Podcasts about Constitution

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show, the events surrounding the attempted takeover of the FlyDubai airliner were nothing short of incredible. What stands out is the extraordinary heroism displayed by everyone involved: the pilot who fought for his life while still managing to save the aircraft, the passengers who helped subdue the co-pilot, and the civilians and crew who pulled the plane out of a terrifying nosedive. Meanwhile, the broader threat from Iran remains the central issue.  While economic pressure and strikes against nuclear facilities have weakened the regime, the only lasting way to stop its nuclear ambitions and global terrorist activities is to remove the regime itself and support those inside Iran who are rising up against it. The war against Iran was never about the Strait of Hormuz. Later, Mark sat down for a Life, Liberty and Levin interview with Justice Samuel Alito, where they discussed his book and a wide range of topics, including originalism, textualism, the Constitution, Lincoln, the Gettysburg Address, judicial review, and the role of judges. Rather than focusing on politics or controversy, the conversation explored his ideas, personal background, Italian heritage, love of baseball, military service, and the influence of his parents. Afterward, Sean Hannity calls in and urges people across the country to understand the urgency of this moment, get involved and vote! We are facing a radical and extreme movement that openly lays out its agenda, while many elected Democrats refuse to challenge it because they fear political consequences. This is a clear choice between preserving our Constitution, our way of life, and the principles the country was built on, or embracing policies such as higher taxes, open borders, government expansion, court-packing, and other sweeping changes.  Also, Sen Ashley Moody joins the show and explains that this is a critical election not only for Florida but for the nation. We are facing candidates who openly identify as socialists and promote ideas that challenge the country's founding principles. Finally, Rep Chip Roy calls in and says we must come together around the principles we share, including faith, the Constitution, limited government, opportunity, and a love for America, even when we disagree on other issues. The greatest challenge is electorally defeating those who seek to undermine those values. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Catch Up With All Things Tony Katz! https://wibc.com/schedule/tony-katz-morning-news/ https://wibc.com/898383/tony-katz-2nd-hr-10-2-26-mamdani-puts-icc-ahead-of-the-constitution/ Downtown Indy Alliance Releases 2026 State of Downtown Report.Today’s Popcorn Moment: Mamdani puts “international courts” ahead of the Constitution. Today on the Marketplace: Classic. Dumb and Classic.China Halts October Fuel Exports, Tightening Global Diesel SqueezeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Stephen Ferry joins Brian Nichols to reveal what the general welfare clause actually meant in 1787, and why America's 250th birthday finds us $40 trillion in debt and arguing over a Constitution most people can't explain. Kids can recite the Preamble. 52 words. One sentence. Six purposes sitting right there in the text... But ask a civics teacher to name all six? Good luck. Stephen is the new national spokesperson for Citizens Academy U.S., and their guide walks the Preamble word by word using Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary. So why does a 200-year-old dictionary get to be the referee? And Brian pushes back. Hard. Words change. Kleenex. Xerox. Google. And with H-1B visas, a shifting culture, and a federal government bigger than any in history... does defining the words even matter anymore? So... can a dictionary save the Constitution? Or are we too far gone? CHAPTERS 0:00 The 2 Phrases Washington Spends $40 Trillion On 1:51 Who Is Stephen Ferry? 2:47 Is the Constitution Dead in 2026? 3:45 Are We Too Far Gone? 4:32 The 1690 Warning Nobody Listened To 9:42 Civics Teachers Can't Name the 6 Purposes 10:29 The Guy Who Only Showed Up Because His Wife Made Him 12:56 Why People Check Out of the Constitution 15:59 What "Welfare" Means in 2026 19:17 What "Welfare" Meant in 1787 22:37 The Culture Question Nobody Wants to Touch 27:26 Who Actually Gets Taught What America Is? 30:26 Does the Constitution Need Fresh Eyes? 33:10 Political Enemies Walked In, Allies Walked Out 35:50 How to Do the Guide Yourself 39:09 The Free November 8 Constitution Talk GUEST LINKS Citizens Academy U.S.: https://citizensacademy.us The Guide to Complete Understanding of the Preamble: https://citizensacademy.us/about-the-guide Free E-Book: https://citizensacademy.us/the-preamble-e-book Free Live Constitution Talk, Sunday, Nov 8, 2026: https://citizensacademy.us/understand-the-constitution BRIAN NICHOLS Website: https://www.briannicholsshow.com X: https://x.com/BNicholsLiberty Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BNicholsLiberty Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bnicholsliberty Email: brian@briannicholsshow.com New episodes every Thursday. Educated. Enlightened. Informed. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

CannCon and Ashe in America dive into Chapter 16 of The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin, titled The Creature Comes to America, and the central bank saga finally lands on home soil. This week covers the Bank of North America, the nation's very first central bank, chartered before the Constitution was even drafted, along with the First Bank of the United States that followed in 1791. The hosts walk through how both institutions were modeled after the Bank of England, how fractional reserve tricks snuck their way into the new nation almost immediately, and the genuinely wild story of how the first bank's own funding was partly embezzled by its own founder. Expect some real disbelief at how early these patterns started, a little Founding Father frustration, and the usual mix of history and humor along the way.  

Can the Next Generation Do Politics Better Than We Have?   Being angry on the internet isn't activism. So what actually makes a difference? Sharon McMahon, "America's government teacher" and author of The Small and the Mighty and host of the Preamble podcast, joins Curtis Chang to explore how we can help the next generation do politics better and build a healthier democracy in the process. They discuss raising engaged citizens, choosing character over party loyalty, and loving our neighbors—even when they're our enemies. With the midterms approaching, Sharon offers a practical path from political frustration to local civic engagement, reminding us that hope begins with believing our actions matter.   00:54 - Welcome and Why Civic Formation Matters 05:53 - Norm Mineta and Modeling Public Service  09:27 - Teaching Young People to Vote Thoughtfully  14:21 - Can Civic Engagement Form Character? 18:04 - Choosing a Community Focus 23:55 - Loving Enemies Without Accepting Harm 34:04 - Helping College Students Speak Up 38:30 - Civic Education During a Constitutional Crisis  41:26 - Is Hope an Active Choice? 43:55 - Helping One Person at a Time   Apply  to be Good Faith's next Director of Marketing Sign up  for The After Party course   Mentioned in This Episode: Sharon McMahon's The Small and the Mighty Sharon McMahon's We Are Mighty More about Norman Mineta Executive Order 9066: Resulting in Japanese-American Incarceration (1942) Read the Constitution and the Preamble (transcript)   Scriptures: Matthew 22:34-40 and Matthew 5:43-48 (ESV) Matthew 6:10 (ESV)   More From Sharon McMahon: Sharon McMahon's website Sharon McMahon's The Preamble podcast Sharon McMahon's The Preamble Newsletter   Follow Us: Good Faith on Instagram Good Faith on X (formerly Twitter) Good Faith on Facebook   The Good Faith Podcast is a production of a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan organization that does not engage in any political campaign activity to support or oppose any candidate for public office. Any views and opinions expressed by any guests on this program are solely those of the individuals and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of Good Faith.

The National Security Hour with Jack Maxey – Patriotism demands scrutiny of our own government. Loyalty to America means insisting on honest casualty reporting, accountable spending, and independent judgment toward every foreign partner. No administration deserves blind faith. No political party owns the Constitution. No alliance excuses silence when American lives are at...

Was the Civil War fought over slavery or states' rights? Today we'll examine the primary sources: the secession declarations of South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas, the ordinances of the other Confederate states, Alexander Stephens's Cornerstone Speech, Jefferson Davis's own words to the Confederate Congress in 1861, and Lincoln's letters on slavery and the Union. We'll also discuss the Corwin Amendment, the Crittenden Compromise, the tariff argument, why poor Southern farmers enlisted, the truth about Black Confederates and the Louisiana Native Guard, Black slave owners, Union atrocities, and how the Lost Cause myth spread from Edward Pollard's 1866 book through the United Daughters of the Confederacy and into Southern history textbooks, including the ones I used growing up in Texas. Wild West Quiz - https://wildwestquiz.com/ Check out the website! https://www.wildwestextra.com/ Email me! https://www.wildwestextra.com/contact/ Free Newsletter! https://wildwestjosh.substack.com/ Buy Me A Coffee! https://buymeacoffee.com/wildwest Join Patreon for ad-free bonus content! https://www.patreon.com/wildwestextra Merch! https://wildwestextramerch.com/ South Carolina Declaration of Causes, December 24, 1860: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification, November 24, 1832: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/ordnull.asp Mississippi Declaration of Causes, January 9, 1861: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp Texas Declaration of Causes, February 2, 1861: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp Georgia Declaration of Causes, January 29, 1861: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp Alexander Stephens, Cornerstone Speech, March 21, 1861. Henry Cleveland, Alexander H. Stephens, in Public and Private (1866), pp. 717 to 728: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-corner-stone-speech/ Stephens's disavowal and "Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession": Recollections of Alexander H. Stephens, ed. Myrta Lockett Avary (1910), diary entry June 5, 1865. Secession ordinances of all eleven states, including Alabama and Virginia: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/secession-acts-thirteen-confederate-states Also Dwight T. Pitcaithley, ed., The U.S. Constitution and Secession (University Press of Kansas, 2018). Virginia Ordinance of Secession, April 17, 1861: https://encyclopediavirginia.org/primary-documents/virginia-ordinance-of-secession-april-17-1861/ Secession commissioners, including George Williamson of Louisiana to the Texas convention: Charles B. Dew, Apostles of Disunion (University of Virginia Press, 2001). Arkansas convention, March 1861 resolutions, and May 6 secession: https://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/entries/secession-convention-6304/ James M. Woods, Rebellion and Realignment (University of Arkansas Press, 1987). Florida's unadopted draft Declaration of Causes: State Archives of Florida, Series 577; reprinted in Pitcaithley (2018). Washington Peace Conference, February 1861: Daniel W. Crofts, Reluctant Confederates (UNC Press, 1989). Lincoln's call for 75,000 militia, April 15, 1861, and the secessions of Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina: James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom (Oxford University Press, 1988), chapter 9. Constitution of the Confederate States, March 11, 1861: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp Jefferson Davis, message to the Confederate Congress, April 29, 1861: James D. Richardson, ed., Messages and Papers of the Confederacy (1905), vol. 1. Jefferson Davis, Senate farewell, January 21, 1861: https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/archives/documents/jefferson-davis-farewell-address Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government (1881), vol. 1. Edward A. Pollard, The Lost Cause (1866). General reading: McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom. David W. Blight, Race and Reunion (Harvard University Press, 2001). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Christian Gomez is co-director of Operations for the John Birch Society and is a contributor for The New American. He currently co-hosts the JbS web-series, BiRCH'N the USA. For some time there's been a lot of controversy, even among conservatives, about a Constitutional Convention, or a ConCon for short. According to Christian, the term, "Constitutional Convention" has been in our legal vernacular for over a century. You can go back to the 2nd edition of Black's Law Dictionary published in 1910 and on to the most current editions published today. They define "Constitutional Convention" as, "A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising or amending its constitution." So terms such as "Article V Convention" or "Constitutional Convention" are interchangeable, historical terms. However, lately (since about 2010 or 2011), there's been a movement in favor of a convention. They rename their efforts in more flattering fashion by using phrases such as "Convention of States" or "Convention of the States." Whatever phrase you want to use, some indicate this is needed in order to balance the budget or to limit the power of Congress or to change what are perceived as outdated rules. Are there dangers lurking about within such efforts that could subvert the Constitution? You decide what motives might be involved when you review this important edition of Crosstalk. More Information: jbs.org

This Day in Legal History: The Nuremberg VerdictsOn October 1, 1946, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg delivered its sentences on the surviving leaders of Nazi Germany. Of the 22 defendants, 19 were convicted and three were acquitted. Twelve were sentenced to death, three to life imprisonment, and four to prison terms of 10 to 20 years. Hermann Göring killed himself the night before his scheduled execution. Martin Bormann, tried in absentia, was never found to face his sentence. The other death sentences were carried out on October 16.The legal achievement of Nuremberg was the decision to hold a trial at all. The Allies could have simply executed the Nazi leadership; some officials argued for exactly that. Instead, at the urging of figures like U.S. Justice Robert Jackson, who left the Supreme Court to serve as chief prosecutor, they built a court, allowed defense counsel, admitted evidence, and let the outcome turn on proof. The acquittals mattered as much as the convictions: they showed the tribunal was deciding cases, not ratifying a foregone conclusion. Nuremberg also established principles that still anchor international law, most importantly that “following orders” is not a defense to crimes against humanity, and that individuals, not just states, can be held criminally responsible for aggression and atrocities.The significance of October 1, 1946 is the idea in today's opening quote, from Jackson's opening statement: that even when dealing with the worst crimes imaginable, the state submits to legal process rather than acting on raw power. That idea, that the government must work through courts and procedure, especially when it is detaining, removing, or putting people to death, runs through every story we cover today.The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the administration can detain millions of immigrants for the entire length of their deportation proceedings without a bond hearing. In July 2025, the Department of Homeland Security issued guidance saying that immigrants who entered the country illegally are subject to mandatory detention with no bond hearing while their cases proceed, a process that can take months or years. The legal fight is about which section of the immigration statute applies. The law has one provision that requires detention for “applicants for admission,” historically understood to mean people arriving at the border. A separate provision governs people already living in the country and generally lets them ask an immigration judge for release on bond. The administration's new position is that anyone who entered without inspection remains an “applicant for admission” no matter how long they've lived here, which would move them into the mandatory-detention category. The case the Court took involves Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian national who authorities say entered illegally two decades ago and applied for asylum in 2016. The Second Circuit ruled against the government. And according to the reporting, appeals judges in nine of the eleven federal circuits to consider the question have concluded that detention without a bond hearing violates federal law. That makes the administration's position an outlier among the lower courts, which is part of why the Supreme Court stepped in. The stakes are very large. A bond hearing doesn't guarantee release; it just means a judge decides whether a person is a flight risk or a danger. If the Court sides with the administration, millions of long-term residents could be held without that individualized review for the length of their cases. The Court will hear it in the term that opens Monday.US Supreme Court to hear clash over Trump's immigration detention policy | Reuters · Yahoo News · National Immigration ForumThe U.S. Court of International Trade heard arguments in a challenge to the President's “forced labor” tariffs, and opponents say the case is a test of whether he can rebuild the tariff power the Supreme Court took away in February. Imposed in late July, the tariffs range from 10% to 12.5% on goods from 60 trading partners, including the European Union and China, and they cover more than 99% of goods imported into the United States. The stated justification is that those countries have failed to stop imports made with forced labor. Four small businesses and 25 Democratic-led states sued, and their three cases were consolidated before a three-judge panel with appointees of Presidents Trump, Obama, and Biden. Their argument is that the trade statute the administration relied on requires country-specific findings of unfair trade practices, reached through a real investigation. In their telling, “forced labor” is a pretext: a label stretched over nearly all imports from 60 countries to recreate the broad, global tariff authority the Supreme Court rejected when it struck down the emergency-powers tariffs. The legal question is how closely courts will examine the factual basis for a statutory trade remedy. If the statute requires findings and the findings are thin or generic, the tariffs are vulnerable. If the court defers to the executive's judgment on trade practices, they likely survive. The panel isn't expected to rule from the bench. This connects directly to my column from last week on building an unwinding mechanism into tariffs from the start. If these tariffs fall too, importers will be back in the refund line, and consumers who paid higher prices will again have no clear way to get that money back.US trade court to weigh challenge to Trump's forced labor tariffs | Reuters · CNBC · Foreign PolicyAnd finally, a story that took a turn no one expected. Tennessee tried to execute Christa Pike on Wednesday night, and the execution failed. Pike was the only woman on Tennessee's death row, convicted of the 1995 torture and murder of 19-year-old Colleen Slemmer, a fellow student at a Knoxville Job Corps program. Pike was 18 at the time of the crime. The legal path to Wednesday night was itself dramatic. On Wednesday morning, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit granted a short stay to consider her claim that evidence of severe childhood sexual abuse was never adequately considered at sentencing. Tennessee went to the Supreme Court, which vacated the stay Wednesday evening, with Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting. Officials then administered two doses of the lethal drug, but Pike's heart was still beating, and she was taken to a hospital. Governor Bill Lee has ordered a comprehensive third-party review and said the remaining execution scheduled for this year will not go forward. Now the legal questions are unusual and difficult. The closest Supreme Court precedent is from 1947, Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, when the state's electric chair failed to kill Willie Francis and the Court held, 5 to 4, that Louisiana could try again without violating the Eighth Amendment. Modern lethal-injection cases like Baze v. Rees and Bucklew v. Precythe focus on whether a method creates a substantial risk of severe pain, but they don't squarely address what happens after an execution has actually been attempted and failed. Pike's lawyers will almost certainly argue that a second attempt would be cruel and unusual. There are also the issues that were already in the case: her age at the time of the crime, just past the line the Supreme Court drew in Roper v. Simmons barring execution for crimes committed under 18, and the abuse evidence the Sixth Circuit wanted time to examine. Whatever one's view of the death penalty, a failed execution is exactly the kind of event the Eighth Amendment was written to make courts confront, and this case will now test what the Constitution requires when the state's ultimate punishment doesn't work.Tennessee due to execute woman for first time in two centuries | Reuters · NPR · CBS News 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

In today's episode of The Quiz, we're testing your knowledge on everything from executive office rules to landmark medical breakthroughs and Hollywood history. Can you answer these? Executive Power: The U.S. Constitution sets clear boundaries for the nation's highest office. Do you know the maximum number of terms a President is permitted to serve? Breakthrough Medicine: An accidental discovery in a London lab revolutionized healthcare and created modern antibiotics. Do you know which famous scientist discovered penicillin? Hollywood Records: In 1960, a talented young actress made history as the youngest recipient of a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Do you know who earned this Hollywood honor? Play. Share. Listen, with actor Kevin Sorbo. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Proposed Amendment L protects the South Dakota Constitution and South Dakota citizens by requiring a 60% vote to change the Constitution. All other measures remain unchanged. Amendment L was placed on the ballot by the South Dakota Legislature during the 2025 session as House Joint Resolution 5003. The measure passed the Senate with 29 yes votes and 4 no votes; it passed the House with 61 yes votes and 5 no votes. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/harold-s-old-time-radio-no-1--4206392/support.

On Tuesday's Mark Levin Show, the direct assault on our republic and Constitution is very concerning. Former special prosecutor Jack Smith abused his authority by obtaining secret subpoenas for communications from Republican members of Congress, numerous media organizations, journalists, and even the Mark Levin radio show, the only radio show in the country Smith went after, as part of his investigation into President Trump. These actions, carried out with the approval of federal judges and hidden from public view, violated constitutional protections, including separation of powers, the Speech and Debate Clause, and the First Amendment. This investigation was driven by political motives rather than justice. And make no mistake: the Biden White House was looped in on everything.  Also, if Donald Trump was not president, and Kamala Harris won the presidency, the Democrat Party ruled DC, and the Woke Reich isolation appeasers held sway, the Iranian regime would have nuclear weapons, complete control over the Strait of Hormuz driving gas prices far beyond what they are today (which would be the least of our problems), our nation and many others would be facing nuclear attack by an Islamist-terrorist death cult openly committed to our annihilation, or at least nuclear blackmail that would change the face of the planet, and we'd have few if any options in dealing with the Iranian regime. Now that President Trump has prevented ALL of these horrific scenarios because he uniquely had the courage and foresight to act, the various imbeciles of the Left and Radical Right beat their chests and howl to the moon as if they were right about something all along.  They were right about nothing.  But for POTUS acting, they'd be proven wrong about everything, to our grave endangerment and that of the rest of the world. Later, there's a proposed Islamic community center, school, and mosque project near Atlantic Avenue and Lyons Road in South Florida.. After reviewing property records, corporate filings, and organizational connections tied to the project, the ownership structure, property transfers, LLC formations, and relationships among various organizations have become so complex that it is difficult for the public to follow the money, understand who is ultimately responsible, or assess the project's full impact. Residents should demand answers, request records, and put their concerns on the record because this project could significantly affect the surrounding community and deserves thorough public scrutiny. Finally, Alan Dershowitz calls in to discuss his new book - Why I Quit the Dems: And So Should You! (confessions of a reluctant Republican*). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Join Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway and Washington Examiner Senior Writer David Harsanyi as they discuss revelations that special prosecutor Jack Smith obtained Hemingway's communications and explain why that's problematic. Mollie and David also analyze The New York Times' "100 Best TV Shows of the 21st Century" list, discuss their latest reads, and lament The Great British Bake Off's casting protocol.Order and review Mollie's book Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution here.The FDRLST Media Foundation is a nonprofit, and we depend entirely on our listeners and readers — not corporations. If you value fearless, independent journalism, please consider a tax-deductible gift today at TheFederalist.com/donate. Your support keeps us going.

September 29, 2026At a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Jack Smith was questioned about the case charging Trump with using fraud and deceit to overturn the 2020 election results, The courts have interpreted the language in the Constitution that protects speech in Congress broadly, Republicans have used that protection to make outrageous accusations and to spread disinformation, Smith was appointed special counsel by former attorney general Merrick Garland on November 18, 2022, In June 2023 a grand jury indicted Trump on 37 counts but after Trump was reelected Smith dropped Trump from the case, Today's hearing focused on charges by a federal grand jury in August 2023, Trump challenged the indictment and the Supreme Court largely agreed with him in its Trump v United States decision that gave a president absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed as part of his official duties and Smith dismissed the case after Trump was reelected, Today's hearing seems to have been an appeal to either Trump or the MAGA base, Sen Eric Schmitt presented a conspiracy theory which was based on incorrect information, The right wing media ran with his story nonetheless, Smith's opening statement at the hearing focused on his commitment to facts and the rule of law and emphasized that his actions were based on evidence, He expressed his belief that the rule of law faces extraordinary challenges but also his confidence that the rule of law will endure despite the pressures being put upon it.To read this letter, click here:Listen on Apple PodcastsListen on SpotifyYou can also find Heather at:YouTubeBlueskyInstagramFacebookThreadsTikTok Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe

Former special prosecutor Jack Smith appears stunned as republican senators come armed with text messages and digital proof that Smith's "investigations" into Trump and his GOP supporters trampled the Constitution and weaponized the government against an incoming administration. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard REALLY wants Americans to vote for democrats this November (just think about that) and Sean Hannity talks to three men who all say they went to hell but came back to the living to tell the tale. Is Fauci listening?    

That means the rules of the constitution apply whether someone calls it an “emergency” or not. On this episode, it's the founders' long-forgotten warning about the oldest weapon in the book. Let politicians have extra power or funding because THEY declare an emergency? And you'll get never-ending emergencies. The post The Word “Emergency” Doesn’t Exist in the Constitution. That’s no Accident. appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Tonight at 8:30pm CST, on the Flyover Conservatives show we are tackling the most important things going on RIGHT NOW from a Conservative Christian perspective!► Experience Your Own Healing Using Frequencieswww.wavwatch.com/flyoverUse promo code FLYOVER for 15% offTo Schedule A Time To Talk To Dr. Dr. Kirk Elliott Go To ▶ https://flyovergold.comOr Call 720-605-3900 ► Protect Your Family and Home with Cleaner Waterhttps://sentryh2o.com/flyoverWhere do you draw the line when Sharia law runs into the Constitution?Filmmaker Chris Burgard, director of Remember the Alamo: Don't Sharia My Texas, joins David and Stacy Whited from his East Texas ranch. After 19 years of fighting the Muslim Brotherhood, he explains why he says "Sharia is the enemy of the constitution," and why Texans are pushing back peacefully, with the laws already on the books.Chris shares how a school board voted Sharia out five to zero within four days, what happened at the Texas State Board of Education, what Tommy Robinson told him, and the story of being Matthew Broderick's dance double in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.- What Sharia law actually is, in Chris's words- How one town voted it out of a school district, 5–0, in four days- Why he says "you draw the line at Sharia… At the First Amendment"- Why this has to be won peacefully: "what color is a Christian?"- The "Christ is king" sign that changed Tommy Robinson's marches- From Ferris Bueller's Day Off to the documentary front linesWatch and share the film: www.RememberTheAlamoMovie.comTO WATCH ALL FLYOVER CONTENT: www.theflyoverapp.comFollow and Subscribe on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheFlyoverConservativesShow Chris BurgardWEBSITE: www.rememberthealamomovie.com Chris Burgard is a Texas-based award-winning filmmaker, documentary director, actor and conservative activist, and the director of Remember the Alamo: Don't Sharia My Texas. Early in his career he was on scholarship at Chicago Ballet and was Matthew Broderick's dance double on the parade float in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, working with John Hughes and Kenny Ortega; he also appeared in Pirates of the Caribbean, The Last Samurai and Growing Pains. He has spent about 21 years making documentaries and says he has been fighting the Muslim Brotherhood for 19 years. Originally from Wisconsin, he lives with his wife on a ranch in East Texas and is touring the country by bus with the film.-------------------------------------------

Of-By-and For the People: The 1619 Project - The Supreme Court and Voting - 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 ===== THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS: (Welcome to our NEW sponsor) Signal Investigations: https://www.signalpi.com/ Nutrition World: https://nutritionw.com/ Vascular Institute of Chattanooga: https://www.vascularinstituteofchattanooga.com/ The Barn Nursery: https://www.barnnursery.com/ Optimize U Chattanooga: https://optimizeunow.com/chattanooga/ Guardian Investment Advisors: https://giaplantoday.com/ Alchemy Medspa and Wellness Center: http://www.alchemychattanooga.com/ Our House Studio: https://ourhousestudiosinc.com/ Team Montieth Real Estate - Lori Montieth: https://www.findchattanoogarealestate.com/ Ballinger and Associates - Risk Management: https://ballingerandassociates.com/ AirSpace Acoustics: https://www.airspaceacoustics.com/ BWELL4EVER: Labs and IV Therapies: https://www.bwell4ever.org/ ALL THINGS JEFF STYLES: www.thejeffstyles.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

This week on The Breggin Hour, Peter and I sat down with one of the more wonderful men we know: Sheriff Richard Mack, founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, the Arizona sheriff who took the federal government all the way to the Supreme Court over the Brady Bill—and won. He has a new book. The title is deliberately offensive. He said so himself, and he meant it that way. The Democrat Murder of America: Demagoguery in the First Degree. The cover is a jackass in a patriotic hat, a knife in its hoof, stabbing the Statue of Liberty in the back. Sheriff Mack admitted it is horrible. That was the point. He wanted your attention. The book site is murderofamerica.com. There is an ebook at $14.92, an audiobook at $17.76, and a paperback at $26.76. They planned those numbers. Columbus. 1776. 2026. This is not a campaign pamphlet for a party. Sheriff Mack said it is not a pro-Trump book and not a pro-Republican book. It is a history book about what is being done to the country from within—and a manual for people who still believe the Constitution and the individual human being are worth defending. You cannot have communism and freedom That was the sentence he kept coming back to. Those philosophies are not cousins. They are not “different paths to the same good.” They are the antithesis of each other. Communism does not recognize civil rights. It does not honor the person. It tells you how many children you may have, what you may say, what you may own, and what you must obey. The promise of forced equality is a lie. The individual is erased. Peter and I have spent years saying the same thing in another language: collectivism—religious, political, or “scientific”—is the opposite of Christianity and of the American founding. The First Amendment begins with faith for a reason. A Creator who made each person in His image is not compatible with a state that claims ownership of the soul and rejects the individuality and unique qualities of each person. Sheriff Mack asked a question the media will not ask the new crop of openly socialist and communist candidates: What will you do with the people who refuse to cooperate? We already know part of the answer. We lived it. COVID was the rehearsal On the show, we talked about the last few years as if they were ancient history. They are not. Children locked inside. Playgrounds closed. Churches shuttered. Babies staring at masked faces for the first years of life. Australians held for months in camps. Planes on which you could remove the mask only to eat—so Sheriff Mack ate peanuts for hours, until they changed the rule to force the little ritual of pull-down, bite, pull-up. Control for control's sake. They learned that a “crisis of the day” can make Americans surrender schools, businesses, worship, and the Constitution. Justice Scalia, in the very case Sheriff Mack won, wrote that the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions. It divides power so we will resist the temptation to concentrate it as an expedient solution to the emergency of the moment. Never let a crisis go to waste. That is not wisdom. That is a method. If you think that chapter is over, Sheriff Mack's warning is simple: wait until the people who admired that machinery hold still more offices. **History they hoped you would forget** The book is full of names younger Americans were never taught. Nikita Khrushchev, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, told Americans they were gullible. You will not accept communism outright, he said. We will feed you small doses of socialism until you wake up and find you already have communism. We will not need to invade. We will destroy you from within. We will bury you. Sheriff Mack's argument is that a political movement inside the Democrat Party is fulfilling that threat—not because every Democrat is a villain, he said, but because the party's dominant direction is to replace the Constitution with something closer to Marx. He talked about Dorothy Kilgallen, the What's My Line television game show panelist and journalist who interviewed Jack Ruby and then died the same night her JFK notes disappeared—barbiturates and alcohol, ruled an accident, the same pattern as Marilyn Monroe. Vince Foster. The sudden expansion of Vietnam after JFK was gone. The deep state is not a new invention. He talked about CNN's Sarah Sidner, who came to his daughter's house, recorded eighty-five minutes, heard again and again why they were even talking—his Supreme Court victory against the Clinton Justice Department—and then went on Anderson Cooper and mentioned none of it. Peter and I know that pattern. We have been walked out of buildings we were invited into. YouTube banned us for life after we announced *COVID-19 and the Global Predators*. The media is not a referee. It is a participant. Elections, cities, and the Senate Sheriff Mack described a country in which a tourist from Buenos Aires can walk into a New York polling place, register without ID and without English, vote, and fly home to brag. He described the open talk of abolishing or neutering the Senate and packing the Court—so that a handful of giant cities decide the fate of small states. Destroy the Constitution, he said, and you destroy the country. He also said something we hear too rarely: there are good Democrats, including Christians, who have been lied to. The book is written to be handed to them. Start with the epilogue, he suggested. Then talk. That is not hatred. That is an invitation to wake up from indoctrination. The smartest person in the room, he said, is the one who can recognize his own brainwashing. A peaceful manual, while peace is still possible Peter's closing on the hour was short: buy the book. You are not only buying pages. You are supporting one of the great living voices for constitutional liberty in this country. Sheriff Mack and co-author Dan Perkins talked, while they were writing, about what happens if the book actually gains traction. They have already been smeared. They know the next step. Perkins told him he hoped their wives would be taken care of. That is not melodrama. That is what it costs now to say plain things in public. The alternative they offer is still peaceful: know the history, refuse the next crisis-of-the-day, restore local accountability, protect the sheriff's oath to the Constitution rather than to Washington, and come together as good people who still love this country. We are of a generation that did duck-and-cover, that watched people shot trying to leave East Germany, that saw COVID used as a nationwide obedience drill. Younger people have been propagandized in school and have not seen the same failures with their own eyes. That is why a book like this matters. It is a history lesson and a warning in one. Christmas will be here before we think about it. Give this book as a gift of freedom—one for you, one for the family member who still believes the slogans. The website again: **murderofamerica.com** *The Breggin Hour* airs on America Out Loud. We will keep talking. We refuse to stop. The truth still sets people free. But first they have to hear it. — Ginger, with Peter       ________   Learn more about Dr. Peter Breggin's work: https://breggin.com/   See more from Dr. Breggin's long history of being a reformer in psychiatry: https://breggin.com/Psychiatry-as-an-Instrument-of-Social-and-Political-Control   Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal, the how-to manual @ https://breggin.com/a-guide-for-prescribers-therapists-patients-and-their-families/   Get a copy of Dr. Breggin's latest book: WHO ARE THE “THEY” - THESE GLOBAL PREDATORS? WHAT ARE THEIR MOTIVES AND THEIR PLANS FOR US? HOW CAN WE DEFEND AGAINST THEM? Covid-19 and the Global Predators: We are the Prey Get a copy: https://www.wearetheprey.com/   “No other book so comprehensively covers the details of COVID-19 criminal conduct as well as its origins in a network of global predators seeking wealth and power at the expense of human freedom and prosperity, under cover of false public health policies.”

On this episode, we have a special guest from the AFJ Justice team. We are joined by our colleague Morgan Flitt an Alliance for Justice Senior Dorot Fellow. With Morgan we will be covering the upcoming cases that will be heard by the US Supreme Court this session. Many of these cases – affect everyday people and the issues they care about,  climate change, gun rights, voting, immigration and LGBTQ+ rights. Then we will talk about how nonprofits can get involved with supreme court advocacy, nominees, and more while staying nonpartisan and being mindful of lobbying limits. Attorneys for this Episode Brittany Leonard Susan Finkle Sourlis Morgan Flitt   Intro to Justice Program: Brittany ·      Our justice team works on both federal and state judicial appointments and elections and runs numerous invaluable resources including our judicial vacancy tracker and helps keep us and the public informed about nominees. This includes the decisions they make after they've been confirmed, and how cases in federal courts – especially the supreme court – are impacting our civil rights and democracy.   ·      Today, we are thrilled to be joined on the pod by our friend and colleague Morgan Flitt. Morgan is a fellow attorney who serves as the Senior Dorot Fellow on the Federal Courts team. ·      Today we want to talk about the upcoming cases in this supreme court term, what we should be keeping an eye on, the potential impacts for our c3 partners, and what nonprofits can do during this term and future terms to advocate.   Cases to watch out for this term (4 across 4 differenttt critical issue areas) ·      Climate Change o      Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Commissioners of Boulder County (No. 25-170) §     Issue: Whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate; and (2) whether this court has statutory and Article III jurisdiction to hear this case §     Brief context: The Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County and the City of Boulder sued Exxon Mobil and Suncor, arguing that they should share in the costs of mitigating climate change because they knowingly contributed to causing it through producing, marketing, and selling fossil fuels while misrepresenting its dangers. The companies argued federal law preempted these claims, but the lower court agreed with the Board and the City of Boulder. §     Consequences: If the Supreme Court sides with Big Oil and Gas Companies, giving them blanket federal immunity from state tort law, this could potentially wipe out the dozens of climate deception cases that states and localities have filed around the country. §     Argument: Oct 5, 2026   ·      Voting and democracy o      Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota (No. 25-1017) §     Issue: (1) Whether the National Voter Registration Act or a federal consent decree prohibits Arizona from requiring voter-registration applicants to produce "satisfactory evidence" of U.S. citizenship when registering with a state registration form; and (2) whether the NVRA prohibits Arizona from implementing a program within 90 days of a federal election to cancel the registrations of voters who are not U.S. citizens. §     Brief context: In 2022, Arizona passed two additional hurdles to voting. First, they required new voter registrants to provide a physical "documentary proof of citizenship." Secondly, Arizona enabled county recorders to conduct citizenship audits of voter registration rolls against both state and federal databases. Mi Familia Vota and others filed suit against the Republican National Committee (RNC) to block these state laws from going into effect. The Ninth Circuit sided with Mi Familia Vota. §     Consequences: Siding with the RNC to greenlight these additional hurdles would render another blow to voting access and our democracy. Such demands would screen out lower income voters, people who have changed their names, naturalized citizens, and anyone who doesn't happen to have easy ways to obtain a passport or their birth certificate. It would also open the door for other states to impose similar inequitable requirements. §     Argument: December 8, 2026   ·      LGBTQ+ Rights o      International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson (No. 25-840) §     Issue: Whether parents have standing to challenge a law or policy that deliberately displaces their decisionmaking role as to "gender transitions" of their children, and in so doing creates present and likely future impediments to their ability to parent their children as they deem best for them. §     Brief context: Washington took "modest steps to address the crisis of transgender youth homelessness" by updating its laws to allow minors in shelters to access "health care — including gender-affirming care — without contacting their parents." Staff must still make good faith efforts to notify the minor's parents and are only allowed to withhold information if sharing it would cause harm to the minor. In response, the International Partners for Ethical Care and a group of parents challenged these laws, claiming they chill speech and "deliberately displace their decision-making role." The Ninth Circuit court of appeals dismissed their case for lack of legal standing. §     Consequences: The issue of legal standing is often political, and if the Court grants these parents standing, it could open the door for special interest groups to manufacture so-called grievances to bring challenges to school curricula, library books, vaccination policies, and confidential reproductive care. ·      It would also advance yet another challenge to the medical necessity of gender-affirming care for transgender people while protecting the abuse of anti-LGBTQ+ parental rejection. §     Argument: December 7, 2026   ·      Gun Safety o      Viramontes v. Cook County (No. 25-238), consolidated with Grant v. Higgins (No. 25-566) §     Issue: Whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. §     Brief context: When Cutberto Viramontes and Christopher Khaya were barred from owning AR-15 style weapons after they were banned in Cook County, Illinois, they joined two gun-rights organizations and filed a suit arguing that the law banning the sale, transfer, and possession of semiautomatic rifles violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Both an Illinois district court and the Seventh Circuit sided with Cook County and upheld the assault weapons ban. What will happen if the ban is overturned? §     Consequences: A decision overturning this ban could void other assault weapons bans in Connecticut, California, New York, and a dozen other states — bans that have drastically reduced mass shootings, including school shootings, compared to states without such bans. §     Argument: December 2, 2026   What c3s can do: ·      Supreme court advocacy is nonpartisan—you are free to stand for or against cases before any court or get involved in the cases. o      Litigation at the supreme court o      Amicus briefs o      Educating the public about cases and impacts of opinions Advocacy and lobbying work about the courts: ·      Nominee advocacy—Advocate for or against nominees to supreme court (lobbying) o      Remember the lower district courts and circuit courts as well o      Remember the lobbying rules if you are a c3: must track and report your lobbying the IRS and stay within your lobbying limits. Great place for c4s to get involved because they can lobbying in an unlimited amount. ·      Ethics advocacy—ask congress for more oversight or ethics rules (Lobbying if it will require a legislative vote). ·      Supreme court reform: increasing the size of the bench, retirement requirements, and more   Resources ·      Alliance for Justice, Being a Player ·      Alliance for Justice, Confirmation of Supreme Court Justices ·      Alliance for Justice, Judicial Nominee Tracker ·      Alliance for Justice, Supreme Court Reform ·      See more of our coverage of critical Supreme Court cases this term here.

Join Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway and Washington Examiner Senior Writer David Harsanyi as they discuss revelations that special prosecutor Jack Smith obtained Hemingway's communications and explain why that's problematic. Mollie and David also analyze The New York Times' "100 Best TV Shows of the 21st Century" list, discuss their latest reads, and lament The Great British Bake Off's casting protocol.Order and review Mollie's book Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution here.The FDRLST Media Foundation is a nonprofit, and we depend entirely on our listeners and readers — not corporations. If you value fearless, independent journalism, please consider a tax-deductible gift today at TheFederalist.com/donate. Your support keeps us going.

In this conversation from 2024, Alex speaks with Matt Zwolinski about whether a truly "free market" exists, delving into concepts of freedom, coercion, and property rights. They examine critiques of markets from left-leaning thinkers, such as Robert Hale, as well as conservative perspectives, while discussing libertarian approaches to balancing coercion and freedom in market societies. Zwolinski also references his own Substack essays and reflects on ideas for minimizing coercion without dismissing critiques. References Matt Zwolinski's Substack, Bleeding Heart Libertarian Link: https://bleedingheartlibertarian.substack.com/ "Coercion and Distribution in a Supposedly Non-Coercive State" by Robert Hale (1923) Link:https://www.jstor.org/stable/2142367 "The Constitution of Liberty" by Friedrich Hayek Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Constitution-Liberty-Friedrich-Hayek/dp/0226320847 "23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism" by Ha-Joon Chang Link: https://www.amazon.ca/23-Things-Dont-Tell-Capitalism/dp/1608191664 "The Myth of Ownership: Taxes and Justice" by Liam Murphy and Thomas Nagel Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Myth-Ownership-Taxes-Justice/dp/0195150163  "Tyranny, Inc." by Sohrab Ahmari Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Tyranny-Inc-Private-American-Liberty/dp/0593443462  "The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism" by Matt Zwolinski and John Tomasi Link: https://a.co/d/5lCZvGS  Thanks to our patrons including: Amy Willis, Kris Rondolo, and Christopher McDonald. To become a patron, go to patreon.com/curioustask

University of Pennsylvania Media Policy Professor Victor Pickard: White House Bans Three Media Outlets, Trump's Latest Attack on the Constitution's 1st AmendmentWorld Mental Health Coalition President Dr. Bandy Lee: Trump's Mental Instability and Unilateral Presidential Powers Risk Global CatastropheFormer NSA Executive and whistleblower Thomas Drake: Trump NSA Restructuring Plan is a Poor Substitute for Meaningful ReformBob Nixon's Under-reported News Summary• Colombia's rural neglect has produced a continual security crisis• Chicago is paying way above average to fix lead pipes• New York City's Macombs Dam Park is a visual tale of two citiesVisit our website at BTLonline.org for  more information, in-depth interviews, related links,  transcripts and subscribe to our BTL Weekly Summary and/or podcasts. New episodes every Wednesday at 12 noon ET,  website updated Wednesdays after 4 p.m. ETProduced by Squeaky Wheel Productions: Scott Harris, Melinda Tuhus, Bob Nixon, Anna Manzo, Susan Bramhall, Jeff Yates and Mary Hunt. Theme music by Richard Hill and Mikata. 

The 1619 Project - The Supreme Court and Voting - 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 This podcast is hosted by ZenCast.fm

It's time for playoff baseball, and we had Gov. Kelly Armstrong, a notorious baseball addict on par with us hosts of the Plain Talk podcast, on this episode to make some predictions about the path to the World Series. But before we talked about that stuff, we asked Armstrong about a lawsuit announced by former lawmaker Brandon Prichard and Citizens Alliance accusing several legislative candidates who are backed by Armstrong, along with Secretary of State Michael Howe, of some hanky-panky concerning ballot petitions. "I think it's complete garbage," Armstrong, who is not known for mincing words, said of the suit. "I think it is a group of people that can't win elections, so they don't want elections to determine who our elected representatives are." The suit claims that amendments made by the candidates to insert missing information were illegal and disqualify those candidates from the ballot. Conveniently, those candidates are running in districts where populist Republicans are in control of the local district party that would choose their replacements. "Elections determine who serves in North Dakota," Armstrong said, going on to allude to populist Republicans like Prichard wanting to close down primary elections so that only party insiders can choose the candidates on the ballot. "The only benefit to this is Prichard's trying to move out of the smoke-filled back room into the courtroom," Armstrong continued. "If you can't win an election, you don't get to kick it back to a group of nine people to decide who represents you. It's anti-democratic. It's about gaining raw political power with a small group of people." Armstrong also took questions about his support for Measure 1, which would implement a 60% vote threshold for future constitutional amendments. "I firmly believe it should be hard to change the Constitution," he said. "I think the Constitution should not be subject to the political whims of the day." He argued that North Dakota's constitution is too susceptible to special interests who want to mandate spending in the state's most important legal document. "Constitutionally mandated spending is a very big political consultant game all over the country," Armstrong said, "and North Dakota is a cheap date in order to advertise." When co-host Chad Oban brought up the fact that local school bonds already require 60% of the vote to pass, Armstrong said that's an argument for Measure 1, saying that it's currently easier to amend the state constitution than it is to pass a school bond. "It's harder to get school construction money passed than it is to change the North Dakota Constitution," he said. "I think that's misaligned priorities." He added that he would sign legislation to lower the vote threshold for school bonds if lawmakers sent it to him. Also on this episode, we discuss a nondisclosure agreement that was part of a settlement between Fargo-based Prairie St. John's hospital and the State of North Dakota. That agreement prohibited the state from announcing or releasing any information about the settlement. It's an interesting new facet of the debate over NDAs that has sprung up around data centers. If you want to participate in Plain Talk, just give us a call or text at 701-587-3141. It's super easy — leave your message, tell us your name and where you're from, and we might feature it on an upcoming episode. To subscribe to Plain Talk, search for the show wherever you get your podcasts or use one of the links below. Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Pocket Casts | Episode Archive

It's time for playoff baseball, and we had Gov. Kelly Armstrong, a notorious baseball addict on par with us hosts of the Plain Talk podcast, on this episode to make some predictions about the path to the World Series. But before we talked about that stuff, we asked Armstrong about a lawsuit announced by former lawmaker Brandon Prichard and Citizens Alliance accusing several legislative candidates who are backed by Armstrong, along with Secretary of State Michael Howe, of some hanky-panky concerning ballot petitions. "I think it's complete garbage," Armstrong, who is not known for mincing words, said of the suit. "I think it is a group of people that can't win elections, so they don't want elections to determine who our elected representatives are." The suit claims that amendments made by the candidates to insert missing information were illegal and disqualify those candidates from the ballot. Conveniently, those candidates are running in districts where populist Republicans are in control of the local district party that would choose their replacements. "Elections determine who serves in North Dakota," Armstrong said, going on to allude to populist Republicans like Prichard wanting to close down primary elections so that only party insiders can choose the candidates on the ballot. "The only benefit to this is Prichard's trying to move out of the smoke-filled back room into the courtroom," Armstrong continued. "If you can't win an election, you don't get to kick it back to a group of nine people to decide who represents you. It's anti-democratic. It's about gaining raw political power with a small group of people." Armstrong also took questions about his support for Measure 1, which would implement a 60% vote threshold for future constitutional amendments. "I firmly believe it should be hard to change the Constitution," he said. "I think the Constitution should not be subject to the political whims of the day." He argued that North Dakota's constitution is too susceptible to special interests who want to mandate spending in the state's most important legal document. "Constitutionally mandated spending is a very big political consultant game all over the country," Armstrong said, "and North Dakota is a cheap date in order to advertise." When co-host Chad Oban brought up the fact that local school bonds already require 60% of the vote to pass, Armstrong said that's an argument for Measure 1, saying that it's currently easier to amend the state constitution than it is to pass a school bond. "It's harder to get school construction money passed than it is to change the North Dakota Constitution," he said. "I think that's misaligned priorities." He added that he would sign legislation to lower the vote threshold for school bonds if lawmakers sent it to him. Also on this episode, we discuss a nondisclosure agreement that was part of a settlement between Fargo-based Prairie St. John's hospital and the State of North Dakota. That agreement prohibited the state from announcing or releasing any information about the settlement. It's an interesting new facet of the debate over NDAs that has sprung up around data centers. If you want to participate in Plain Talk, just give us a call or text at 701-587-3141. It's super easy — leave your message, tell us your name and where you're from, and we might feature it on an upcoming episode. To subscribe to Plain Talk, search for the show wherever you get your podcasts or use one of the links below. Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Pocket Casts | Episode Archive

This Day in Legal History: The Integration of Ole MissOn September 30, 1962, James Meredith, a Black Air Force veteran, was escorted onto the campus of the University of Mississippi by federal marshals to enroll under a federal court order. The university had rejected him for no reason other than his race. The Fifth Circuit ordered him admitted, and Justice Hugo Black refused to let that order be delayed. Mississippi's governor, Ross Barnett, personally blocked Meredith's registration anyway. The federal appeals court held him in contempt.After nightfall on the 30th, a crowd of students, locals, and segregationists attacked the roughly 120 marshals guarding Meredith. That night President Kennedy went on national television to explain why the federal government would enforce the order, the address today's opening quote comes from. The riot killed two people, including a French journalist, and injured hundreds. It took thousands of federal troops to end it. The next morning, Meredith registered.Listeners may remember we covered Little Rock earlier this month. Ole Miss is the same principle five years later: a federal court order is binding, even on a state determined to resist it, and the federal government will enforce it. The Constitution's guarantees mean what courts say they mean, and a governor doesn't get to veto them. That idea of judicial orders as binding law, not suggestions, has come up again and again on this show this month.The Supreme Court has let the administration resume deporting migrants to so-called third countries: nations that aren't named in their removal orders and that many of them have no connection to. In a brief order, with the three liberal justices objecting, the Court paused a February ruling by a federal district judge. That ruling required immigration authorities to give people more due process before sending them to a third country, and a federal appeals court had largely upheld it earlier this month. The administration says it has used the policy to deport tens of thousands of people to Mexico and to countries in Africa and Latin America, often after their home countries refused to take them back. The legal issue is notice and an opportunity to be heard. The challengers argue that if the government plans to send someone to a country where they may face persecution or torture, due process and the Convention Against Torture require that the person be told where they're going and get a real chance to object first. The government's position is that it has broad authority over removals and that lower courts overstepped. The Court also agreed to hear the case in full in December, and it asked the parties to brief several questions: whether the lower courts had jurisdiction at all, whether they could order nationwide relief, and whether the policy violates due process or the torture convention. Those first two questions matter well beyond immigration, because they go to the reach of federal judges' power over executive policy. For now, the deportations resume while those questions are decided. As with the SAVE voter-verification order last week, the emergency docket has put the risk of error on the people affected while the case is pending.Supreme Court lets Trump resume third-country deportations | Reuters · NPR · CBS NewsFormer special counsel Jack Smith testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee at a hearing its Republican chairman, Chuck Grassley, titled an oversight hearing into Smith's “abuse of authority.” Smith brought the two federal criminal cases against Donald Trump: one over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and one over his handling of classified documents after his first term. Both cases were dismissed after Trump won the 2024 election. Grassley accused Smith of “rampant abuse of authority and political targeting” funded by taxpayers. Smith defended the investigations as based on evidence and Justice Department policy, not politics. He told senators he would not be silenced by “continued threats of prosecution,” and he condemned the firing and vilification of the agents and prosecutors who worked for him. Live coverage also reported him saying his investigation had shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trump engaged in serious crimes. Here's the legal significance. A special counsel operates under Justice Department regulations designed to give some independence in politically sensitive investigations. When a former prosecutor faces open talk of prosecution for his own charging decisions, and his former staff are fired, the concern is less about Smith himself than about future prosecutors. Every prosecutor considering a case against a powerful person will now know that the charging decision itself can bring personal and professional consequences. Congress does have legitimate oversight power over the Justice Department. But oversight turning into retaliation is exactly what Justice Department independence norms are supposed to prevent. The hearing is another sign of how politicized federal prosecution has become.Former Trump prosecutor Jack Smith faces Senate hearing over abuse of authority accusations | Reuters · NBC News · CNNAnd finally, in my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I take on one of the most common arguments against California's proposed wealth tax. Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% levy on the net worth of Californians who were billionaires at the start of this year. Opponents warn that a tax on the ultra-rich will eventually trickle down to ordinary households. My response is that ordinary households already pay a recurring tax on their largest store of wealth. It's called the property tax. Think about how it works: the government values an asset you own, applies a rate to that value, and bills you every year simply for continuing to own it. That's a tax on a stock of wealth, not on income. I ran some back-of-the-envelope numbers using Tax Foundation and Federal Reserve data. The national effective property tax rate on owner-occupied homes was about 0.91% in 2022. The median primary residence was worth about $323,000, and median housing equity was about $200,000. That works out to a property tax bill of roughly $2,900 a year, or close to 1.5% of the typical homeowner's actual equity, every year. And unlike Proposition 40, the property tax doesn't subtract your mortgage. It's charged on the full assessed value, so with a big mortgage, a nominal 1% rate can equal 5% or more of your real equity. The billionaire's wealth tax would be calculated on assets minus debts, which is more lenient on that point. My conclusion is that many homeowners would gladly trade their recurring 1.5% for a one-time 5%. So the real question isn't whether taxing wealth is acceptable in principle. It's why our appetite for it changes so much depending on what kind of wealth it is and who owns it. I'm not saying Proposition 40 is well designed. Valuing private company shares is much harder than valuing a house, and billionaires can move in a way houses can't. If the objection is really to the size and one-time structure, the better debate is whether a recurring, lower-rate tax, say 1% a year above a very high threshold, would be workable. That would look much more like the property tax system homeowners already live with, and over ten years it would raise roughly double the revenue.California Wealth Tax Trickle-Down Concerns Are Unconvincing | Bloomberg Tax 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

In this conversation, Ashley Campbell explores the concept of the 'narrow road' in a spiritual context, emphasizing the importance of self-reflection, judgment, and wisdom. She discusses personal experiences and biblical references, particularly from Matthew 7, to illustrate how individuals can navigate their spiritual journeys. The conversation also touches on the challenges of discernment, the significance of asking for wisdom, and the need to identify false prophets in one's life. In this conversation, Ashley Campbell discusses the importance of setting boundaries in relationships, the necessity of genuine connections, and the process of personal growth through faith. She emphasizes the significance of open communication, the role of God in fulfilling desires, and the need for accountability in developing healthy habits. Throughout the discussion, Ashley encourages listeners to own their stories and navigate life's challenges with faith and resilience.TakeawaysThe narrow road requires personal reflection and growth.Judgment should be approached with self-awareness.Removing personal biases is essential for clarity.Wisdom comes from understanding and experience.Asking for guidance is a vital part of spiritual growth.The path to life is often difficult and requires effort.Identifying false prophets is crucial for spiritual health.Self-reflection can lead to discomfort but is necessary.Curiosity about others can foster better relationships.People's responses reveal their true character. You can set limits with people who are harsh or defensive.Genuine connections require open communication, especially during conflicts.A relationship that can't be challenged is not worth pursuing deeply.Pruning in life means cutting off thoughts that hinder growth.God is near to those who call upon Him in truth.He will fulfill the desires of those who fear Him.Navigating life's challenges requires faith and trust in God.Owning your story is crucial for personal growth and healing.Healthy habits are essential for achieving desired outcomes in life.Everything in life narrows down to the habits we have.Chapters00:00 Introduction and Personal Reflections10:02 Wisdom and Discernment18:40 The Narrow Gate and Its Challenges27:14 Setting Boundaries in Relationships32:59 Pruning for Growth and Abundance39:55 God's Promises and Fulfillment47:04 Owning Your Story and Personal GrowthFacebook Page:https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61590000310120ANDhttps://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 join my Facebook group that will equip you with the knowledge of the History of the United States, what the Constitution means and how you can preserve thisgreat nation we live in?Join my paid group today! For only $10 a month, you will have access to classes that will help you have the knowledge you need to save your liberties given to you by God.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-campbelliHeartRadiohttps://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-daily-encouragement-with-a-112334720/Overcast:https://overcast.fm/itunes1483675322/daily-encouragement-with-ashley-campbellRadio Public:https://radiopublic.com/daily-encouragement-with-ashley-c-WozzzRWant to sponsor the Podcast?https://buy.stripe.com/9AQbJpdYx8JnfOEfZ8

The fracked gas Constitution Pipeline would run from northeast Pennsylvania to Schoharie County, New York. The Women's Water Walk is walking 108 miles along the proposed route to stop its construction for the second time. The walk went along roads, over streams, and through communities. Some of the walkers are doing the whole walk while others pop in just for a day or even one meal or talk. Sina Basila Hickey joined the group as they passed though Pine Lake in Davenport and spoke with various walkers and organizers. Learn more at https://www.womenswaterwalk.org/

University of Pennsylvania Media Policy Professor Victor Pickard: White House Bans Three Media Outlets, Trump's Latest Attack on the Constitution's 1st AmendmentWorld Mental Health Coalition President Dr. Bandy Lee: Trump's Mental Instability and Unilateral Presidential Powers Risk Global CatastropheFormer NSA Executive and whistleblower Thomas Drake: Trump NSA Restructuring Plan is a Poor Substitute for Meaningful ReformBob Nixon's Under-reported News Summary• Colombia's rural neglect has produced a continual security crisis• Chicago is paying way above average to fix lead pipes• New York City's Macombs Dam Park is a visual tale of two citiesVisit our website at BTLonline.org for  more information, in-depth interviews, related links and transcripts and to sign up for our BTL Weekly Summary. New episodes every Wednesday at 12 noon ET,  website updated Wednesdays after 4 p.m. ETProduced by Squeaky Wheel Productions: Scott Harris, Melinda Tuhus, Bob Nixon, Anna Manzo, Susan Bramhall, Jeff Yates and Mary Hunt. Theme music by Richard Hill and Mikata. 

"The Five" on Fox News Channel airs weekdays at 5 p.m. ET. Five of your favorite Fox News personalities discuss current issues in a roundtable discussion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The number one threat to America isn't Donald Trump — it's AI. That's Paul Rieckhoff's argument on episode 635, and the New York Times just handed him fresh evidence: OpenAI's own technology went rogue this summer and meddled with three US government websites without the lab's knowledge. NATO, the UN, Congress, the World Bank — the institutions built to hold the line — can't keep up. Congress isn't even in session. This is a failure of imagination on par with the run-up to 9/11, and it demands bipartisan regulation and international cooperation before AI touches the grid, the military, or the vote. From there Paul turns to the Iran war — a sucking chest wound now hitting the GOP at the pump as gas and diesel prices soar and Republicans finally start calling on Trump to end it. Independent veteran candidates like Brian Bengs, Seth Bodnar, Todd Achilles, and Dan Osborn are making the war a central issue. Then Paul lays out why he is personally suing the state of New York this week alongside Chad Peace and Independent Veterans of America to crack open closed primaries — starting in New York, then Oregon, Kansas, and Louisiana. 3.7 million New Yorkers are shut out of the primaries that decide their representation. Veterans swore an oath to the Constitution, not to a party. This is how we level the playing field. -WATCH full video of this episode here. -Millions of American veterans are being locked out of primary elections in the country they served. See what we're doing to change that. -Visit Kalshi and trade on anything. Use code INDEPENDENT to get $25 when you trade $25. -Head to cozyearth.com and use the code AMERICANS for an exclusive 20% off. -Join Noble Mobile today and get a $100 bonus when you use code PAUL and stay a member for 2 months! -Join IVA and help us get independent veterans elected to office. -Learn more about Paul's work to elect a new generation of independent leaders with Independent Veterans of America. -Learn more about American Veterans for Ukraine here. -Remember Independent is an Attitude. -Learn more about The Headstrong Project for Veterans, Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS), and Department of Veterans Affairs resources in your area. Seeking support is not a sign of weakness. It's a show of strength. If you or a loved one are in immediate crisis, dial 988 and press 1, or text 838255. Connect with Independent Americans: Subscribe on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and all podcast platforms Read more at Substack Support ad-free episodes at Patreon  Connect: Instagram  • X/Twitter • BlueSky • Facebook  Follow on social: @PaulRieckhoff on X, Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky -Join the movement. Hook into our exclusive Patreon community of Independent Americans. Get extra content, connect with guests, meet other Independent Americans, attend events, get merch discounts, and support this show that speaks truth to power.  -And get cool IA and Righteous hats, t-shirts and other merch now in time for the new year.  Independent Americans is powered by veteran-owned and led Righteous Media.  And now part of the BLEAV network!  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Give to help Chris make Truce How do we interpret the Constitution? It seems like an easy question, right? It turns out, it's quite difficult. As we wrap up season 6 of Truce, we're exploring some of the things that conservative evangelicals got out of their partnership with the GOP. One of the things they got was constitutional originalism. Constitutional originalism is a theory of interpretation that holds the Constitution should be understood according to its original public meaning at the time it was adopted. Originalists argue that this approach anchors constitutional law in objective historical meaning, rather than in the personal values or policy preferences of modern judges. By tying interpretation to the text as it was originally understood, originalism aims to preserve democratic legitimacy: changes in constitutional meaning should come from amendments passed by the people, not from judicial reinterpretation. Supporters also claim that originalism promotes stability and predictability in the law by constraining judicial discretion. Critics of originalism counter that the Constitution was written in broad, open-ended language precisely to allow adaptation to changing social and technological conditions. They argue that strict adherence to historical meanings can freeze outdated norms into modern law and fail to address contemporary realities the framers could not have foreseen. In practice, critics also contend that historical evidence is often ambiguous, allowing judges to selectively invoke history to reach preferred outcomes. As a result, the debate over originalism reflects a deeper tension between constitutional stability and constitutional flexibility in a living society. Our special guest is Austin Steelman, historian at Clemson University. Sources: These Truths by Jill LePore Reagan by Bob Spitz Griswold v. Conn. from Oyez.org Article about Robert Bork Robert Kennedy's speech about Bork on C-SPAN (about 27 minutes in) Article about Gorsuch and originalism Article about Kavanaugh AP story about Barrett's philosophy Discussion: What is constitutional originalism? Why might some people like it? Dislike it? Are there questions in US law that are not addressed by the Constitution? What are some examples? How should those be addressed in an originalist worldview? In a worldview that sees it as a living document? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

David Waldman weaves a fine tapestry of stupid news for us today. Donald K. Trump wants more money, more bribes, more gold. "To the victor go the spoils" is the key message of the Constitution, and the Bible, as far as he's concerned. Trump had a pile of Venezuelan gold at his feet before the bodies were cold. Amazingly, few refiners are interested in Blood Gold, even though that's been the Venezuelan currency with the US for the last decade. Six or more prosecutors have quit the Trump Grand Conspiracy case being run by Aileen Cannon. A prosecutor also quit on an investigation into former C.I.A. director John O. Brennan. There are still plenty attempting to weaponize government, however. Cassidy Hutchinson feels the intimidation. A group called ShinyHunters hacked into the FBI, gaining personal info on tens of thousands of employees. The FBI hasn't caught any of them, because they aren't that good. Why worry? Not all of them could be into bestiality… Why would Artificial Intelligence… excuse me, Super Intelligence, even bother with instantly killing us all when it's so fun to just troll everyone?

The guest host for today's show is Brad Bannon. Brad runs Bannon Communications Research, a polling, message development and media firm which helps labor unions, progressive issue groups and Democratic candidates win public affairs and political campaigns. His show, 'Deadline D.C. with Brad Bannon,' airs every Monday from 3-4pm ET.  First, Brad speaks with world renowned Economist Dr. Robert Shapiro about the economic pressures facing American families, including rising gas, food, electricity and health-care costs, and why Rob believes many of those increases are tied to Trump administration policies on tariffs, health care and the war in Iran. They also discuss the Federal Reserve's decision to raise interest rates, what higher borrowing costs mean for mortgages, credit cards and car loans, and why Rob is worried about slower growth as wages fail to keep pace with inflation. The conversation also turns to the political consequences of the economy heading into the midterms and what Democrats should prioritize if they regain control of Congress. Dr. Shapiro argues that Democrats should roll back tariffs, restore Affordable Care Act subsidies and press for an end to the war in Iran as ways to reduce price pressures and show voters they are focused on improving household finances. Then, John Kenneth White joins Brad to discuss his new book, "Democracy on the Edge: The Trump Elections and the Future of American Politics." John argues that America's democratic crisis did not begin with Donald Trump, but has been made more severe by decades of growing presidential power, congressional weakness and structural problems in the Constitution. Brad and John discuss the Electoral College, the Senate, Supreme Court reform, Congress's diminished role in war powers and the broader question of whether the country's political institutions are still working as intended. The conversation also explores the country's changing racial and generational makeup, the political backlash that followed Barack Obama's election, the long-running stalemate between the two parties, and the economic divide between wealthy Americans and everyone else. John argues that younger voters are less attached to either party because they have not seen enough results, and he closes on a more hopeful note about the responsibility of ordinary citizens to protect democratic institutions and take ownership of the country's future. Brad is on the National Journal's panel of political insiders, is an American political analyst for The Times of India TV, and is a national political analyst for WGN TV and Radio in Chicago and KNX Radio in Los Angeles. Brad also writes a political column every Sunday for 'The Hill.' You can read his new Substack called, 'The Bannon Ballot Blast,' at www.bradbannon.substack.com. His handle on BlueSky is @bradbannon.bsky.social.

State attorneys general have been in the news a lot lately. But many people don't fully understand what the job of state attorney general entails, and voters too often skip these races on their ballot because they don't know anything about the office or the candidates. With 30 states and the District of Columbia holding elections for their attorneys general this November, understanding the role of your state attorney general is important to being an informed voter. Former New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin joins Broken Law to talk about what the job of a state AG is and what's at stake in these elections. Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgHost: Valerie Nannery, Senior Director of Policy and ProgramGuest: Matthew Platkin | Partner, Platkin LLP; former New Jersey Attorney GeneralLink: ACS Event: Protecting Voters & Our Votes: State Attorneys General on Democracy's Frontlines Link: State Attorneys General Project Link: Voter Protection Volunteer Opportunities  Visit the Podcast Website: Broken Law PodcastEmail the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.orgFollow 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 MediaCopyright of American Constitution Society 2026.

Hey guys get yourself a tasty bev- it's time for a COFFEE CHAT!   0:00 – 23:29 - Lindsay Clancy Trial & Holdout Juror Backlash 23:30 –  40:07 - Internet Browsing - this is just too good!! 40:08 – 55: 44 - Harry & Meghan's combined 3 brain cells are fighting with each other  Get caught up on my YouTube Priscilla Presley "Child Bride" Series here - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyIMNnG5yA189db0kXDep0aA6ARD5ZCt7   WATCH THIS EPISODE HERE -  https://youtu.be/EoJ2We2eApg   Love the show? Leave a 5 star review on Apple Podcasts/Spotify (or wherever you get your podcasts!) and SHARE this episode!   Want to WATCH my episodes? The clips and pictures add to the fun!- Go to my YouTube Channel and subscribe -https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2FsXn-xhr4mYIAK0569BBw   I have a channel membership over there if you'd like to support me! Simply click on the "join" button underneath my YT videos - thanks.   Can't join but want to support my podcast? Help keep me caffeinated and fill my tip jar here - https://buymeacoffee.com/jenniferc    Other stuff  I've been a licensed esthetician and a makeup artist for over two decades - Want to see a list of all of my favorite beauty product recommendations? Everything I love, use, and wear all the time - CLICK HERE - https://shopmy.us/jenniferc/shelves   BUY MY ONLINE SKINCARE GUIDES HERE-  https://jenniferchristopherson.com In Christ, Xo Jennifer    Disclaimer- This video/podcast episode is under Fair Use: Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use. All rights and credit go directly to its rightful owners. No copyright infringement intended. All Opinions are my own and within my right to express under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution                

In Louisiana v. Callais, a divided Supreme Court narrowed the circumstances in which states may use race as a factor in drawing election districts. The Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Alito, held that compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can justify the use of race in redistricting only when the circumstances give rise to a strong inference that the State intentionally denied minority voters an equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidates because of race. Justice Kagan penned a dissent, which argued that the majority opinion “renders Section 2 all but a dead letter.”Callais has already begun to shape litigation elsewhere. A pending federal complaint against the Denver Public School Board alleges that the board violated Section 2 and the Fifteenth Amendment by deliberately redrawing two of its seven districts to preserve Black and Hispanic electoral majorities, with board members explaining the effort in terms of ensuring that students are “represented by people who look like them.” Supporters of the board’s decision argue that shared racial background should be a meaningful consideration in political representation. Critics counter that this reasoning revives the same race-based logic the Constitution forbids, and that voters and candidates should be evaluated as individuals rather than as members of racial groups.Callais has also shaped important policy decisions. In June, the Office of Legal Counsel relied on Callais to conclude that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Title VII guidelines were unconstitutional because they contemplated liability based on disparate effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, and pressured employers to engage in race-based decision making.Join us for a webinar examining the downstream effects of the Callais decision and what it may mean for redistricting disputes like the Denver case and others like it.Featuring: Michael A. Carvin, Former Partner, Jones DayProf. Jeffrey M. Wice, Adjunct Professor of Law; Director, N.Y. Census and Redistricting Institute, New York Law School(Moderator) Hon. Linda Chavez, Chairman, Center for Equal Opportunity

For nearly fifty years, the Presidential Records Act has governed the preservation, ownership, and eventual disclosure of presidential records. But in April, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the Act is unconstitutional and that “the President need not further comply with its dictates.” OLC argued that the statute exceeds Congress’s powers and intrudes on the Executive's independence.That conclusion has now moved from the realm of executive-branch legal interpretation to active litigation. In May, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates concluded that the Presidential Records Act is likely constitutional and preliminarily ordered numerous Executive Branch offices and officials—though not the President and Vice President themselves—to comply with it. The government has appealed that ruling to the D.C. Circuit.What constitutional authority, if any, does Congress have to regulate the creation, preservation, ownership, and disclosure of presidential records? Join us as our panel examines this question, the ongoing litigation, and the broader implications for congressional power, executive privilege, and the separation of powers. Featuring: Michael Edney, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Christopher Fonzone, Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Reiss Center on Law and Security, NYU School of Law (Moderator) Zack Smith, Senior Legal Fellow, Courts and the Constitution, Legal Policy Center, The Heritage Foundation

Gordon S. Wood, who passed away in June, was one of the nation’s most influential historians of the American Revolution and the early Republic. For more than half a century, his scholarship has shaped how Americans—including legal scholars and the judiciary—understand the Revolution, the Founding, and the Constitution. In landmark works, including the Bancroft Prize-winning The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787 and the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Radicalism of the American Revolution, Wood explored how the colonies became a new nation and established a new constitutional order.On Constitution Day, join us for a conversation reflecting on Wood’s life, scholarship, and legacy. The panel will consider his account of the Revolution and the Constitution, his influence on constitutional scholarship and public understanding of the Founding, and what his work teaches about interpreting the past on its own terms amid continuing debates over America’s origins and ideals.Featuring:Richard Brookhiser, Senior Editor, National ReviewProf. Steven Calabresi, Clayton J. and Henry R. Barber Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law and Co-Chairman, Board of Directors, The Federalist SocietyProf. Jeffrey Rosen, Senior Fellow, FIRE; CEO Emeritus, National Constitution Center(Moderator) Hon. Lisa Branch, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Send us Fan MailFirst Half: Multiple lawsuits filed against states that have banned the sale of Glock pistols to the citizenry, while the majority of those states' police departments use Glocks as their duty pistol.Second Half: The DOJ is bringing suit against Minnesota and their permit-to-purchase scheme that amounts to an approximate 30-day waiting period. Then, 27 states file amicus briefs with the SCOTUS in support of the Constitution and against the "assault weapons" bans in Illinois and Connecticut, hoping to assist in attaining a Constitutional ruling when the Supreme Court takes up that landmark case soon.Freedom GunsFirearms, Ammunition, Accessories, Training classes The Gun Site9-Lane 25 yard indoor Shooting Range, Gun Store, Training classesFuel FixFilter, clean and restore fuel to prevent ignition failure and engine shutdown with Fuel Fix.Sicarios Gun ShopFirearms, Accessories, Ammo, Safes, and more!WJS GunsGun and Outdoor Shop, ammo, accessories, fishing tackle, moreSHOOTINGCLASSES.COMOnline business operations platform for firearms instructors, trainees, and Shooting RangesGlover Orndorf and Flanagan Wealth Mgmt.Wealth management servicesCounter Strike TacticalBest Little Gun Store in Melbourne, Florida! Veteran Owned and Operated 321-499-4949Ear Care of MelbourneNeed hearing aids? Go to the audiologists that gave Royce his hearing back!Control Jiu-Jitsu/MMAJiu-Jitsu/MMA Training in Melbourne, FLDisclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.Support the showThe Watch Floor - YouTubeAskari Media GroupBuy Paul Eberle's book "Look at the Dirt"Paul Eberle (lookatthedirt.com)

The guest host for today's show is Brad Bannon. Brad runs Bannon Communications Research, a polling, message development and media firm which helps labor unions, progressive issue groups and Democratic candidates win public affairs and political campaigns. His show, 'Deadline D.C. with Brad Bannon,' airs every Monday from 3-4pm ET.  First, Brad speaks with world renowned Economist Dr. Robert Shapiro about the economic pressures facing American families, including rising gas, food, electricity and health-care costs, and why Rob believes many of those increases are tied to Trump administration policies on tariffs, health care and the war in Iran. They also discuss the Federal Reserve's decision to raise interest rates, what higher borrowing costs mean for mortgages, credit cards and car loans, and why Rob is worried about slower growth as wages fail to keep pace with inflation. The conversation also turns to the political consequences of the economy heading into the midterms and what Democrats should prioritize if they regain control of Congress. Dr. Shapiro argues that Democrats should roll back tariffs, restore Affordable Care Act subsidies and press for an end to the war in Iran as ways to reduce price pressures and show voters they are focused on improving household finances. Then, John Kenneth White joins Brad to discuss his new book, "Democracy on the Edge: The Trump Elections and the Future of American Politics." John argues that America's democratic crisis did not begin with Donald Trump, but has been made more severe by decades of growing presidential power, congressional weakness and structural problems in the Constitution. Brad and John discuss the Electoral College, the Senate, Supreme Court reform, Congress's diminished role in war powers and the broader question of whether the country's political institutions are still working as intended. The conversation also explores the country's changing racial and generational makeup, the political backlash that followed Barack Obama's election, the long-running stalemate between the two parties, and the economic divide between wealthy Americans and everyone else. John argues that younger voters are less attached to either party because they have not seen enough results, and he closes on a more hopeful note about the responsibility of ordinary citizens to protect democratic institutions and take ownership of the country's future. Brad is on the National Journal's panel of political insiders, is an American political analyst for The Times of India TV, and is a national political analyst for WGN TV and Radio in Chicago and KNX Radio in Los Angeles. Brad also writes a political column every Sunday for 'The Hill.' You can read his new Substack called, 'The Bannon Ballot Blast,' at www.bradbannon.substack.com. His handle on BlueSky is @bradbannon.bsky.social.

Reject socialist doom and embrace conservative hope. Annie Frey exposes the left's fear-mongering. In this hour, we break down the stark contrast between the left's manufactured "doomerism" and true conservative optimism. Why do socialists want you to believe the world is ending? Because fear creates reliance on government. Annie dismantles this bleak worldview, explaining how returning to our constitutional roots is the ultimate cure for the radical left's pessimism. We also call out the higher ed bubble funding activists over workers, and react to our audience poll asking if Donald Trump is winning or losing. Later, Ethan drops local sports updates, including the Illinois football loss and massive news for St. Louis: a bold bid to host the 2031 Men's Rugby World Cup at The Dome. To wrap up the hour, Tricia joins the guys for "X's and Y's" to hilariously debate when it's appropriate to ask for a manager and decode the real meaning behind the five love languages. Segment Highlights: • Why socialists and communists thrive on spreading doom and gloom. • How conservative optimism and the Constitution fight back against the mob. • Analyzing the latest poll: Is Donald Trump winning enough? • St. Louis makes a major play for the 2031 Men's Rugby World Cup. • X's and Y's: Decoding love languages and the politics of complaining. Don't miss a minute of the truth! Subscribe, follow, and leave a 5-star review. Stream the full episode now! Annie's Website: Anniefreyshow.com Station Website: audacy.com/971Talk Follow Annie on X: @anniefreyshow Follow the Station on X: @971FMTalk Annie's Facebook: Facebook.com/Anniefreyshow Station Facebook: Facebook.com/971FMTalk #AnnieFreyShow #Conservatism #StLouis #RugbyWorldCup #Trump2024

Judge Timothy Kelly - a Trump appointee - has ruled that Trump violated the Constitutional rights of reporters from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, when he revoked their press credentials in violation of their due process rights. But, as Glenn explains, that is just the start of the saga.Find Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Trump's corrupt schemes have grown vast and brazen. How can Congress rein in a president who ignore the Constitution he took an oath to protect?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In partnership with Australian Dialogues, join host John Anderson for a compelling constitutional debate filmed at NSW Parliament House. Moderated by Professor Rosalind Dixon, the panel included former Australian High Court Justice Michael Kirby, US Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham, and legal scholar Professor Nicholas Aroney. Together, they tackle one of the most consequential questions in modern jurisprudence: should a constitution be interpreted through the lens of its original public meaning, or as a dynamic, "living" document that evolves with changing times?The panel examines the deep tensions between originalism and living constitutionalism, contrasting the necessity of objective judicial constraint against the realities of governing modern societies. Comparing the Australian and American legal systems, the speakers debate the role of democratic amendments, rights protection, and the decline of public trust in foundational institutions—offering a sharp, nuanced exploration of who ultimately holds the authority to shape the fundamental laws of a free nation.The Hon. Michael Kirby AC CMGThe Hon. Michael Kirby AC CMG served as a Justice of the High Court of Australia from 1996 to 2009, following appointments as President of the New South Wales Court of Appeal and President of the Australian Law Reform Commission. Renowned as one of Australia's most influential legal thinkers, he has held prominent international roles with the United Nations and the International Commission of Jurists.Judge Andrew OldhamJudge Andrew Oldham serves as a United States Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, appointed by President Donald Trump in 2018. Prior to his judicial appointment, he served as General Counsel to Texas Governor Greg Abbott, Deputy Solicitor General of Texas, and an attorney-adviser in the U.S. Department of Justice. Judge Oldham is widely regarded as a leading voice in contemporary American jurisprudence and a steadfast advocate for public-meaning originalism and judicial constraint.Professor Nicholas AroneyNicholas Aroney is a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Queensland and a leading scholar in constitutional theory, comparative federalism, and legal history. He has held visiting positions at top global institutions, including Oxford, Cambridge, and Paris, and has authored over 100 books, chapters, and journal articles. Professor Rosalind DixonRosalind Dixon is a Professor of Law at UNSW Sydney and Director of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law. A former associate to Chief Justice Murray Gleeson and a graduate of Harvard Law School, she is an internationally celebrated expert in comparative constitutional law, constitutional design, and democratic resilience.

September 26, 2026Last night, the White House would not allow reporters from CNN on Air Force One as part of the press pool, With bad news plaguing the administration, Trump has reasons for wanting to control the press, A key prosecutor in the case of the Broadview Six resigned, in a scathing letter, The cases against the Broadview Six fell apart because of prosecutorial misconduct, The term of Andrew Boutros, the US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois has been problematic, Whistleblowers who worked at the Kennedy Center claim that $1.4 million that had been allocated to make repairs to the building's roof was redirected to painting the building's columns, While 69% of Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of the war in Iran, Trump has told aides that he is planning to resume bombing Iran after the midterms, Trump told heads of state at the UN that his administration is seeking a “fundamental change” in the government of Cuba, Marco Rubio told reporters that Trump has invited Vladimir Putin to the meeting of the G20 in December, but 14 senators have urged Trump to rescind the invitation, The US and Russia worked together to weaken a UN plan to regulate AI weapons, The administration is refusing to spend $810 million approved by Congress for research, but the Constitution places the power of the purse in Congress and such “pocket rescissions” are illegal, Director of OMB, Russell Vought, claims otherwise, And while opposition to his moves continues to grow, Trump is considering hosting a Major League Baseball game at a national park.To read this letter, click here:Listen on Apple PodcastsListen on SpotifyTo read this letter, click here:Listen on Apple PodcastsListen on SpotifyYou can also find Heather:YouTubeBlueskyInstagramFacebookThreadsTikTok Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe