Podcasts about Constitution

This week on the Mark Levin Show, there's a fake MAGA faction within conservatism that harbors dangerous ideologies, including affinities for Hitler sympathizers and antisemitic rhetoric. Darryl Cooper promotes revisionist history, such as portraying Churchill as a villain and Hitler as misunderstood. Later, the big, beautiful bill is not perfect, but it's pretty good. Republicans didn't have enough votes to cut anymore. Democrats are trying to tell you there are Medicaid cuts. No, it's cutting off people who shouldn't be getting Medicaid. The Texas flood has caused immense heartbreak, with over 100 dead and more than 160 missing. Among the tragic stories are two young sisters, aged 13 and 11, found drowned but holding hands. Mother Nature can be a monster. Also, President Trump has had enough of Putin. Putin is a genocidal maniac responsible for slaughtering Ukrainian civilians, but there are some in Fake MAGA who root for Russia. Lower federal courts are ignoring Supreme Court rulings, with judges defying the Constitution and law on immigration. In LA, a judge rules that ICE roundups are racist, alleging indiscriminate arrests of brown-skinned people at Home Depots, car washes, farms, etc., due to ethnicity and a 3,000-daily quota. In addition, in New Hampshire, a judge upholds birthright citizenship via national injunction, citing long-standing practice over constitutional analysis. The media ignore this, while actions persist. The judges have changed, not the Constitution. Also, President Trump has made enormous progress domestically and internationally, but institutions are being turned against Americans. Democrats will inevitably win elections and use the permanent government, courts, and administrative state to try to permanently embed their ideology, making it irreversible. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this enlightening episode of Liberty and Learning, Mark Levin engages in a profound discussion with Dr. Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale College, engage in a thought-provoking discussion about the Declaration of Independence and its lasting impact on American society. As the nation recently celebrated Independence Day, the conversation serves as a timely reminder of the principles that founded the United States.The episode begins with a reflection on the brilliance of the Declaration, described by Dr. Arnn as a "philosophic, political, theological masterpiece." He highlights the intellectual influences that shaped Thomas Jefferson's writing, noting that Jefferson drew from the ideas of great thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, and John Locke. This rich philosophical background laid the groundwork for a document that would not only declare independence but also articulate the values of liberty and equality that define America.One of the key themes discussed is the evolution of religious freedom in America. Dr. Arnn explains how early settlers sought religious conformity, yet over time, they recognized the necessity of allowing diverse beliefs to flourish. This journey towards understanding the importance of religious freedom is a testament to the evolving nature of American society.As the conversation shifts to the Civil War, Levin and Arnn examine Abraham Lincoln's reliance on the Declaration of Independence to frame the moral argument against slavery. Lincoln's ability to connect the principles of the Declaration to the struggle for freedom and equality underscores the document's enduring relevance. Dr. Arnn emphasizes that Lincoln viewed the Declaration as the foundation of American identity, a perspective that resonates deeply in contemporary discussions about liberty and justice.The episode also addresses the challenges posed by modern progressivism. Levin and Arnn critique how some contemporary interpretations of the Declaration seek to distort its original meaning, arguing for a return to the foundational principles that have guided the nation. They discuss the dangers of viewing the Declaration as merely a historical artifact rather than a living document that continues to inspire and challenge Americans today.Listeners will come away from this episode with a deeper appreciation for the Declaration of Independence, not just as a historical document, but as a vital part of the American ethos. The insights shared by Levin and Arnn encourage us to reflect on our nation's founding principles and consider how they apply to the challenges we face in the present day. To learn more about Hillsdale College, go to ⁠https://www.hillsdale.edu/⁠ Order Dr. Arnn's book: ⁠The Founders' Key: The Divine and Natural Connection Between the Declaration and the Constitution and What We Risk by Losing It Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show, lower federal courts are ignoring Supreme Court rulings, with judges defying the Constitution and law on immigration. In LA, a judge rules that ICE roundups are racist, alleging indiscriminate arrests of brown-skinned people at Home Depots, car washes, farms, etc., due to ethnicity and a 3,000-daily quota. In addition, in New Hampshire, a judge upholds birthright citizenship via national injunction, citing long-standing practice over constitutional analysis. The media ignore this, while actions persist. The judges have changed, not the Constitution. Also, President Trump has made enormous progress domestically and internationally, but institutions are being turned against Americans. Democrats will inevitably win elections and use the permanent government, courts, and administrative state to try to permanently embed their ideology, making it irreversible. Zohran Mamdani's Stalinist Islamist fusion of ideologies has overtaken parts of Europe and is now infiltrating the U.S., funded by entities like Qatar, Hamas, Iran, and Communist China. Later, socialism is an economic ideology from Marxism, which is a broader life ideology encompassing socialism but extending to cultural, social, and political transformation. The modern activists and professors are unoriginal Karl Marx wannabes who regurgitate ideas from Marx, Hegel, and Rousseau. Thery reject individual liberty and free will as divisive and weak, favoring instead class unity and collective power. There is a comprehensive war on civil society, culture, and America's foundations—targeting family, economy, and liberty—rooted in deadly, anti-human Marxist principles that promote genocide and centralized power.  Afterward, there is a vile and destructive element within the Republican Party. Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene is undermining Trump and introducing amendments removing $500 million in military aid to Israel from the National Defense Authorization Act.  Finally, Mahmoud Khalil filed a $20 million claim against the Trump administration. Only in America does a pro Hamas protestor like this turnaround and bring a lawsuit when he should never have been here in the first place. David Schoen calls in to explain that Khalil is 100% deportable under U.S. Code sections 1227 and 1182 for endorsing and supporting Hamas. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We see the battle between good and evil throughout the Bible and in the world around us. But do angels and demons influence our lives today and if they do, how do they interact with us?Joining Frank on the program this week is Pastor Allen Jackson from World Outreach Church in Murfreesboro, TN. Under his humble yet confident leadership, the church has grown from fewer than 30 people to over 15,000 since 1989. His new book, 'Angels, Demons & You: Unseen Spiritual Influences in Our Lives', provides a biblical perspective on the reality of spiritual forces and how they impact our daily lives. Together, Frank and Allen answer questions like:What happened to Allen's mom that led to his whole family being born again?How did World Outreach Church go from a small Bible study in Allen's parents' home to a megachurch?Is leadership just a secular word?Is Islam compatible with the U.S. Constitution?Why does our American culture seem to dismiss the existence of angels and demons?What was it like studying at a secular school like Vanderbilt University?What roles did angels have in the Bible and what is their role today?Should pastors be "political"?Is there a way to detect the presence of angels and demons acting in our lives?You'll also learn the importance of making disciples instead of people who just sit in pews, and why the greatest inheritance we can leave our family isn't fortune or fame--but living a life that honors God. From his humble beginnings as the son of an equine veterinarian, to a ministry that now reaches and encourages 3,000,000+ people per week around the globe, you'll see why Allen says, "The One we serve is great and we serve at His pleasure!"Resources mentioned during the episode:World Outreach Church - https://wochurch.org/Allen Jack Ministries - https://allenjackson.com/Allen's podcast - https://cultureandchristianity.org/podcast/Angels, Demons, and You - https://bit.ly/3TYYC1SGod Bless America Again - https://bit.ly/3IcTlRL

