ponzi scheme ever invented a headline, it might it might be, but this is the thing. There is no mathematical way to taper a large Ponzi scheme, it can't be done. So therefore, the only way to play it all out is to play it all the way through. Okay, just to play it out, right? Let's don't get mad at me. I didn't create this. I was born into this system. Right? I am pro US dollar. Why? Because I'm in the Ponzi scheme, because all of our money is in US dollars. I don't want to wake up tomorrow morning and have the US dollar at zero because I will be broke. My parents will be living in my basement. My kids who live in my basement way my my house would be for sale because I'd be broke because everything I have almost is in US dollars. Right? Bait US dollar based, right? I have some bitcoin I have some gold. I have some real estate, right. But it's US dollar base. You too. We're we're in the Ponzi scheme. Okay. So therefore I think with the US think about the US Navy, think about the powers think about everything they could they could for what proliferate this for another 20 3050 years. They are very powerful. The Federal Reserve is the most powerful entity, along with the US Navy, along with the IRS along with the SEC along with the President. They are incredible team. And look, look, you know, China, only having 2.7% 2.7% of the world reserve currency, and we have 58% and the Euros 20%. And they got it they got a big mountain to climb, right, and they can climb it, but it's gonna take a long time. But the problem is this. Again, China is now printing more money than we're printing. Because they're in a they're in a 1929 depression right now. It's bad over there. Unemployment is youth unemployment, ages 18 to 30. is so bad China stopped reporting it. That's how bad it is. They don't report it anymore. Yeah, the estimates they have, if you are a college aged kid in China, college, graduated kid in China, and you're in a big city. This is 18 to 30 years old, okay? You graduate in college, and you have a job. Your average salary is $700 to $950 a month. Wow. That's the average salary right now in a big city. In China. They're in a 1929 depression. So they're not going to fix this in one to six months. It's going to be years to fix this in China. And the US is, I believe, putting pencils on them trying to even control them because they're sending a message to Saudi Arabia. Anyway, so this is people go man, John, you really got a lot of information, like you just said, you have all this information. And you put together like a puzzle, right? And it's conspiracy theory. And I go, it might be I might be totally wrong. But it just keeps fitting together. The more I put more puzzle pieces together, they keep fitting. Yeah. So Allen   I have another question. And this is about a different commodity. Now, we talked a little bit of we talked about how the Fed control the prices of Bitcoin, how the Fed is controlled, trying to try and try to trying to or and how it's handling other issues. What do you think? Do you or do you think that they're doing something similar to oil prices? Because it's not oil? Yeah. It's not directly tied to the dollar, but it is tied to the economy. And yeah, John   yeah. So I remember when President Biden took office is first thing he did was he turned off the Keystone pipeline to Canada. And I was like, why? Allen   environmental reasons, right? Why John   would you do that? And I put the US dollar in, wait a minute, we have to buy some oil from Saudi Arabia. So we, as a gesture to Saudi Arabia, to keep oil prices up, we turn off the Keystone pipeline to reduce oil here in North America, so that Saudi Arabia can have a better something like that. And they you know, there is some type of manipulation a little bit around the world, but oil is huge, right? Everyone's got a little bit oil and some kinds of we have a lot of oil for some reason. Saudi Arabia has a lot. Russia has a lot. And so but I would say to you that oil is a commodity base is every once in a while manipulated, but you know, turning off spigots reduces supply, which increases so but what's happened is for the oil trader, your old traders the next 510 years, maybe five years, everyone has gone green, and they're making solar panels and windmills in Germany, right. And they've been the last, you know, since that big huge problem that we had in that tidal wave in Japan. With that nuclear reactor over there, that nuclear power plant, everyone went away from nuclear. So we went through this last winter I believe there were power outages or power Our reductions in Germany, Canada, there are places that just had was worried about their power being right. And so what happens is, so many people have swung over to the green agenda, which is a good thing. They've left the agenda in buying Chevron and Exxon Mobil, and they've left they've left, and so at Chevron, Exxon Mobil have stopped or reduced their exploration because they don't have as much money. Right? Okay. And therefore, that's going to keep oil prices higher. So what the green initiative has done is encouraged oil prices to be higher, because they've reduced the amount of money that can explore and extract more oil. So they've reduced it, therefore there's less of it, therefore, oil will be higher in the future. And I know, Saudis have turned down their spigot lately, you know, for the oil. And so I know that's happening. But oil is a long term play, mostly for me. It's a long term play, but I just kind of try to find the trend. And it seems like, to me the trend is up in general, because of what I just explained. Makes Allen   sense. Yeah. I mean, I tell people that you know, back in the day, the rich man used to have an engine, like a car with an engine and everybody else was on horses, right? Yeah. And then it became commonplace. And then it became the rich man had the electric vehicle, because he had to be rich to have a and then now it's gonna flip and it's gonna be like, Okay, now the rich guy has the combustible engine, and everybody else is driving the electric vehicles. And the really John   rich man has a horse. He hasn't a stable. You guys once a month. You know what I mean? Exactly. Back to the horse. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Allen   Cool. All right. So I do want to wrap it up with going into the future now, because we you know, you mentioned conspiracy theory. And now this one is, I see it coming. But the US digital dollar. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. So let's do I want to hear on stage. John   You've heard me on stage on stage, I show a picture of Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was a bodybuilder. And I show when he's an actor, and I show him as a governor. Arnold Schwarzenegger reinvented himself three times. The US dollar has to reinvent itself. It was gold in 1933. It was the Bretton Woods, you know, we will back the the French franc in 1944. In 1971, it turned into the Fiat dollar of the petro dollar. And now it's going to go into the digital age. And it's coming, I just don't know how long it's going to take for them to manufacture a crisis, that we will accept the US digital dollar, they have to have a crisis versus except for right now. No one wants to accept it. Because once you accept it, everyone knows what you spent your money on. Right? Because right Allen   now, I mean, you have credit cards, and you have wire transfers. And so like, what's the point? Why do we need that right? Well, John   but I can pay cash for something, and you don't know what I bought. Right? Right. And so but but once the digital dollar hits, and it's mandatory, everything, you know, there won't be there won't be I can imagine there won't be a tax return anymore. If you buy something at Walmart, the nanosecond, you buy it, a few pennies will go to Washington DC, every single day. And if you're buying Chinese goods, there's 17 pennies that go to Washington DC. If you're buying US goods, there's four pennies go into wash DC every time you buy something. So if you if you transfer money from your phone to your kids, so they can buy lunch at school today, every time you transfer money, there's two pennies going to go. So there's no tax returns. Everyone knows or not everyone, the federal government would know everything you spend your money on, where you spend your money. And they might say Well, that would reduce drug trafficking, that will reduce illegal activities that reduce a lot of things because everything is tracked, there is no gold, there is no silver, there is no Bitcoin, we have to outlaw it. And it might be and I hypothecate In my book, let's go to May 2033. That's the 100th anniversary of the gold confiscation that people said no, that can never happen America Well, in 1933. In May, they confiscated all our gold. And in May 19 In May 2033, it might come to the point where for the good of the country, the country is in so big of debt. If we could just collect all of our taxes from our citizens, we could pay our bills, but we can't because too many people are using gold. Too many people are using Bitcoin too many people are using cash and we can't track that and and that's how people cheat on their taxes. But if we switched to the US digital dollar, no one can cheat on their taxes. When they buy a boat we know it when they pay for lunch, we know it right and we collect our taxes, therefore as to be patriotic. Everyone must have if you own a business you no longer accept cash You know, alongside Bitcoin, you know, because we have to sugar up the US economy, and it's patriotic. And this is this hypothetical, but may 9, may 2033, just 100 year anniversary, it could happen if they can create, and I'm saying create a crisis in the American mind, where we're gonna go bankrupt United States unless we switch the US digital dollar. And that's the savior now. So something like that that's a hypothetical. You might it might be, it might be a cyber attack. You know, I don't know if you remember this, this, I think 2012 Maybe you remember a little country called Cyprus. Allen   I know of a John   little country called Cyprus, right. on a Monday morning, everyone woke up went to their bank. And the rich people who had I don't know the number, but it was over 100,000 are over 500,000 in their bank, half of their money was gone. The country confiscated half of the savings accounts of our all the rich people, because the country tried to go to the EU over the weekend, because they were bankrupt. and the EU turned them down. They said, Look, we'll give us a loan. They said no. So the EU turned them down. So the only thing that country could do was over the weekend, confiscate half of the money in all the bank and this is digital, this digital dollars, your digital, you can do this. They confiscated half of the money. And they said basically to the people, aren't you glad we did that? Because we wouldn't have done that. Your your your country, you'd have been worth zero. All your money would have been the zero we confiscated half of it, to pay for the government to keep us alive and open so that you could have half your money. This happened in Cyprus. Wow. So, you know, we when you say when you use the word, US government cannot. That's the wrong word. No, there's no Federal Reserve cannot that no, you should use shouldn't, wouldn't. But couldn't isn't a right word. Because in a digital age, everything is possible. They can change laws they can it's when people are desperate. And Money makes people desperate. Or lack of money makes people desperate. Things just happen that you thought could never happen. And I'm sure those people in Cyprus thought it could never happen. But on a Monday morning, it happened. Oh, yeah. She's, Allen   I mean, like you mentioned in the book, you talked about the Commerce Clause, right? And yeah, and I remember after 911, the government passed the Patriot Act, you know, it's a great, great name for a bill or a Patriot Act. Yeah. What does it mean? It means basically, if you look at it, they can take anybody off the street, pick you up, throw you in a hole, you have no representation. No, you can't talk to anybody for as long as they want as long as you are under suspicion. And it doesn't matter if you're a citizen or not. And it's like, okay, what happened to our liberties? What happened to the Constitution? Oh, it's not there anymore. Sorry. You know, so yeah, you're right. They can do basically anything. John   The word the word cannot, should not be in your sentence with the US government shouldn't wouldn't Yes, but cannot or couldn't. Don't don't say those words together with the US government. As Allen   you remember, when Modi took over in India, they had supposedly they had problems with, you know, the mafia and illegal gambling and illegal monies and all that. So he made everybody turn in their higher dollar notes. Yes, exactly. It's like everybody to come into cash and other notes and the people that bring it in, we'll baskets and stuff. So it John   he actually it was pretty thought out because he said the poor people need a $1 $5 bill or $10. Bill, the rich people, you don't need hundreds and $500 bills, you can all you do that electronically. You want to transfer large amounts of money, it's electronic. You want to transfer for tips, or you want to pay your guy to shine your shoes or mow your lawn. You still have small bills, because look, it's really hard to transfer $1,000,000,001 bills, because it would take up a whole truckload right? So, so that was Modi's compromise to keep the poor having money in their pocket, and to hinder the rich, or the drug dealers or whoever, for moving large amounts of money. It all has to be electronically because electronically, we can track it. Allen   Yeah, so I mean, that could be something that they do here. You know, let's take away the $100. Bill. We used to have $1,000 bills, right, I think yeah, back in the day. Yeah. A John   long time ago. Yeah. Yeah. Allen   So okay, so you're saying that in nine years is 2023 or 33 2033. And you also say in your book that every 10 years, there is some kind of financial catastrophe or collapse or John   if you think about it since 1971, okay, we won the fiat currency system. Okay. Okay, and this is roughly nine or 10 years, okay? The economy goes, boom, right? And there's opportunity. So 1971 Give me a few years for the fiat currency to get going. Okay, the petro dollar. In 1988, there was a stock market crash. And soon after that, the Berlin Wall came down, the Soviet Union crushed. And I took advantage of that I started selling us Levi's, the Eastern Bloc country, okay. 1999 comes around the.com bubble, right. And I missed it. There was a huge opportunity in internet. I knew it was going on, I just couldn't figure out how to make money at it. And it went, boom, and I missed that opportunity. Okay, 99 2000. Then in 2008, nine ish, there was a great recession. And I took great advantage of I started a huge fund that eventually was managing a family of funds, the lost family funds, 2008, that eventually, in 2021, was managing $28 billion assets under management. And today manages like 47 billion. Okay. And then 2020, there was the pandemic, right. And then we launched other funds called, they were called opportunities on funds that had huge tax advantages that we launched funds in that. So about every 10 years or so, since the fiat currency of 1971, the petro dollar, every 10 years, you know, it goes, the economy just goes boom, and boom means there's opportunity. And so a lot of the funds that started in real estate funds that started 289, and 10 made a ton of money, you can still make a lot of money, real estate, but we made a ton of money, because the economy was just blanketed low and we could buy things so cheap in 2009 and 10. It was it was crazy. So Allen   I don't know. I mean, we might be close to that timeline, you know, but 10 years and 33. It's somewhere in there. Well, John   are 2029, you know, 29? Right in there, right in there. 20 930-228-2930. Right there. That's about 10 more years. That's the tenure since the last one ish, right? Yeah. Allen   Do you have anything on your antenna that you're noticing now that would go boom? John   Well, again, it might be the US digital dollar that goes into it might be an opportunity there. Because, you know, maybe this is this, this is way out there. But maybe Congress is spending and spending and spending and spending and spending for a lot of reasons. But one reason is to cause a crisis. Well, so that we could be forced to go to the digital dollar. Oh, my right. Yeah, that's just a crazy i That's i That's not my blood, because that's just a crazy theory. But because I can't think I cannot figure out why. What's the purpose of this? Like, I can't figure out why President Biden lets all these illegals coming off our southern border. Yeah, I don't I don't get I know there's a reason. But I don't really understand the reason I'm trying to figure it out. And I haven't figured that one out yet. And yet, I can't figure out why the US Congress can't just stop spending some money. It might just be there's no conspiracy, they just spin spin spin. But it might just there might be another underlying reason. They're trying to force it because they look to get us to go the US digital dollar, there has to be a cyber attack, there has to be some big crisis, something like in Cyprus, that would cause us to go, okay. I'm okay with that. Like right now, we have five and a quarter percentage rates, you know why we're okay with that, because we had 9% inflation. But if we had 1%, inflation, we would never accept a five and a quarter percentage rate. So there has to be some type of crisis to get people to do things they don't want to do. And we no one wants to go to the Digital's digital dollar. But you would in a situation, there's scenarios that you would you would switch Yeah. Allen   And at this point, there's no alternative. And the Fed, like you said, is making it that way. And that's their job to make sure there's no alternative. Oh my Well, John, I really appreciate your time we've gone over thank you so much for it. And again really fun, everybody it's dollars gold and Bitcoin available at Amazon, get your copy. And we've touched everything in here. There's more in here that that is also John   on audible.com If you'd like my voice, you can listen to me for six hours and because I recorded the whole thing and all the time so if you don't read books, you listen to books, you can continue to listen to Mike scratchy voice for six more hours. Allen   Thank you so much. I appreciate you and everything that you've shared with us. John   Thank you very much for having me.

Nia and Aughie discuss the federal legislation signed by President Biden that requires TikTok to sell to a different owner. They also discuss the national security implications as well as the Commerce Clause implications of the legislation. Episode was created May 1, 2024.

In this conversation, Cy and Emily discuss the recent announcement by the DEA that they will recommend rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III. They explore the potential implications of this decision, including its impact on the capital markets, banking reform, and the ongoing Commerce Clause case. They also touch on the significance of this shift in the federal government's view of cannabis and the challenges that lie ahead in the implementation process. Overall, they express cautious optimism about the future of cannabis legalization in the United States.TakeawaysThe DEA's recommendation to reschedule cannabis to Schedule III represents a significant shift in the federal government's view of cannabis and acknowledges its potential positive benefits.While rescheduling alone does not immediately change the criminality around cannabis or allow for uplisting and banking reform, it sets a strong foundation for future progress.The rescheduling decision may pave the way for discussions on capital markets and banking reform, as well as potential memos from the DOJ and the impact of the Commerce Clause case.The implementation process and potential challenges, including legal battles and administrative procedures, will play a crucial role in determining the actual impact of rescheduling.Despite the uncertainties and challenges, there is a sense of cautious optimism about the future of cannabis legalization in the United States.Chapters00:00 Introduction and Overview03:02 DEA Recommends Rescheduling Cannabis to Schedule III09:26 The Trauma and Optimism of Cannabis Legalization13:49 The Implications of Rescheduling16:13 The Commerce Clause Case and Fair Application of the CSAKeywordsDEA, rescheduling, cannabis, Schedule III, capital markets, banking reform, Commerce Clause case, implementation process, federal government, legalizationHeadset

John Ream, an engineer and owner of Trek Brewing Company which creates craft beers in Newark, Ohio, is suing the U.S. Department of Treasury over the regulations that prohibit distilling spirits and hard alcohols at home. Mr. Ream asserts that he would like to pursue the hobby of distilling spirits at home for his personal use but cannot because of federal legislation. The federal law, passed under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, makes it a felony punishable by $10,000 in fines and five years in prison, to distill hard alcohol, even for personal use. Mr. Ream, represented by The Buckeye Institute, alleges that this prohibition is unconstitutional and exceeds the powers granted Congress by the Commerce Clause, since it seeks to regulate non-commercial activity.The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, early in 2024, and is currently making its way through the litigation process.Join us for a litigation update on Ream v. U.S. Department of Treasury featuring Robert Alt, lead attorney at The Buckeye Institute representing Mr. Ream.Featuring:Robert Alt, President and CEO, The Buckeye Institute(Moderator) Andrew Grossman, Partner, BakerHostetler LLP

1. Background and Constitutional Basis The Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce. The clause reads: "Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." This provision is a critical element of the federal government's ability to influence a wide array of economic, social, and legal issues across the country. 2. Federal Powers and Implications Broad Scope of Regulatory Authority: Historically, the Commerce Clause has provided the basis for significant expansions of federal power. This authority allows Congress to address issues that transcend state boundaries, which individual states might be ill-equipped to handle alone. For example, environmental regulations, anti-discrimination laws, and labor standards often require uniformity that only the federal government can provide. Economic and Social Impact: The federal government's regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause can also affect large segments of the economy, such as transportation, labor relations, and telecommunications. The impact extends beyond purely economic considerations, influencing social welfare and public health. Contemporary Relevance: In modern contexts, the Commerce Clause has been a foundational legal basis for implementing legislation like the Affordable Care Act, specifically the individual mandate, which was initially argued under this clause before being upheld under the taxing power. 3. State Powers and the Dormant Commerce Clause Dormant Commerce Clause Concept: While the Commerce Clause grants power to the federal government, it also implicitly restricts the states from enacting legislation that interferes with or discriminates against interstate commerce. This concept, known as the Dormant Commerce Clause, ensures a free and open national market. State Legislation Impact: States are often barred from passing laws that would favor local businesses or industries at the expense of out-of-state competitors. This prohibition helps prevent a "race to the bottom," where states might otherwise engage in competitive deregulation to attract businesses at the expense of broader public interests. Balancing Local and National Interests: The Supreme Court often finds itself balancing state powers against federal interests, deciding whether state laws unduly burden interstate commerce by applying a test of whether the local benefits of the regulation outweigh the burdens on interstate commerce. 4. Key Cases Illustrating Commerce Clause Applications Wickard v. Filburn (1942): This landmark case dramatically expanded the scope of the Commerce Clause, holding that even personal activities affecting the broader market (like growing wheat for personal use) could be regulated by Congress if, in the aggregate, they have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. Gonzales v. Raich (2005): This case further affirmed federal power under the Commerce Clause, allowing Congress to criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states have legalized it, under the theory that such local activities could affect the national market. United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000): These cases signaled a shift, with the Court imposing limits on the reach of the Commerce Clause. In Lopez, the Court struck down a federal law banning guns near schools, ruling it exceeded Congress's commerce power. Morrison followed suit by invalidating parts of the Violence Against Women Act on similar grounds. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012): Although the Commerce Clause did not ultimately serve as the basis for upholding the ACA's individual mandate, the extensive discussions surrounding the case highlighted the ongoing debate over the scope of federal regulatory power under the Commerce Clause. --- 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

Tracy and Tank whip out their timecards and go to work chronicling the deterioration of property rights in the U.S.  Specifically, they examine the interstate commerce clause and how it played a major role in the loss of property rights over time.   Put on your history hats.  Tracy and Tank are ready to party like it's 1789.   Gibbons v. Ogden Wickard v. Filburn Gonzales v. Raich   The best nation is a donation.  Every little bit helps out a great deal.  Thank you for your support! Patreon.com/tandtlibertyfactory Bitcoin (BTC)  3FNiu1B5q25x8jhZzaPmMLbu9hVoJpyWVE Zcash (ZEC)  t1KqKcmKugzidsUoFvSc3hHP6xVDNsqExmq  

This Day in Legal History: Felix Frankfurter DiesOn this day in legal history, February 22, 1965, the legal community and the United States at large lost one of its most influential and intellectually formidable figures, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, who passed away in Washington, DC. Born in Vienna, Austria, in 1882, Frankfurter emigrated to the U.S. with his family, rising from humble beginnings to become a professor at Harvard Law School, and eventually, in 1939, a Supreme Court Justice nominated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His tenure on the court was marked by a strong adherence to judicial restraint, a philosophy advocating for the courts to avoid deciding more than what was necessary for the resolution of a case.Frankfurter's notable achievements include his influential opinions on civil rights and liberties, his pivotal role in the development of the doctrine of incorporation, which applied the Bill of Rights to the states, and his mentorship of several future legal scholars and justices. His majority opinions and concurring opinions are studied for their meticulous craftsmanship and deep respect for the Constitution's framers. However, his career was not without controversy; Frankfurter was often criticized for his perceived conservatism and reluctance to join the more liberal bloc of the court in expanding civil rights.His advocacy for judicial restraint and his approach to the Constitution often put him at odds with colleagues who were more willing to interpret the Constitution as a living document. Despite these controversies, Frankfurter's impact on American law and constitutional interpretation remains indelible, making him a central figure in the history of the Supreme Court. His legacy is one of intellectual rigor, profound respect for the law, and a deep-seated belief in the power of judicial restraint to protect the democratic process.On February 21, a federal judge in San Diego issued a ruling that temporarily prevents California's attorney general from enforcing a new law targeting the firearms industry. This law, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2022, allows for legal action against manufacturers and sellers of "abnormally dangerous" guns. The judge's decision, responding to a lawsuit by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), suggests that the law likely violates the Constitution's dormant Commerce Clause by affecting interstate commerce. Specifically, the law could impose liability on out-of-state gun manufacturers for crimes committed in California with their legally manufactured weapons. This preliminary injunction halts the state's ability to sue the firearms industry under this law while the lawsuit progresses. The ruling does not address Second Amendment concerns but focuses on the law's potential to interfere with interstate commerce. Governor Newsom's administration is reportedly consulting on next steps, emphasizing that the ruling still allows for the pursuit of "bad actors" in the gun industry for harms caused by their products. This case highlights the ongoing legal and constitutional debates surrounding gun control and state versus federal powers in the United States.By way of very brief background, and hopefully only as a refresher if you are one of our lawyer listeners, the Dormant Commerce Clause refers to a legal doctrine derived from the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The "dormant" aspect of this doctrine implies that, in the absence of federal regulations, states cannot enact legislation that discriminates against or unduly burdens interstate commerce. Essentially, it serves as a prohibition against state protectionism, ensuring that the flow of interstate trade remains free from unnecessary restrictions imposed by individual states. This principle aims to maintain a national economic union, preventing states from enacting laws that favor in-state businesses over out-of-state competitors, thereby preserving a unified, competitive market across state lines.Judge blocks California from suing makers of 'abnormally dangerous' guns | ReutersCorporate legal departments are currently exploring the potential of generative artificial intelligence (AI), with a focus on its application in the legal industry, under the guidance of a new initiative called The Sense Collective. This initiative, spearheaded by Factor, aims to convene in-house lawyers from major corporations such as Adobe, Ford, Intel, and Microsoft to deliberate on the optimal use of AI tools in legal practices. Despite the enthusiasm surrounding generative AI for tasks like drafting documents, legal research, and e-discovery, many legal departments remain in the experimental phase, carefully assessing the technology's implications and applications.Ed Sohn of Factor highlights the ongoing exploration into accessing generative AI, whether through market-available tech products or direct chat interfaces like Microsoft Copilot or OpenAI's ChatGPT Enterprise. Mike Haven from Intel noted that while his legal department has utilized AI for various tasks, generative AI represents a newer frontier, prompting a cautious and deliberate approach to its deployment.The Sense Collective, beyond serving as a forum for discussion, is intent on identifying solutions that deliver substantial value to their organizations. This includes examining the effective use of tools such as Copilot and addressing broader questions regarding AI's impact on legal department investments, business counseling, and ethical considerations.An interesting aspect of the collective's work will be the development of generative AI prototypes tailored for legal use cases. Additionally, the group is keen on monitoring advancements in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) technology, which promises to enhance AI tool accuracy by leveraging an organization's institutional knowledge. Membership in The Sense Collective is limited and requires a financial commitment, with outputs from the group's discussions reserved exclusively for its members.Top In-House Counsel Band Together to Experiment with Gen AIUS Justice Dept names first AI officer as new technology challenges law enforcement | ReutersIn anticipation of New York's pilot for mobile driver's licenses, lawmaker Michaelle Solages is spearheading legislation to establish model privacy standards amidst the national trend towards digital identification. This initiative seeks to address the security and transparency concerns that have arisen with the digitalization of IDs. Solages' proposed legislation emphasizes voluntary adoption of digital IDs, mandates state management of the wallet application, and sets strict controls on data handling and usage, including a prohibition on selling data to third parties and requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant for data access.The bill aims to create a framework that accommodates various uses of digital IDs, ensuring privacy, security, and cost-effectiveness. This approach contrasts with the New York DMV's current direction, which involved a $1.7 million contract with IDEMIA for a digital identity platform without extensive public discussion on privacy safeguards. Critics like Ross Schulman from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Zachary Martin from Venable have underscored the importance of public debate and comprehensive stakeholder engagement in shaping digital ID policies.Privacy advocates are particularly concerned about third-party partnerships and the potential for increased surveillance through digital IDs, advocating for technical protections like encryption and granular data control. Amidst these concerns, the New York DMV is still finalizing the mobile ID pilot, with no set timeline for its rollout. Solages remains optimistic about collaborating with the DMV and external groups to ensure the digital licensing initiative prioritizes the security and privacy of New Yorkers, highlighting the legislative effort to safeguard privacy alongside technological advancements.Mobile Driver's Licenses Face Privacy Scrutiny Ahead of NY Pilot Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of KAJ Masterclass LIVE, join us for a thought-provoking conversation with Jack Decker, a seasoned Libertarian and author of a groundbreaking amendment to the US Constitution. Explore the vision behind downsizing the federal government and empowering states. Jack, with over 40 years of experience, shares insights into his proposed "First States Amendment." Discover the intersection of politics and practicality, as we delve into how this hybrid approach could reshape governance in the United States.

On this episode I talk with Jack Decker. The US federal government has become too powerful and not what the country's Founding Fathers wanted. A 100 years after the founding of this nation, pro-centralized-power advocates finally got a pro-centralized-power US Supreme Court to agree to their warped readings of the General Welfare Clause and Commerce Clause that has resulted in now the federal government doing whatever it wants. Jacks' amendment stops that and returns power back to the states. No One-Size-Fits-All federal solutions but 50 states thus 50 experiments where HOPEFULLY the good can be copied and the bad not. You can help make this a reality by helping raise Jacks amendment public profile and get it to become part of the public discourse. 

The Powers of Congress (Commerce Clause, Taxing, and Spending Powers). Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause, found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, grants Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." This clause has been a cornerstone for expanding federal legislative power. Historically, its interpretation has varied from narrow in the early 19th century to expansive during the New Deal era and beyond. Key cases like Gibbons v Ogden (1824) and Wickard v Filburn (1942) demonstrate the evolving nature of Commerce Clause jurisprudence. In Gibbons, the Supreme Court established that federal power over interstate commerce was plenary, overriding state laws that interfered with it. Wickard significantly broadened this interpretation, holding that even activities seemingly local in nature could affect interstate commerce and thus fall under federal regulation. Taxing and Spending Powers. Congress also wields substantial power through its ability to tax and spend for the "general Welfare" (Article 1, Section 8). This power, while ostensibly straightforward, has profound implications for national policy and governance. In cases like United States v Butler (1936), the Supreme Court recognized Congress's broad discretion in taxing and spending to promote the general welfare. However, it also underscored that such powers must not contravene other constitutional provisions. The Affordable Care Act (ACA), particularly the case National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius (2012), is a contemporary example where the taxing power played a key role. The Supreme Court upheld the ACA's individual mandate, characterizing it as a tax and thus within Congress's constitutional authority. The Tenth Amendment and State Powers. The Tenth Amendment is crucial in maintaining the federal balance. It states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This amendment emphasizes the principle of reserved powers, ensuring that states retain a significant sphere of autonomy. The interpretation and application of the Tenth Amendment have been central in cases dealing with the limits of federal power. In New York v United States (1992), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not compel states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program, underscoring state sovereignty. Similarly, Printz v United States (1997) affirmed that the federal government could not commandeer state officers to implement federal laws. The Dormant Commerce Clause. The Dormant Commerce Clause is an inferred principle from the Commerce Clause, suggesting that in granting Congress power over interstate commerce, the Constitution implicitly restricts states from passing legislation that interferes with or discriminates against interstate commerce. This doctrine plays a critical role in maintaining an open national market, free from parochial state interests. Cases like Cooley v Board of Wardens of Port of Philadelphia (1852) and South Dakota v Wayfair, Inc. (2018) illustrate the Court's approach to balancing state interests against the need for a uniform national economy. Wayfair, in particular, marked a significant shift, allowing states to require out-of-state sellers to collect and remit sales tax, reflecting the realities of the modern digital economy. Intergovernmental Immunities. Intergovernmental immunities encompass doctrines that prevent the federal and state governments from encroaching on each other's essential functions. This concept, though not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, is derived from the federal structure itself. --- 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

 In June, 2022 the U.S. Supreme Court delivered an historic and far reaching decision overturning Roe v. Wade and turning abortion law to the states. Less than two years on, we are seeing just how that decision is playing out as women navigate a divided country with a patchwork of reproductive rights.  The recent example of Kate Cox, a Dallas-area mother of two who sought to have a medical exemption from Texas' strict abortion laws and was forced to leave the state to receive the care she needed when her request was denied, brought the consequences of the Court's decision to the headlines. In this episode we hear from the show's co-host Pam Karlan, an expert in reproductive law, about the Texas case and reproductive rights in the US after Roe was overturned.Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XChapters:(00:00:00) IntroductionRich Ford introduces the episode and highlights the significant changes in abortion laws over recent years. (00:01:08) Current Legal ContextPam Karlan provides an overview of the legal landscape since the Dobbs case decision and summarizes the changes and confusion it has led to.(00:05:00) Texas Abortion Controversy: Kate Cox CaseFocus on the case of Kate Cox, a woman in Texas seeking abortion due to fetal health complications. Analysis of the legal, political, and ethical implications of the verdict.(00:10:02) Impact of Returning Abortion Laws to StatesThe misconception that returning abortion decisions to states would reduce controversy. Analysis of attempts to to restrict travel for abortion services.(00:12:20) Legal Ramifications and Political ScenariosDiscussion on potential legal consequences for aiding abortion travel and comparisons with state laws regarding child-related travel. Contemplation of federal abortion bans utilizing the Commerce Clause and the potential scenarios for imposing such bans.(00:14:48) Medical Abortions and Legal ChallengesInsights into the rise of medical abortions and the controversy surrounding the approval and distribution of drugs, and subsequent legal battles.(00:20:20) State Politics, Abortion Laws & State Referendum DynamicsExploration of the shifting dynamics in state politics, including red states' stances on protecting abortion rights, and measures in California & Ohio.(00:22:56) Shifting Political NarrativesDiscussion on the evolving focus of the abortion debate, and examination of how abortion politics are playing out in national and state elections, influencing political strategies.(00:24:59) Federal Legislation Prospects and Responsive ActivismThe potential for federal legislation protecting or banning abortion rights & insights into citizen activism  both aiding and impeding abortion access. (00:28:18) Abortion in Unlikely ArenasExamples showcasing how abortion politics infiltrate seemingly unrelated areas, affecting military promotions and governmental functionality. 

In Part 7 of the final plenary session, commissioners debate and vote on Proposal 1 as offered by the Committee on Federal Legislative and Executive Jurisdiction. Hosted by Convention of States Foundation in August of 2023, the Article V Convention Simulation was held in Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, with delegations from 49 states.

Join Emily and Cy as they host Darren Weiss, President of Verano as they discuss the genesis of the historic lawsuit filed against the federal government challenging cannabis prohibition under the Commerce Clause. The lawsuit argues that the federal government's current contradictory stance on cannabis - where it is illegal at the federal level but allowed and regulated in many states - violates the Commerce Clause by interfering with intrastate cannabis commerce.The lawsuit is spearheaded by law firm Boies Schiller Flexner with support from a coalition of cannabis companies. Verano president Darren Weiss explains how the Commerce Clause was originally intended to regulate commerce between states, not commerce within states. He argues the federal regulation of intrastate cannabis markets contradicts the original intent.Cy, Emily and Darren discuss how the contradictory federal policy impacts businesses of all sizes, from multi-state operators down to small social equity licensees. The lawsuit aims to open up banking, reduce tax burdens, and create fairness across the industry. While the case will likely take years to reach the Supreme Court, it represents a new front in the ongoing fight for cannabis law reform.Headset

Opinion: Amicus brief filed in support of SCOTUS review of Washington's Capital Gains Excise Tax. Washington's decision to tax out-of-state transactions by way of an excise scheme to avoid constitutional limitations on income taxes has created conflict with the Commerce Clause. https://tinyurl.com/2nyy3eh3 #opinion #columns #commentary #ChrisCorry #WashingtonPolicyCenter #WashingtonCapitalGainsIncomeTax #Amicusbrieffiled #SCOTUSreview #OpportunityforAllCoalition #UnitedStatesSupremeCourt #WashingtonState #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToda

How far can states use their local economy to put economic pressure on other states to change their policies? In National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023), the Supreme Court considered this question, and had a very unusual split 5-4 with Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett in the majority. The Court rejected a challenge to a California regulation that prohibited the in-state sale of pork which was previously out-of-state “confined in a cruel manner.”This panel will discuss the decision and the originalist foundations, if any, of the dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Additionally, even if it properly exists, what is its extent and the impact of the Court's decision?

The Commerce Clause gone wild. The Most Abused Clause in the Constitution. This is an ACU encore Presentation.

Harvard Law School Professor and EELP's Founding Director Jody Freeman, who is also an independent director of ConocoPhillips, speaks with Harvard Law School Professor Richard Lazarus and University of Wisconsin-Madison Professor of Law Steph Tai about the US Supreme Court's recent decision in Sackett v. EPA. They discuss how the Court's reliance on a dictionary definition of waters will drastically limit Clean Water Act protections: severely shrinking what qualifies as covered wetlands and streams, and as a result, enfeebling the federal government's ability to protect the larger water bodies the act still clearly covers. With a deep dive into the history of the Clean Water Act, the Supreme Court's prior decisions, and the science of watersheds, they put into context how the Sackett decision flies in the face of what Congress intended when it passed this landmark legislation. Quotes: “[I]f the Court uses a continuous surface water connection test, which is what they're moving towards, to traditional navigable waters required for wetlands, more than 50% of wetlands in some watersheds would no longer be protected by the Clean Water Act. With respect to streams: Ephemeral and intermittent streams would not be jurisdictional waters and thus more than 90% of stream length, in some watersheds, would no longer be protected by the Clean Water Act.” —Steph Tai [6:50] “… [W]e don't have to guess what the purpose of the Clean Water Act is, it's the very first section of the act, section 101, it says its purpose is to preserve the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the nation's waters. That is the purpose of the statute. And unfortunately, what the court is done here, it's made it impossible to do that both to those waters that are now no longer covered themselves, which are important, and because their connection to the waters the court says are covered. So all sets of those waters will no longer be effectively protected by the statute. And when Congress did this in 1972, they did it deliberately. They deliberately decided we needed a national law, a comprehensive law. They deliberately defined the term navigable waters to mean waters of the United States as a broad term, and the accompanying legislative history said, we're doing that deliberately. We want to tap into the full scope of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. So, they were intentionally not making this depend on traditional notions of navigability. And that's been the sort of the settled law. And now the court has turned back the clock.” —Richard Lazarus [13:45] “I felt a sense of disappointment there wasn't a dissent that really took the majority to task and chimed in about the danger of the Thomas-Gorsuch approach and view of the Commerce Clause... [L]urking here in the Thomas-Gorsuch concurrence is a very radical view of the Commerce Clause and what Congress can do and what it means for environmental law more generally.”  —Jody Freeman [42:50] “There is a real tone and tenor and attitude of real disdain for the enterprise of the agencies in these cases. For the job the government has been given by Congress in these statutes, a sense of the government is the enemy. The government imposes and impinges on liberty. There's a line in the Alito opinion, Richard, that says the Clean Water Act is a ‘potent weapon' and it has ‘crushing' consequences. Not, ‘there's a mission.' Congress gave the agency a mission to protect the waters of the United States.” —Jody Freeman [55:08] Transcript: http://eelp.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/CleanLaw-86-final.pdf

Attorney Anna Gorisch returns to explain the Commerce Clause, and how it's gone from a restraint on state-on-state protectionism to a trump card for federal oversight to subvert local control.

Does a California law requiring pork sold in-state to come from animals raised with certain confinement standards violate the "dormant" Commerce Clause of the Constitution? Audio of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in National Pork Producer's Council v. Ross (May 2023) Music by Epidemic Sound

Does a California law requiring pork sold in-state to come from animals raised with certain confinement standards violate the "dormant" Commerce Clause of the Constitution? Audio of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in National Pork Producer's Council v. Ross (May 2023) Music by Epidemic Sound

This week, we answer listener questions about unfunded liabilities, different types of rights, what would happen if the Supreme Court overturned the broad interpretation of the commerce clause, and statistical versus practical significance Get Your Copy of Cooperation and Coercion Now!http://www.cooperationandcoercion.com See More Ant and James!http://www.wordsandnumbers.org Show Your Support for Words & Numbers at Patreonhttps://www.patreon.com/wordsandnumbers Apply for the Seminar on Classical Liberalism: Theory and Practicehttps://www.wabash.edu/stephenson-institute/summer-seminars Quick Hits https://www.ocregister.com/2023/01/09/us-safety-agency-to-consider-ban-on-gas-stoves-amid-health-fears/ https://www.enerdynamics.com/Energy-Currents_Blog/How-Much-Primary-Energy-Is-Wasted-Before-Consumers-See-Value-from-Electricity.aspx https://dailycaller.com/2023/01/06/university-michigan-diversicrats-year-diversity-equity-inclusion/ Foolishness of the Week https://thepostmillennial.com/historically-debunked-1619-project-to-be-released-as-hulu-docuseries Join the Conversation Words & Numbers Backstagehttps://www.facebook.com/groups/130029457649243/ More James at Smoke & Storieshttps://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjILow4-ZJpBV-NnmSusZJ_vCuzKUJ4Ig More Ant on YouTubehttps://www.youtube.com/antonydavies Let Us Know What You Thinkmailto:wordsandnumberspodcast@gmail.com Antony Davies on Twitterhttps://twitter.com/antonydavies James R. Harrigan on Twitterhttps://twitter.com/JamesRHarrigan

Dairy and apples and whiskey and wine. Many of our favorite things have turned in up cases involving the Commerce Clause at the Supreme Court. This term, the Court will consider whether a California law regulating the sale of pork violates that Clause. Some think the Court will strike California’s pork ban down. Others wonder, based […]

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in National Pork Producers v. Ross. The case is about a 2018 California ballot initiative, in which voters decided that the state should prohibit the in-state sale of pork from animals confined in a manner inconsistent with California standards. Opponents of the amendment argue that it violates dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Today on We the People, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law, and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law join host Jeffrey Rosen discuss whether the Interstate Commerce Clause restricts states from regulating in-state conduct that has a substantial impact on mostly out-of-state producers. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.