Angel Studios https://Angel.com/ToddBecome a Premium Angel Studios Guild member to watch The King of Kings, stream all fan-curated shows and movies, and get 2 free tickets to every Angel Studios theatrical release. Alan's Soaps https://www.AlansArtisanSoaps.comUse coupon code TODD to save an additional 10% off the bundle price.Bioptimizers https://Bioptimizers.com/toddEnter promo code TODD to get 10% off your order of Berberine Breakthrough today.Bizable https://GoBizable.comUntie your business exposure from your personal exposure with BiZABLE.  Schedule your FREE consultation at GoBizAble.com today.  Bonefrog https://BonefrogCoffee.com/toddThe new GOLDEN AGE is here!  Use code TODD at checkout to receive 10% off your first purchase and 15% on subscriptions.Bulwark Capital https://KnowYourRiskPodcast.comHear directly from Zach Abraham as he shares insights in this FREE “Halftime” Webinar, THURSDAY, July 24th at 3:30 Pacific.  Register now at Know Your Risk Podcast dot com. Renue Healthcare https://Renue.Healthcare/ToddYour journey to a better life starts at Renue Healthcare. Visit https://Renue.Healthcare/ToddLISTEN and SUBSCRIBE at:The Todd Herman Show - Podcast - Apple PodcastsThe Todd Herman Show | Podcast on SpotifyWATCH and SUBSCRIBE at: Todd Herman - The Todd Herman Show - YouTubeHarvard Vs. National Security // Seattle's Mayor Thinks He's Defying Jesus. // Can You Remain Saved while Defending Adultery and Fornication?Episode Links:Harvard sues Trump administration for right to admit foreign subversives…Federal Judge Blocks Trump Admin Deportation Flight—Even for Murderers With Orders Dating Back to 1999…Oregon police responded 17 times to home occupied by Tren de Aragua gang members charged with torture, kidnapping, attempted murder: charging documents…Wow. This lifelong Democrat and pro-migrant activist who was planning to vote for Kamala, says she switched to President Trump after her quiet town in Colorado was overrun by illegals committing violent crime.Trump just cleared violent illegals off Minnesota's streets–Tim Walz calls that ‘tyranny'…Illegal Migrant with a criminal record was driving 100 miles per hour, he was drunk, he was high, he drove right into American Trooper Christopher Gadd killing him instantly in his police car. Seattle, Washington attorney says “It is not a crime” (INSANE)Reporter: "Why do you not want the best and brightest from around the world to come to Harvard?" President Trump: "I do, but a lot of the people need remedial math. Did you see that? Where the students can't add 2 and 2, and they go to Harvard...And then you see those same people picketing and screaming at the United States … We don't want troublemakers here."Marco Rubio obliterates Rep. Pramila Jayapal over student visas: Jayapal: "Where in the Constitution does it say that the Secretary of State can override the First Amendment protections of free speech?" Rubio: "There's no constitutional right to a student visa. A student visa's a privilege."Rubio to Mayorkas: If you come from Cuba, you are presumed to be fleeing persecution. Which means you are automatically eligible got refugee cash. You're eligible for food stamps. You're eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. Others who immigrate this country have to wait five years for that—and they don't get the refugee cash.Heartbreaking. 15 year old Irish girl and champion boxer Kaiden McKenna speaks about feeling unsafe in her own community because of strange foreign men.Video from the May 27 Seattle Trantifa and far-left violent direct action shows BLM race grifter Erica Williams @AExquisitePearl hitting Christians trying to attend the worship rally outside City Hall.Massive crowd of Christians gather to praise Jesus Christ—despite threats of political violence. The group says they will not be stopped from worshipping in the city of Seattle. This is powerful

SUPREME COURT: Justice Fears for Our Democracy.

“What Kilmar Abrego Garcia's family is going through is just unimaginable,” says Baltimore-based journalist Baynard Woods, “but it is also what we've all allowed to happen over generations of letting the drug war and our deference to police departments erode the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which should protect us all from illegal search and seizure, such as these seizures that ICE is committing all around the country right now.” In this episode of Rattling the Bars, Mansa Musa and Woods discuss the US government's case against Abrego Garcia—whom the Trump administration finally returned to US soil from El Salvador in June—and what the government can do to citizens and non-citizens alike when our right to due process is taken away.Guest:Baynard Woods is a writer and journalist based in Baltimore. His work has appeared in The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, Oxford American Magazine, and many other publications. He is the author of Inheritance: An Autobiography of Whiteness and coauthor, with Brandon Soderberg, of I Got a Monster: The Rise and Fall of America's Most Corrupt Police Squad.Additional resources:Baynard Woods, Baltimore Beat, “Government's case against Abrego Garcia is based on PG County Cop who was on the SA's do not call list”Baynard Woods, Baltimore Beat, “A Maryland man's life is at stake. Trump and Salvadoran president Bukele could not care less”Credits:Producer / Videographer / Post-Production: Cameron GranadinoHelp us continue producing Rattling the Bars by following us and becoming a monthly sustainer.Sign up for our newsletterFollow us on BlueskyLike us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterDonate to support this podcast

Happy Birthday America - Day 11 of Facts About the Founding of Our Country! Conversations centered around the American Experiment and our Constitution and Bill of Rights! Our goal is to provide different perspectives - give historical context - model how to talk with those whom we may disagree with - tie foundational principals to today's headlines - PLUS, have some fun along the way. Please leave us a review and share with your friends! (A PODCAST PROVIDED AND OWNED BY DURING THE BREAK PODCASTS) Brought to you by Eric Buchanan and Associates: www.buchanandisability.com This podcast is hosted by ZenCast.fm

In February, SC US Representative, Nancy Mace gave a 53 minute speech on the House floor that accused four men of terrible crimes against women. All the men of denied the accusations and none have been charged with the crimes. Mace accused SC AG and Gubernatorial candidate, Alan Wilson, of not doing his job to protect women from men like those she accused. The U.S. Constitution has some legal protection from anything they say on the floor. However; questions remain if those same protections can be used if the accusations are made on social media or elsewhere outside the floor. Fallout From Mace's speech causing lawsuits to mount. Seton Tucker and Matt Harris began the Impact of Influence podcast shortly after the murders of Maggie and Paul Murdaugh. Now they cover true crime past and present from the southeast region of the U.S. Impact of Influence is part of the Evergreen Podcast Company. Look for Impact of Influence on Facebook and Youtube. Please support our sponsors Elevate your closet with Quince. Go to Quince dot com slash impact for free shipping on your order and three hundred and sixty-five -day returns Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

BREAKING: Trump Blocked in Federal Court.

The podcast show we are releasing this week focuses generally on the so-called “Unitary Executive Theory” and specifically on the legality of President Trump firing without cause the Democratic Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission and the members of other independent agencies, despite language in the governing statutes that prohibit the President from firing a member without cause and a 1935 Supreme Court opinion in Humphrey's Executor holding that the firing of an FTC Commissioner by the President is unlawful if done without cause. Our guest is Patrick Sobkowski who teaches constitutional law, courts and public policy, and American politics at Marquette University. His scholarship focuses on constitutional and administrative law, specifically the administrative state and its relationship to the other branches of government. Our show began with an explanation of the “Unitary Executive Theory” which is defined as a constitutional law theory according to which the President has sole authority over the executive branch including independent federal agencies. It is based on the so-called “vesting clause “of the Constitution which vests all executive power in the President. The theory often comes up in disagreements about the president's ability to remove employees within the executive branch (including Federal agencies); transparency and access to information; discretion over the implementation of new laws; and the ability to control agencies' rule-making. There is disagreement about the doctrine's strength and scope. More expansive versions are controversial for both constitutional and practical reasons. Since the Reagan Administration, the Supreme Court has embraced a stronger unitary executive, which has been championed primarily by its conservative justices. We then discussed a litany of Supreme Court opinions dealing with the question of whether the President has the unfettered right to remove executive agency employees: a. Myers v. US (1926) b. Humphrey's Executor (1935) c. Morrison v. Olson (1988) d. Seila Law (2020) We then discussed Trump's removals of the Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board and the Supreme Court's opinion and order staying the lower court's order that the removals were unlawful. In addition to casting doubt on the continued viability of Humphrey's Executor, the Court included dicta to the effect that the logic of its opinion about the NLRB and the MSPB would not apply to the Federal Reserve Board because the Fed is not really an executive agency and that its functions are more akin to the functions performed by the First Bank and Second Bank of the United States. Alan Kaplinsky, the founder and former practice group leader for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group hosted the podcast. The podcast recording is here.

Here are the three big things to know this hour—   Number One— There is one Supreme Court Justice who continues to demonstrate—that she doesn't care about the law, the Constitution or upholding her oath of office—and its getting embarrassing—   Number Two— President Trump has issued a temporary extension of the deadline to impose higher tariffs—BUT he also warned anyone who fails to make a deal will get severely punished—Brazil however didn't have to wait—   Number Three—  Lets talk about the cover-up—BUT if I say that you are likely to say… which one… And I agree—there are so many—  

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has traditionally regulated interstate and international communications and, as part of that, maintained a universal service fund that requires telecommunications carriers to contribute quarterly based on their revenues. In order to calculate these contribution amounts, the FCC contracts the help of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). The constitutionality of these delegations of power—to the FCC by Congress and to USAC by the FCC—were challenged in court by Consumers’ Research. On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled in favor of the FCC, rejecting the argument that the universal-service contribution scheme violates the nondelegation doctrine.Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its decision, and what this means for the nondelegation doctrine going forward.Featuring:Sean Lev, Partner, HWG LLPModerator: Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute --To register, click the link above.

Happy Birthday America - Day 10 of Facts About the Founding of Our Country! Conversations centered around the American Experiment and our Constitution and Bill of Rights! Our goal is to provide different perspectives - give historical context - model how to talk with those whom we may disagree with - tie foundational principals to today's headlines - PLUS, have some fun along the way. Please leave us a review and share with your friends! (A PODCAST PROVIDED AND OWNED BY DURING THE BREAK PODCASTS) Brought to you by Eric Buchanan and Associates: www.buchanandisability.com This podcast is hosted by ZenCast.fm

This Day in Legal History: Second Bank of the United States VetoedOn July 10, 1832, President Andrew Jackson vetoed legislation that would have renewed the charter of the Second Bank of the United States, setting off a fierce political and constitutional conflict known as the “Bank War.” The Bank, originally chartered in 1816, acted as a quasi-governmental financial institution and played a central role in stabilizing the U.S. economy. Jackson, however, saw the Bank as a symbol of entrenched privilege and a threat to democratic values. In his veto message, he argued that the Bank was unconstitutional—even though the Supreme Court had previously upheld its legitimacy in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)—and that it concentrated too much financial power in the hands of a wealthy elite.Jackson framed his opposition as a defense of the common man against corporate monopoly. His veto marked a dramatic assertion of presidential power, expanding the scope of the executive's role in legislative review. By directly challenging a long-standing institution supported by Congress and the courts, Jackson redefined the balance between branches of government. His veto was also politically strategic, rallying populist support ahead of the 1832 presidential election, which he would go on to win decisively.The fallout was immense: Jackson's administration began withdrawing federal funds from the Bank and redistributing them to selected state banks, derogatorily termed “pet banks.” This redistribution triggered economic instability and helped contribute to the Panic of 1837. Despite intense opposition from figures like Henry Clay and Nicholas Biddle, the Bank's president, Jackson remained steadfast, and the Bank's federal charter ultimately expired in 1836.The legal significance of this event lies in its reimagining of the veto as a political, not merely constitutional, tool. Jackson's interpretation of the Constitution, driven by populist ideals rather than judicial precedent, established a precedent for a more active and independent executive.A federal judge in New Hampshire, Joseph Laplante, is set to hear arguments on whether to block President Donald Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship, despite a recent Supreme Court decision limiting the use of nationwide injunctions. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is asking the court to grant class-action status to a lawsuit aimed at protecting U.S.-born children whose parents are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. If class status is granted, it could enable a nationwide block on the policy through the class action mechanism—something the Supreme Court ruling left open as an exception to its injunction restrictions.Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office in January, would deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a citizen or green card holder. The Supreme Court previously narrowed three injunctions against the order, but did not rule on its constitutionality. Opponents argue the order violates the 14th Amendment and contradicts the precedent set in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which affirmed that birthright citizenship applies regardless of a parent's immigration status.Judge Laplante had already ruled in February that the policy was likely unconstitutional and issued a limited injunction affecting only certain advocacy groups. The ACLU is now urging him to expand this to a broader class of affected families, citing the risk of statelessness or undocumented status for tens of thousands of children. The Justice Department, meanwhile, claims the plaintiffs are too diverse to form a single legal class and that the suit bypasses proper legal procedures.Judge to weigh blocking Trump on birthright citizenship despite Supreme Court ruling | ReutersThe Trump administration escalated its standoff with Harvard University by threatening its accreditation and subpoenaing records related to international students. Federal officials claimed Harvard may have violated anti-discrimination laws by failing to protect Jewish and Israeli students, citing a Title VI investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services. As a result, the Education and Health Departments formally notified Harvard's accrediting body that the university might not meet its standards. However, the accreditor clarified it operates independently and typically allows schools up to four years to come into compliance.Simultaneously, the Department of Homeland Security announced plans to issue subpoenas targeting potential "criminality and misconduct" among student visa holders at Harvard. These actions follow previous federal efforts to block Harvard from admitting international students and to freeze billions in grants, which the university is currently challenging in court. A judge had already halted Trump's proclamation barring foreign students, though the administration is appealing that ruling.Trump accused Harvard of fostering antisemitism and "woke" ideology, while the university insists the administration's actions are politically motivated retaliation infringing on its First Amendment rights. Nearly 6,800 international students—about 27% of Harvard's student body—could be affected if the administration succeeds in stripping the university of its ability to host them. A separate lawsuit seeking to unfreeze $2.5 billion in grants is set to be heard on July 21.Trump administration threatens Harvard's accreditation, seeks records on foreign students | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced it will no longer consider a farmer's race or sex when administering many of its key programs, including those related to loans, commodities, and conservation. The decision follows directives from the Trump administration aimed at rolling back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across federal agencies. According to the USDA, the shift reflects its belief that past discrimination has been sufficiently addressed and that programs should now focus solely on merit and fairness.The final rule, signed by the USDA's acting General Counsel, states that race- or sex-based criteria will no longer influence program eligibility or funding decisions, though some advantages remain for beginning and military veteran farmers. For decades, the agency had designated certain groups—such as women and farmers of color—as "socially disadvantaged," often creating set-asides or prioritizations for them. This latest move effectively ends that practice.Critics argue the change undermines transparency and accessibility for farmers of color who have historically faced systemic exclusion. Legal scholar Margo Schlanger, formerly involved in USDA civil rights work, said the rule shuts off a vital avenue for ensuring equitable access to federal support. The decision comes despite the fact that only about 4.5% of U.S. farmers identify as nonwhite or multiracial, according to the 2022 Census of Agriculture.US agriculture agency to end consideration of race, sex in many farm programs | ReutersThe Trump administration filed a lawsuit against California, arguing that the state's animal welfare laws concerning egg and poultry farming unlawfully raise egg prices nationwide and violate federal law. The complaint, brought in federal court in Los Angeles, claims that California's regulations conflict with the Egg Products Inspection Act of 1970, which mandates national uniformity in egg safety standards. The federal government asserts that only it has the authority to regulate egg safety and that California's restrictions burden interstate commerce.California laws passed by voter initiatives in 2008 and 2018 prohibit confining hens so tightly that they cannot move freely. These measures were designed to reduce animal cruelty and prevent foodborne illness. However, the federal government argues that while California can regulate farms within its borders, it cannot impose its requirements on out-of-state producers selling eggs in California.This is not the first legal battle over the issue. In 2014, several states sued California on similar grounds and lost at both the district and appellate levels. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld California's 2018 animal welfare measure in a separate challenge from pig farmers in 2023, further solidifying the state's right to set agricultural standards for products sold within its borders.US government sues California over egg prices | 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

Depuis le début de la semaine le Président français peut à nouveau précipiter la tenue d'élections législatives. Le délai d'un an imposé par la Constitution après le second tour des législatives anticipées de juillet 2024 a en effet pris. Mais Emmanuel Macron en a-t-il intérêt ? Une nouvelle dissolution permettrait-elle une « clarification » selon le terme macronien ? Quelles possibilités s'offrent au chef de l'Etat ? Pour en débattre : - Frédéric Micheau, directeur général adjoint de l'institut de sondages OpinionWay - Philippe Moreau-Chevrolet, professeur de Communication politique à Sciences-Po et président de MCBG Conseil - Jean-Philippe Moinet, directeur de la Revue Civique, auteur de « Un journal sous influence », éditions AliRibelli. 

Law professor and media analyst Jonathan Turley joins Dr. Phil to unpack the legal, cultural, and personal consequences of rage-fueled censorship in America. What happens when society treats words like weapons? Dr. Phil sits down with law professor and First Amendment advocate Jonathan Turley to unpack why free speech is under fire—from the courtroom to the classroom to your screen. They explore how anger has become addictive, how censorship masks itself as virtue, and what's at stake when we stop allowing disagreement. Whether you're raising a college kid, following high-profile trials, or just trying to stay sane online, this episode cuts through the noise with clarity, law, and a call to rethink the way we engage. If you care about honest conversations and what's left of civil discourse, don't miss it.  This episode is brought to you by Home Title Lock: Go to https://hometitlelock.com/drphil  and use promo code PHIL to get a FREE title history report and a FREE TRIAL of their Triple Lock Protection! For details visit https://hometitlelock.com/warranty  This episode is brought to you by  Beam: Visit https://shopbeam.com/DRPHIL and use code DRPHIL to get an exclusive discount of up to 40% off! Subscribe | Rate | Review | Share: YouTube: https://bit.ly/3H3lJ8n Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/4jVk6rX Spotify: https://bit.ly/4n6PCVZ Website: https://www.drphilpodcast.com    

A Fox News report revealed a massive investigation into former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan for possibly lying to Congress about President Donald Trump and the Russian hoax. What will the new DOJ under FBI Director Kash Patel uncover? The Sekulow team discusses the irony that Comey and Brennan are under investigation for the same Russian probe that led to Trump's impeachment, the ACLJ's legal work – and much more.

The Birthright Citizenship case reached the Supreme Court - sort of.  The Court ruled on the executive branch's request for a stay in response to nationwide injunctions issued by three different circuit courts, where the executive order purporting to alter more than a century's practice regarding the Constitution's guarantee of birthright citizenship was blocked by these courts.  In doing so the Court declined - that is, the majority declined - to address the merits.  Still, the nationwide injunction issue was addressed - at least for now..  Akhil takes the Court to task for avoiding the merits, and he offers numerous ways by which this could have been - should have been - done.  He also presents a new approach that litigants in these cases might consider as they deal with various tactics the government may employ in the service of an executive order they may not expect to be upheld.  Along the way Akhil offers some suggestions for consequences that might be faced by the executive officials, maybe not in our government as currently functioning, but at least in theory.  There's a lot here even if what is most notable for many of us is what the Court has left hanging.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss the inevitability of factions before introducing Dr. Ronald J. Pestritto. In a republic, every citizen has a duty to understand their government. The Federalist is the greatest exposition of representative government and the institutional structure of the Constitution. It explains how the Constitution established a government strong enough to secure the rights of citizens and safe enough to wield that power. This course will examine how Publius understood human nature and good government, and why he argued that the only true safeguard of liberty lies in the vigilance of the American people. A faction is any group that pursues an interest opposed to the rights of citizens or the interest of the community. The causes of faction are sown into man’s nature. The extended republic and representation help prevent majority factions.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss the inevitability of factions before introducing Dr. Ronald J. Pestritto. In a republic, every citizen has a duty to understand their government. The Federalist is the greatest exposition of representative government and the institutional structure of the Constitution. It explains how the Constitution established a government strong enough to secure the rights of citizens and safe enough to wield that power. This course will examine how Publius understood human nature and good government, and why he argued that the only true safeguard of liberty lies in the vigilance of the American people. A faction is any group that pursues an interest opposed to the rights of citizens or the interest of the community. The causes of faction are sown into man’s nature. The extended republic and representation help prevent majority factions.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer 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.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. 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. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

On this Salcedo Storm Podcast: Richard Lyons is the author of the 'Democracy Series.' His latest book, 'Passages Through the Shadows, explores how far outside of our “common” Constitution the Democrat Party is now operating and how it uses lawless power to oppress political opponents and average citizens.

Happy Birthday America - Day 9 of Facts About the Founding of Our Country! Conversations centered around the American Experiment and our Constitution and Bill of Rights! Our goal is to provide different perspectives - give historical context - model how to talk with those whom we may disagree with - tie foundational principals to today's headlines - PLUS, have some fun along the way. Please leave us a review and share with your friends! (A PODCAST PROVIDED AND OWNED BY DURING THE BREAK PODCASTS) Brought to you by Eric Buchanan and Associates: www.buchanandisability.com This podcast is hosted by ZenCast.fm

With the passage of House Bill 2089 in late June, Oregon has ended the practice of “home equity theft,” by bringing state law into compliance with the Supreme Court's unanimous 2023 Tyler ruling. Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Minnesota grandmother, Geraldine Tyler, who lost her condo when she failed to pay the property taxes. Ms. Tyler argued that her county violated the Constitution's Takings Clause when it kept a $25,000 surplus after her property was foreclosed and sold to pay the taxes.Oregon has been one of nine states whose tax foreclosure laws allowed such “home equity theft.” The key requirement of the unanimous ruling in Tyler v. Hennepin County⁠ says governments must create a system to return surplus equity to owners after property taxes, fees, and interest are paid on foreclosed property. After the Tyler decision, it became clear Oregon's law needed revision.Cascade Policy Institute worked with Pacific Legal Foundation (who represented Ms. Tyler) and other stakeholders to bring Oregon law into compliance with Tyler. House Bill 2089 provides a process to ensure that counties retain what they are owed in back taxes, and no more, giving the original owner claim to any surplus value.The Tyler ruling was a big victory for property rights, effectively ending the practice of government “home equity theft” by ruling it unconstitutional. HB 2089 ends home equity theft in Oregon, too.

This Day in Legal History: 14th Amendment RatifiedOn July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified—one of the most sweeping and hotly contested legal transformations in American history. Drafted during Reconstruction, its promise was bold: birthright citizenship, due process, and equal protection under the law. In theory, it was the legal nail in the coffin for Dred Scott v. Sandford, the 1857 decision that declared Black people could never be citizens. In practice? A more complicated story.The amendment aimed to redefine American citizenship in the wake of emancipation—but its language proved a double-edged sword. While Section 1 is the cornerstone of modern civil rights litigation, it was also the platform for corporate personhood and Lochner-era judicial activism. The same equal protection clause used to dismantle segregation in Brown v. Board (1954) was first deployed to protect railroad companies from state taxes. So the question isn't whether the Fourteenth Amendment mattered—it's whether it served the people it was meant to protect.Southern states ratified the amendment under duress, often as a condition for rejoining the Union. The Supreme Court, for decades, narrowed its reach, refusing to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states and sidestepping racial injustice entirely. Only in the 20th century—through selective incorporation and the civil rights movement—did its full potential begin to manifest.Today, the Fourteenth Amendment remains a constitutional battleground: cited in cases on abortion, marriage equality, affirmative action, and beyond. But the fight over its meaning is far from settled. July 9 isn't just a date on the calendar—it's a reminder that even the most powerful legal language is hostage to interpretation, and that equality under the law has always been a work in progress.Retired NBA star Charles Oakley is seeking sanctions against Madison Square Garden (MSG) and Randy Mastro, a top NYC official and MSG attorney, alleging they made false statements in a long-running legal battle over Oakley's 2017 ejection from a Knicks game. In a recent court filing, Oakley accused Mastro of repeatedly lying to the court about MSG owner James Dolan's involvement, despite Dolan admitting under oath that he played a role. Oakley wants the judge to award attorney fees, censure Mastro, and require him to attend an ethics class.This move follows MSG's own motion last month asking the court to sanction Oakley and his lawyers for allegedly promoting a "false narrative" and to dismiss the case. The dueling motions are part of an eight-year legal dispute that began after Oakley was forcibly removed from MSG. Oakley, a Knicks fan favorite from 1988–1998, has claimed excessive force was used during the incident and has recently amended his lawsuit to focus on assault and battery.Ex-NBA player seeks sanctions against Madison Square Garden, lawyer Mastro | ReutersLaw school deans across Texas are pushing back against a proposal to eliminate the requirement that attorneys graduate from American Bar Association (ABA)-accredited schools. In a letter to the Texas Supreme Court, deans from eight of the state's ten ABA-accredited law schools argue that scrapping the rule—which has been in place since 1983—would hinder graduates' ability to practice in other states and reduce transparency for students and consumers.The court's review of the ABA requirement follows a similar move by Florida, where justices cited the ABA's paused diversity mandate and political activity as reasons for reconsideration. Critics of the proposal warn that removing ABA accreditation could isolate Texas law schools, make legal education less portable, and ultimately increase costs for students.Notably, the dean of the University of Texas School of Law, Robert Chesney, did not join the group letter. Instead, he suggested the court explore alternative or supplementary accreditation pathways. Texas A&M's law dean, Robert Ahdieh, also withheld endorsement but emphasized the importance of maintaining national recognition for Texas law degrees. The state's high court, composed entirely of Republican-elected judges, has not indicated when it will issue a decision.Eliminating ABA accreditation for Texas law schools is flawed proposal, some deans say | ReutersA U.S. district judge temporarily halted the bankruptcy sale of genetic testing company 23andMe, giving California three days to argue that the deal violates its genetic privacy law. California had earlier failed to convince a bankruptcy judge to block the $305 million sale to TTAM Research, a nonprofit founded by 23andMe co-founder Anne Wojcicki.The state contends that transferring genetic data to TTAM without explicit consumer consent breaches California's Genetic Information Privacy Act. With roughly 1.8 million California residents among 23andMe's 10 million users, the state argues the sale could lead to unauthorized data transfers.Bankruptcy Judge Brian Walsh previously ruled that consumers could delete their data post-sale, minimizing potential harm. TTAM has promised to honor 23andMe's existing privacy policies. A federal court hearing on whether to extend the pause is scheduled for Thursday. The bankruptcy follows declining demand and a major 2023 data breach at 23andMe.Judge briefly pauses 23andMe bankruptcy sale amid California's appeal | ReutersThe IRS has agreed—at least for now—not to penalize churches for discussing political candidates or campaigns during religious services, provided that such speech is framed as a matter of faith. This move comes as part of a proposed consent decree intended to resolve a constitutional challenge to the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 law barring 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations—including churches—from participating in political campaigns.The settlement, filed in a Texas federal court, reinterprets the Johnson Amendment narrowly: religious speech about politics during worship services is not “political intervention” if it occurs through traditional, faith-based communication. The IRS now claims enforcing the Johnson Amendment against such speech could raise serious First Amendment concerns, especially if it treats politically silent religious organizations more favorably than outspoken ones.Critics warn this reinterpretation risks turning churches into tax-sheltered political operations. Diane Yentel of the Council of Nonprofits argues it opens the door to tax-deductible donations for de facto political activity—effectively subsidized by taxpayers who may disagree.While the lawsuit originally sought to strike down the Johnson Amendment entirely, this settlement attempts to sidestep the constitutional minefield through interpretation, not invalidation. But here's the legal paradox: the IRS is effectively rewriting statutory law without legislative input, relying on what it calls "constitutional avoidance." That raises real questions—can an executive agency unilaterally redefine the scope of a congressional statute to avoid a constitutional fight? Or is this a policy pivot masquerading as judicial restraint?For now, the constitutional showdown is paused. But if this consent decree is approved, it will mark a major shift in the legal boundaries between church, state, and campaign finance—without any actual change to the law's text. Whether that holds up under future scrutiny remains very much an open question.IRS Says Religious Groups Can Discuss Politics During Services (1) 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

What do you think of when you hear the phrase, "Keep Jesus' word."? My mind goes to the doing side of it: my idea of what that is supposed to look like.Have you ever thought about how you were influenced to take the actions you do? Why do you follow Jesus' commands like you do? Is it because of what you have seen and heard or because you are being who you are?Let's get into all of this.I was reading from 1 John 2.Connect with me:https://linktr.ee/daily_encouragement_ashleyRumble Account: https://rumble.com/user/AshleyCampbellFacebook Page:https://www.facebook.com/dailyencouragementwithashleycampbell/Want to purchase a signed copy of mybook?https://buy.stripe.com/7sI8xdg6F2kZgSIfZ6ORRead the reviews on Amazon? https://a.co/d/gwyks9gWant to send me a financial donationbecause you value what I am doing on social media?https://buy.stripe.com/eVacNt3jTbVz9qg4gkWant to join my Facebook group thatwill equip you with the knowledge of the History of the UnitedStates, what the Constitution means and how you can preserve thisgreat nation we live in?Join my paid group today! For only $10a month, you will have access to classes that will help you have the knowledge you need to save America!Group Link:https://www.facebook.com/share/RA7FqCx95Lbv5gWv/Group Payment link:https://buy.stripe.com/cN24gX07H4t70TKcMVPodcast links:Apple/I tunes:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/daily-encouragement-with-ashley-campbell/id1625607569Amazon Music:https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4d32a7f2-1e3e-4045-aa13-2b77784c71d1/daily-encouragement-with-ashley-campbellCastbox:https://castbox.fm/channel/Daily-Encouragement-with-Ashley-Campbell-id2418738?utm_source=website&utm_medium=dlink&utm_campaign=web_share&utm_content=Daily%20Encouragement%20with%20Ashley%20Campbell-CastBox_FMiHeartRadiohttps://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-daily-encouragement-with-a-112334720/Overcast:https://overcast.fm/itunes1483675322/daily-encouragement-with-ashley-campbellPocket Casts:https://pca.st/pg7od55vRadio Public:https://radiopublic.com/daily-encouragement-with-ashley-c-WozzzRWant to sponsor the Podcast?https://buy.stripe.com/9AQbJpdYx8JnfOEfZ8Choose your amount to Sponsor the Podcast:https://donate.stripe.com/14k4gXg6F9Nr31SdR1

Thank you so much for listening to the Bob Harden Show, celebrating nearly 14 years broadcasting on the internet. On Wednesday's show, we continue our discussion of President Trump, the expansion of executive powers, and the Constitution with Cato Institute Chairman Emeritus Bob Levy. Professor and author Andrew Joppa and I discuss a variety of topics including the recently released movie, “Superman,” the tragedy on the banks of the Guadalupe River in Texas, Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and the Supreme Court, and the government narrative on Epstein. Please join us on Thursday's show. We'll visit with Florida Citizens Alliance CEO Keith Flaugh, Cato Institute's Michael Cannon, American Commitment President Phil Kerpen, and former Mayor of Naples Bill Barnett. Access this or past shows at your convenience on my web site, social media platforms or podcast platforms.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the PSJVTA's personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because the statute reasonably ties jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion of the Court.The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not impose the same jurisdictional limitations as the Fourteenth Amendment because the federal government occupies a sovereign sphere dramatically different from that of state governments. While the Fourteenth Amendment's jurisdictional limits protect interstate federalism by ensuring states do not exceed their territorial boundaries as coequal sovereigns, these federalism concerns are inapplicable to the federal government, which possesses both nationwide and extraterritorial authority. The Constitution authorizes the federal government alone to regulate foreign commerce, prosecute offenses against U.S. nationals abroad, and conduct foreign affairs. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment permits a more flexible jurisdictional inquiry commensurate with the federal government's broader sovereign authority than the “minimum contacts” standard required under the Fourteenth Amendment.The PSJVTA represents a permissible exercise of this authority because it narrowly targets only two specific foreign entities that have longstanding, complex relationships with the United States involving terrorism concerns. The statute's jurisdictional predicates—payments to imprisoned terrorists and their families, and activities conducted on U.S. soil—directly implicate important federal policies aimed at deterring terrorism and protecting American citizens. The political branches' coordinated judgment in enacting this legislation warrants judicial deference, particularly given the statute's limited scope applying only to ATA cases and its clear notice to the PLO and PA that specified conduct would subject them to U.S. jurisdiction. Even assuming a reasonableness inquiry applies under the Fifth Amendment, the PSJVTA satisfies it given the federal government's compelling interest in providing a forum for terrorism victims, the plaintiffs' interest in obtaining relief, and the absence of any unfair burden on these sophisticated international organizations that have litigated in U.S. courts for decades.Justice Thomas authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Gorsuch as to Part II, arguing that the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause imposes no territorial limits on the federal government's power to extend federal jurisdiction beyond the nation's borders.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Jillian sits down with Keith Knight, author of Domestic Imperialism, to unpack how the United States—once the beacon of liberty—has quietly transformed into an empire that rules its own people. Knight argues that global elites and entrenched bureaucrats have hijacked the system, using domestic policy as a weapon to control citizens, enrich themselves, and erase the very principles this country was founded on.We explore how globalists siphon off taxpayer dollars through endless wars, bloated government programs, and corporate bailouts—while average Americans are left footing the bill. We discuss the difference between governing and ruling, how power is inherently parasitic, and why inflation, regulation, and surveillance are tools of control, not protection. Knight lays out a compelling case that the Constitution has become little more than a suggestion, and that the modern American citizen is treated more like a managed asset than a sovereign individual. Whether you're a libertarian, conservative, or just someone who feels the system no longer serves the people this conversation is a must listen!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

As an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court for almost three decades, Stephen Breyer was no stranger to hearing arguments for different sides in major cases. In this episode, our moderator-in-chief, John Donvan, and Chief Content Officer, Lia Matthow, interview Justice Breyer and discuss his book “Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, not Textualism.” He discusses how he used this philosophy to guide his decisions and why he thinks jurists should choose this approach.    Our Guest: Stephen Breyer, Former United States Supreme Court Justice    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan and Lia Matthow, Chief Content Officer of Open to Debate, moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

BREAKING: Federal Judge Blocks Trump Bill.

On June 13, military veterans and their families and supporters protested in front of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, demanding that taxpayer dollars for Donald Trump's ill-fated military parade and his decision to send troops to Los Angeles should be used instead for housing, healthcare, food, and taking care of veterans. Around 60 demonstrators were arrested by Capitol police. In this episode of The Marc Steiner Show, Marc speaks with veterans Michael  T.  McPhearson, Kevin Benderman, and Amber Mathwig, two of whom were arrested on June 13, about the duty they feel to oppose the Trump administration's actions and the vital role veterans have to play in the larger fight against the Trump agenda.Guests:Michael T. McPhearson enlisted in the US Army Reserve while in high school at age 17 in 1981. A distinguished military graduate, McPhearson received an ROTC commission from Campbell University. He served five years on active duty as a field artillery officer in the 24th Mechanized Infantry Division during Operation Desert Shield/Storm (the Gulf War). McPhearson separated from the US Army as a Captain in 1992. He is a member and the Executive Director of Veterans for Peace. He lives in Seattle, Washington.Kevin Benderman served in the US Army for ten years of active duty, eventually reaching the rank of E-5. He deployed to Iraq in 2003. He became opposed to the continued occupation of Iraq after his initial deployment, and he filed for conscientious objector status and was eventually court-martialed. He is a disabled veteran and lives in Augusta, Georgia. Kevin is a longtime member of About Face: Veterans Against the War.Amber Mathwig enlisted in the US Navy in 2002, serving 10 years in various duty stations, including a deployment to Baghdad, Iraq, in 2008-2009 and a deployment to the Middle East in 2010-2011 on a ship that participated in the bombing of Libya. These experiences, combined with what she witnessed in regards to the culture of sexism and sexual assault in the military, sparked her journey to understanding the stranglehold the military-industrial complex has on our country. In addition to being a longtime member of About Face: Veterans Against the War, she is a member of Teamsters Local 638, and an organizer who focuses on the intersection of labor and the military-industrial complex. Additional resources:Veterans for Peace websiteAbout Face: Veterans Against the War websiteKatie Bauer, HuffPost, “Storming the steps of the Capitol: Why I got arrested with other veterans to protest Trump”Credits:Producer: Rosette SewaliStudio Production: David HebdenAudio Post-Production: Stephen FrankFollow The Marc Steiner Show on Spotify Follow The Marc Steiner Show on Apple PodcastsHelp us continue producing The Marc Steiner Show by following us and becoming a monthly sustainer.Sign up for our newsletterFollow us on BlueskyLike us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterDonate to support this podcast

The Supreme Court recently wrapped up its 2024-2025 term and the ACS Policy and Program team is here to break down the headline cases, those that may have slipped under your radar, and several that came and went via the shadow docket.Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgHost: Lindsay Langholz, Senior Director of Policy and Program, ACSGuest: Christopher Wright Durocher, Vice President of Policy and ProgramGuest: Taonga Leslie, Director of Policy and Program for Racial JusticeGuest: Valerie Nannery, Senior Director of Policy and ProgramLink: John Roberts' Anti-Trans Opinion Is a Garbled Mess. It's Easy to See Why., by Mark Joseph SternLink: Supreme Court Rules Some Americans Have a Constitutional Right to Insist on Theocracy, by Heidi Li FeldmanLink: Don't Let Trump Erase Immigrants from the Citizenship Clause, by Taonga LeslieLink: SCOTUS allows Trump admin to deport people to random countries with no notice, by Chris GeidnerVisit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Bluesky | LinkedIn | YouTube -----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2025.

On June 13, military veterans and their families and supporters protested in front of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, demanding that taxpayer dollars for Donald Trump's ill-fated military parade and decision to send troops to Los Angeles should be used for housing, healthcare, food, and taking care of veterans. Around 60 demonstrators were arrested by Capitol police. In this episode of The Marc Steiner Show, Marc speaks with veterans Michael T. McPhearson, Kevin Benderman, and Amber Mathwig, two of whom were arrested on June 13, about the duty they feel to oppose the Trump admistration's actions and the vital role veterans have to play in the larger fight against the Trump agenda.Guests:Michael T. McPhearson enlisted in the US Army Reserve while in high school at age 17 in 1981. A distinguished military graduate, McPhearson received an ROTC commission from Campbell University. He served five years on active duty as a field artillery officer in the 24th Mechanized Infantry Division during Operation Desert Shield/Storm (the Gulf War). McPhearson separated from the US Army as a Captain in 1992. He is a member and the Executive Director of Veterans for Peace. He lives in Seattle, Washington.Kevin Benderman served in the US Army for ten years of active duty, eventually reaching the rank of E-5. He deployed to Iraq in 2003. He became opposed to the continued occupation of Iraq after his initial deployment, and he filed for conscientious objector status and was eventually court-martialed. He is a disabled veteran and lives in Augusta, Georgia. Kevin is a longtime member of About Face: Veterans Against the War.Amber Mathwig enlisted in the US Navy in 2002, serving 10 years in various duty stations, including a deployment to Baghdad, Iraq, in 2008-2009 and a deployment to the Middle East in 2010-2011 on a ship that participated in the bombing of Libya. These experiences, combined with what she witnessed in regards to the culture of sexism and sexual assault in the military, sparked her journey to understanding the stranglehold the military-industrial complex has on our country. In addition to being a longtime member of About Face: Veterans Against the War, she is a member of Teamsters Local 638, and an organizer who focuses on the intersection of labor and the military-industrial complex. Additional resources:Veterans for Peace websiteAbout Face: Veterans Against the War websiteKatie Bauer, HuffPost, “Storming the steps of the Capitol: Why I got arrested with other veterans to protest Trump”Credits:Producer: Rosette SewaliStudio Production: David HebdenAudio Post-Production: Stephen FrankFollow The Marc Steiner Show on Spotify Follow The Marc Steiner Show on Apple PodcastsHelp us continue producing The Marc Steiner Show by following us and becoming a monthly sustainer.Sign up for our newsletterFollow us on BlueskyLike us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterDonate to support this podcast

First, we talk to The Indian Express' National Legal Editor, Apurva Vishwanath about the ongoing debate about the words socialist and secular in the Preamble. She shares the importance of these terms in the Constitution of India and what all can happen in case they are removed.Next, we talk to The Indian Express' Mihir Vasavda about Pakistani athletes competing in sporting events and competitions that are hosted by India. He shares that even though visas of all Pakistani nationals residing in India were cancelled post the Pahalgam attack, why athletes from across the border will be allowed to come to India. (14:27)Lastly, we talk about the situation in Myanmar and how it is leading to refugees moving into Mizoram. (22:19)Hosted by Niharika NandaProduced and written by Niharika Nanda, Shashank Bhargava and Ichha Sharma Edited and mixed by Suresh Pawar

Today we see the Dollar will soon be worthless, the United Stated will be renamed, our flag will be changed, and banks will seize all deposits. 00:00 Dollar Update 03:51 Israel Hamas War 06:32 Trump Suspends Constitution 14:19 Internal Revolution 19:19 Submarines Attack America 25:46 Our Sponsors

Today we see the Dollar will soon be worthless, the United Stated will be renamed, our flag will be changed, and banks will seize all deposits. 00:00 Dollar Update 03:51 Israel Hamas War 06:32 Trump Suspends Constitution 14:19 Internal Revolution 19:19 Submarines Attack America 25:46 Our Sponsors

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

Constitutional Deep Dives with Eric! Article 3 - Section 1 - Lifetime Tenure for Federal Judges! Conversations centered around the American Experiment and our Constitution and Bill of Rights! Our goal is to provide different perspectives - give historical context - model how to talk with those whom we may disagree with - tie foundational principals to today's headlines - PLUS, have some fun along the way. Please leave us a review and share with your friends! (A PODCAST PROVIDED AND OWNED BY DURING THE BREAK PODCASTS) Brought to you by Eric Buchanan and Associates: www.buchanandisability.com This podcast is hosted by ZenCast.fm

Groong Week in Review - July 6, 2025In this episode of the Groong Podcast, we are joined by Arthur Martirosyan for a Week in Review covering Armenia's shifting geopolitical landscape and domestic upheaval. The discussion explores the controversial proposal for a U.S.-controlled corridor through Syunik, tensions between Russia and Azerbaijan, and Pashinyan's escalating confrontation with the Armenian Apostolic Church. The show also examines Armenia's foreign policy confusion, including talk of joining the SCO, while cracking down on opposition voices—most notably the stripping of immunity from Seyran Ohanyan and Artsvik Minasyan. Against this backdrop, the episode questions the erosion of sovereignty, the use of legal tools for political ends, and the uncertain future of Armenia's democratic and constitutional order.TopicsConstitution DayWestern Controlled Syunik?What was Kallas Doing in Yerevan?Russian-Azerbaijani RelationsCoup d'Etat? Or Coup d'Église?GuestArthur G MartirosyanHostsHovik ManucharyanAsbed BedrossianEpisode 452 | Recorded: July 7, 2025SHOW NOTES: https://podcasts.groong.org/452Subscribe and follow us everywhere you are: linktr.ee/groong

Happy Birthday America - Day 8 of Facts About the Founding of Our Country! Conversations centered around the American Experiment and our Constitution and Bill of Rights! Our goal is to provide different perspectives - give historical context - model how to talk with those whom we may disagree with - tie foundational principals to today's headlines - PLUS, have some fun along the way. Please leave us a review and share with your friends! (A PODCAST PROVIDED AND OWNED BY DURING THE BREAK PODCASTS) Brought to you by Eric Buchanan and Associates: www.buchanandisability.com This podcast is hosted by ZenCast.fm

Do you have easy access to a printed copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? Tune in to The Public Square® today to hear more. Topic: Rediscovering American History The Public Square® with hosts Dave Zanotti and Wayne Shepherd thepublicsquare.com Air Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2025

Onze ans après l'adoption de la nouvelle Constitution égyptienne qui prévoyait son retour sur ses terres ancestrales d'où il avait été chassé il y a plus de soixante ans par la construction du haut barrage d'Assouan, le peuple nubien attend toujours. De notre correspondant de retour d'Assouan, Martin Dumas Primbault C'est jour de mariage dans ce village nubien. Les doufoufs, percussions traditionnelles, résonnent dans toutes les rues. « Il n'y a qu'en Nubie qu'on célèbre les mariages avec les doufoufs, et surtout ici, dans ce village », précise un habitant.  La commune de Dehmit, à 60 kilomètres au nord d'Assouan, fait partie de celles qui ont été construites dans les années 1960 pour reloger les déplacés après l'édification du barrage. Amer Nour, 62 ans, est né ici : « La Nubie a été totalement sacrifiée. Malheureusement, nous n'avons jamais obtenu justice. Regardez, 62 ans après le déplacement, il n'y a toujours pas de système d'assainissement dans les villages de déplacés. C'est pourtant un des droits humains les plus élémentaires ». À lire aussiBarrage d'Assouan: les populations nubiennes réclament le retour à leurs terres Cette histoire douloureuse remonte à 1960 lorsque le président égyptien Gamal Abdel Nasser lance la construction du haut barrage d'Assouan. Le projet pharaonique, inauguré le 15 janvier 1971, est une promesse de développement pour le pays, autant qu'un drame pour les Nubiens. Le lac de rétention engloutit les rives du Nil sur lesquels ils vivaient. Près de 100 000 d'entre eux sont déplacés, pour beaucoup relogés dans des villages artificiels construits en plein désert aux alentours de la ville d'Assouan. Leur destin est alors oublié. Jusqu'en 2014, où la nouvelle Constitution égyptienne, née après le printemps arabe, promet dans son article 236 un droit au retour de ce peuple, sous dix ans, sur ses terres ancestrales, au bord du lac Nasser. Onze ans plus tard, Amer Nour fait part de son amertume. « Cette décision n'a jamais été appliquée, dénonce-t-il. Au contraire, il y a eu un décret présidentiel qui établit une zone militaire de 110 kilomètres depuis la frontière avec le Soudan. Alors qu'on aurait dû obtenir 17 villages dans cette zone. C'est une injustice flagrante ! » En 2017, à Assouan, la dernière manifestation pacifique en date avait été durement réprimée par la police. « Dieu nous préserve, il n'y a pas de minorité en Égypte, selon le gouvernement. Nous sommes tous des citoyens modèles. C'est en tout cas le narratif que le gouvernement essaye d'imposer à la population », explique un activiste qui préfère rester anonyme par peur des représailles. « Les Nubiens sont une minorité. Mais ils disent qu'ils sont égyptiens-nubiens, pas l'inverse. Ils sont très fiers d'être égyptiens, mais en même temps, ils clament leur identité », constate-t-il. Aujourd'hui, entre promesses constitutionnelles oubliées et silence imposé, les Nubiens continuent de résister, dans leur langue, et en chanson.  À lire aussiTerre de rivalités, à quoi ressemblait la Nubie médiévale ?

With July upon us and bad decision season (mercifully) over, Leah, Kate and Melissa take a step back to recap this year's SCOTUS term. They highlight some of the overarching themes, break down the biggest opinions, and look back at the moments they'll remember forever–whether they want to or not. Hosts' favorite things:Melissa: KBJ's footnote 12 in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida; Seven Chaotic Months in the Life of a New Federal Judge, Emily Bazelon and Mattathias Schwartz (NYT); This Is the Real Impact of the Supreme Court's Planned Parenthood Decision, Linda Greenhouse (NYT); When Rational Basis Review Bit (HLR)Leah: A New Kind of Judicial Supremacy, Steve Vladeck (One First); With the Big, Beautiful Bill, You Can Now Sponsor a Billionaire of Your Choosing, Alexandra Petri (Atlantic); Samuel Alito Takes Pride in Gay-Bashing, Elie Mystal (The Nation); A Court Without the Range, Sherrilyn Ifill (Sherrilyn's Newsletter); ‘A Culture of Disdain': The Supreme Court's Actions Speak Louder Than Its Words, Kate Shaw (NYT); Andor (Disney+); Virgin, Lorde; Trump FragrancesKate: Trump's Big Win in His Escalating War on the Press, Bob Bauer (Executive Functions); USAID study (The Lancet); Is the Supreme Court the Best Way to Get Justice? Alexis Coe (NYT); Unbearable: Five Women and the Perils of Pregnancy in America, Irin Carmon; We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution, Jill Lepore Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

BREAKING: MAJOR LAWSUIT Against Trump Bill.

0:00 - Farewell to Amy J 28:20 - Mello Buckzz, "Feel Me" 34:28 - Lake Bluff youth baseball 58:09 - Founder & Principal Broker for HealthInsuranceMentors.com, C. Steven Tucker, breaks down what the BBB means for medicaid and what it actually does, and doesn’t do - "none of this fear mongering is covered in the bill" 01:16:26 - Steven Bucci, visiting fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, breaks down the global hot spots—Israel, Iran, and Ukraine/Putin 01:39:46 - Christopher Whalen, chairman of Whalen Global Advisors LLC & editor for The Institutional Risk Analyst, weighs in on the BBB - Trump has done what he promised to do - and for small business people this is a big deal. Check out Chris’ most recent book Inflated: Money, Debt and the American Dream – 2nd Edition 01:56:12 - James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Law, Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago, Richard Epstein, looks at The Constitution, Parental Rights, and Transgender Treatment for Minors 02:13:45 - Phil Ambrose, founder of HazSim—a training tool for first responders—and a current Battalion Chief in Southern California, discusses the response to the Texas floods and the role of early warning systems. For more on HazSim visit hazsim.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What an awful week… and it's only Monday! The horrors continue in Texas. And, everywhere else, the stupidity continues and continues and continues. Probably the only one surprised by how things have been going though is Ghislaine Maxwell. Where do we go from here? David Waldman will tell us! Tomorrow. Today, we will review how we got here. How woke do you need to be, to march in uniform with African Americans, stoking the Civil War before Lincoln was even elected? Wide Awake. It's not a constitutional crisis if the Constitution is dead. The Gop crack suicide squad sprang into action to protect Donald K. Trump last week. Who knows how much more they can take, but the Supreme Court has plenty more to give where that came from.

Of-By-and For the People! Big Beautiful Bill - The Flood - and more! Conversations centered around the American Experiment and our Constitution and Bill of Rights! Our goal is to provide different perspectives - give historical context - model how to talk with those whom we may disagree with - tie foundational principals to today's headlines - PLUS, have some fun along the way. Please leave us a review and share with your friends! (A PODCAST PROVIDED AND OWNED BY DURING THE BREAK PODCASTS) Brought to you by Eric Buchanan and Associates: www.buchanandisability.com PART OF THE NOOGA PODCAST NETWORK: www.noogapodcasts.com Please consider leaving us a review on Apple and giving us a share to your friends! This podcast is powered by ZenCast.fm

Even as the holdout states continue to consider ratification, the Confederation Congress schedules elections. State leaders struggle to organize elections for representatives, and appoint the first Senators. Blog ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://blog.AmRevPodcast.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ includes a complete transcript, as well as more resources related to this week's episode. Book Recommendation of the Week: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Documentary History of the First Federal Elections, 1788-1790 Online Recommendation of the Week: Congressional Election of 1789 (Madison v. Monroe) https://www.montpelier.org/the-congressional-election-of-1789 Join American Revolution Podcast on Reddit: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.reddit.com/r/AmRevPodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Ask your American Revolution Podcast questions on Quora: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://amrevpod.quora.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/groups/132651894048271⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow the podcast on X ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@AmRevPodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Join the podcast mail list: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mailchi.mp/d3445a9cd244/american-revolution-podcast-by-michael-troy ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ARP T-shirts and other merch: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://merch.amrevpodcast.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Support this podcast on Patreon ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/AmRevPodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or via PayPal ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://paypal.me/AmRevPodcast⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices