Podcasts about Constitution

From April 12, 2019: Julian Mortenson, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, is the author of a remarkable new article entitled "Article II Vests Executive Power, Not the Royal Prerogative," forthcoming in the Columbia Law Review and available on SSRN.Recently, Benjamin Wittes spoke with the professor about the article, which Mortenson has been working on for years—as long as the two have known each other. The article explores the history of exactly three words of the U.S. Constitution—the first three words of Article II, to be precise: "the executive power."Huge claims about presidential power have rested on a conventional understanding of these three words. Julian argues that this conventional understanding is not just partially wrong, or mostly wrong, but completely wrong, as a matter of history. And, he tries to supplant it with a new understanding that he argues is actually a very old understanding of what those words mean.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ali Velshi is joined by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Founding Partner & Washington Correspondent at Puck News Julia Ioffe, Contributing Columnist for Zeteo John Harwood, Host of SiriusXM's ‘The Dean Obeidallah Show' Dean Obeidallah

Ali Velshi is joined by Professor of Economics at Harvard University Kenneth Rogoff, Professor in the Practice of Environmental Law at Rice University Jim Blackburn, MSNBC Senior Reporter Brandy Zadrozny

Ali Velshi is joined by Independent Journalist Jim Acosta, Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief of The Contrarian Jennifer Rubin, Founding Partner & Washington Correspondent at Puck News Julia Ioffe, Chief Washington Correspondent at KFF Health News Julie Rovner, Max and Bernice Garchik Family Presidential Professor at The University of Pennsylvania Exequiel Hernandez

Unity Without Compromise with Dr. Steven LaTulippe – Radical Islam infiltrates U.S. government, threatening the foundations of our free republic. As a Christian nation, we must defend the Constitution and uphold our values against those seeking to undermine them from within. Only by demanding loyalty to America's founding principles and rejecting dangerous influences can we secure our future and preserve liberty for generations...

Happy Birthday America - Day 13 of Facts About the Founding of Our Country! Conversations centered around the American Experiment and our Constitution and Bill of Rights! Our goal is to provide different perspectives - give historical context - model how to talk with those whom we may disagree with - tie foundational principals to today's headlines - PLUS, have some fun along the way. Please leave us a review and share with your friends! (A PODCAST PROVIDED AND OWNED BY DURING THE BREAK PODCASTS) Brought to you by Eric Buchanan and Associates: www.buchanandisability.com This podcast is hosted by ZenCast.fm

Prayer for America Message Summary: As Americans, we are a privileged people, all of us, to live in a country, relative to the rest of the world, that is privileged. The key element of this :privilege” is freedom. However, something has been changing -- we are seeing many of the freedoms and blessings of America changing into curses. For example, our obsession with materialism has put most Americans into the bondage of debt; and our drive to feel happy has led many into the addiction of drugs and alcohol. We must all realize that our freedoms and liberties must be used for Godly purposes, or we will lose our freedoms. As we are told in Psalms 33:12: “Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage!". Today, through our actions, laws, and the cultural revisions of our founding Christian principles, we have told God that we don't want Him around. While God is love, He is, also, justice. Therefore, God has obliged us; and He has done what He said He would do -- God is withdrawing His presence and His protection and holding back His divine wisdom, which has guided us for so many years. God is leaving us to reap the consequences of our focus away from Him and to lives without Him. The signers of the Declaration of Independence began a revolution which started the United States of America. The American Revolution was rooted in the belief that all people, even the King and governmental leaders, are subject to the rule of God and not above the law; and everyone is endowed by God, our Creator, with certain inalienable rights. Many people have tried to deny that America's founders created a country which wove together the idea of self-governance with Christian principles. With God's Ten Commandments as the cornerstone of our Democracy, most Americans and those others living in our country cannot name even three of the Ten Commandments. If a Christian religious context was assumed, by the founders of America and the government based on the Constitution, it seems we have a significant problem in our culture today. Now, it appears, America's focus is to get rid of all things relating America to Christianity, the Bible, or anything that smacks of God – and, pretty much, these efforts to remove God's influence from the public square appear to be succeeding. Today, we must all Pray for America – to carve out a time each day when we, each and every one of us, prays for America. In our prayers, we must confess our sins as individuals and collectively as a country. Additionally, we must pray for our President, Members of Congress, the Supreme Court, and our other leaders and those others in authority. Our Prayers for America should pray for the moral issues of today; blessings and protection for our leaders that are walking the walk of their Christian faith; and for a Spiritual Revival and Awakening in America. We will not survive as a nation unless the people of God stand up before God and plead for the survival of America. Spiritual laws are like the laws of physics – they are absolute unless another force intervenes. Therefore, as America increases its violation of God's laws at an increasing rate, we will face both the implicit and explicit consequences of violating God's laws unless He intervenes – we must pray for God's intervention! Paul instructs us for our prayers in 1 Timothy 2:1-6: “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.". We must make Praying for America and, personally, for its leaders a priority in our lives. If we are praying, then God will show us what to do. Only the intervention of God will change the downward direction of America, and we must ask through our prayers. God has intervened before, and He will do it again. America was built on prayer, as we learn from the writings of Benjamin Franklin, and upon the Christian faith of our founders. Will You pray for America and take responsibility for the survival America and its blessings and freedoms for our country today and for our children and grandchildren in the future?   TODAY'S PRAYER: Keeping the Sabbath, Lord, will require a lot of changes in the way I am living life. Teach me, Lord, how to take the next step with this in a way that fits my unique personality and situation. Help me to trust you with all that will remain unfinished and to enjoy my humble place in your very large world. In Jesus' name, amen. Scazzero, Peter. Emotionally Healthy Spirituality Day by Day (p. 129). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. TODAY'S AFFIRMATION: I affirm that because of what God has done for me in His Son, Jesus, I AM FORGIVEN. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9 SCRIPTURE REFERENCE (ESV):Psalms 33:12; 1 Timothy 2:1-6; James 1:4; Proverbs 3:5-6; (Click the Bible References, in blue, below to read the full Bible text for these Scripture References. A WORD FROM THE LORD WEBSITE: www.AWFTL.org. WEBSITE LINK TO DR. BEACH'S DAILY DEVOTIONAL – “As a Jesus Follower, the Greatest Witness for the Gospel that You Can Give Is for Others to See Jesus IN You”: https://awordfromthelord.org/devotional/ DONATE TO AWFTL: https://mygiving.secure.force.com/GXDonateNow?id=a0Ui000000DglsqEAB

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

Ali Velshi is joined by Professor of Economics & Public Policy at University of Michigan Justin Wolfers, Russian Opposition Politician Vladimir Kara-Murza, and Staff Writer at The Atlantic Tom Nichols

Ali Velshi is joined by Distinguished Professor of Democracy at University of Toronto Lucan Ahmad Way, fmr. U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, MSNBC's Ken Dilanian, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), author of “This Is My America” Kim Johnson

Ali Velshi is joined by Professor of Philosophy at University of Toronto Jason Stanley, Investigative Journalist Radley Balko, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), and Professor of Law at University of Michigan Law School Leah Litman

Happy Birthday America - Day 12 of Facts About the Founding of Our Country! Conversations centered around the American Experiment and our Constitution and Bill of Rights! Our goal is to provide different perspectives - give historical context - model how to talk with those whom we may disagree with - tie foundational principals to today's headlines - PLUS, have some fun along the way. Please leave us a review and share with your friends! (A PODCAST PROVIDED AND OWNED BY DURING THE BREAK PODCASTS) Brought to you by Eric Buchanan and Associates: www.buchanandisability.com This podcast is hosted by ZenCast.fm

The United States Constitution is efficient in its division of power between the three branches of government.  Articles I, II and III create the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches, respectively.  Within Article II, Section II gives the President certain powers to function as our chief diplomat with other countries.  Just what are these powers?  What is the check on this power from the other branches?  What is a treaty, and what is the difference between treaties and executive orders?  To guide our discussion on Article II, Section II, Clause II we are delighted to welcome Dr. Heather Yates as our guest this week.  Dr. Yates is a professor of American politics.

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

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

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

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

SUPREME COURT: Justice Fears for Our Democracy.

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

The Trump chaos has brought a key constitutional principle to the fore: What happens when bureaucrats believe the president is not living up to his pledge to the Constitution? Sunil Dasgupta talks with Hamilton College, NY, Associate Professor of Sociology Jamie Lee Kucinskas about her new book, The Loyalty Trap: Conflicting Loyalties of Civil Servants Under Increasing Autocracy, where she reports prescient findings from 127 interviews she conducted with civil servants during the first Trump administration. https://a.co/d/75tNqQ2 Music by Anna Rubin.

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

I'm stepping into the courthouse this week, the energy unmistakable as the legal saga surrounding Donald Trump intensifies. The name Trump is echoing through courtrooms from New Hampshire to California, and every day brings another headline, another twist. Just yesterday, a federal court in New Hampshire made waves by blocking President Trump's executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship, a direct challenge to the long-standing interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. This case, known as Barbara v. Donald J. Trump, has now certified a nationwide class protecting all children born on U.S. soil, no matter their parents' status. I watched attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union and their allies argue that the order was a blatant attack on constitutional guarantees. The court agreed, granting a preliminary injunction stopping the order from taking effect, at least for now, and giving the Justice Department a brief window to seek an emergency stay from the First Circuit. But the sense in the room was clear: this was a pivotal win for civil rights advocates, at least for the time being.At the same time, the Supreme Court has been actively shaping the landscape. A critical ruling just days ago in Trump v. CASA, Inc. signaled tighter constraints on federal courts, limiting their power to issue nationwide injunctions against executive orders like Trump's. It's a ruling many legal experts are calling a significant hurdle for those seeking to block government actions on a broad scale. Although the Court's decision won't stop class-action lawsuits like the one in New Hampshire, it creates extra layers of complexity for those challenging executive power. The Supreme Court's conservative majority has taken these steps, despite widespread criticism that these executive orders—including the one on birthright citizenship—are unconstitutional and threaten bedrock American principles.On the West Coast, the legal wrangling continues. The Supreme Court just granted a stay on a lower court's injunction that had blocked Trump's Executive Order 14210, which is related to sweeping government reorganizations—think proposed reductions of entire federal workforces. The high court's intervention means that, at least for now, the administration has a green light to press forward with those plans while appeals continue. To put it plainly: Trump's efforts to reshape federal policies and institutions are running straight into the courts, and the outcomes will ripple through government and American society for years.The legal fights surrounding Donald Trump in these past days have shown just how much remains unresolved about presidential power, civil rights, and the meaning of the Constitution. Every morning lately, as I walk into these historic courtrooms and watch the legal teams square off, it's clear to me we are witnessing chapters in a profoundly consequential national debate.Thank you all for tuning in—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Dans cette édition :Le chef d'état-major des armées, le général Thierry Burkhard, a tenu une conférence de presse pour détailler les menaces qui pèsent sur la France, notamment la Russie considérée comme le principal adversaire et l'instrumentalisation des flux migratoires pour déstabiliser le pays.La France et le Royaume-Uni ont annoncé un accord pour expérimenter un échange de migrants, où chaque migrant traversant illégalement la Manche sera renvoyé en France en échange d'un migrant retenu en France pouvant entrer légalement au Royaume-Uni.La ministre de la Culture, Rachida Dati, a invoqué l'article 44.3 de la Constitution pour raccourcir les débats sur la réforme de l'audiovisuel public au Sénat, provoquant la colère de la gauche.Le taux du livret A, le placement préféré des Français, devrait baisser une nouvelle fois pour passer sous la barre des 2% dès le 1er août, en raison du ralentissement de l'inflation.Le Français Laurent Mekies a été nommé à la tête de l'écurie Red Bull en Formule 1, succédant au Britannique Christian Horner.Notre équipe a utilisé un outil d'Intelligence artificielle via les technologies d'Audiomeans© pour accompagner la création de ce contenu écrit.Distribué par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

What is the purpose of journalism? What is the purpose of the government? What makes up society? How did we get here? All the questions David Byrne asked in Once in a Lifetime? This is the audio edition of Charlottesville Community Engagement, a podcast that features audio versions of stories that have gone out in the written version. To add to the confusion, there's also Information Charlottesville which is intended to capture all of these stories in one place for future people to look back toward.Now, what's up this time?* Speakers seek answers on next steps for zoning in Charlottesville (learn more)* City Manager Sanders provides status report on various initiatives (learn more)* Charlottesville City Council gets update on ANCHOR program (learn more)* Applications being taken for Charlottesville Boards and Commissions (learn more)* Speakers tell Charlottesville City Council of what they say are threats to U.S. Constitution (must produce)* Albemarle Planning Commission recommends approval of more residential units at Brookhill (need to produce)Today's experimental sponsor is Westwind Flowers. You can hear a more detailed description in the audio above, just after the show's billboard. Why experimental? If you're interested, respond to this email and I can share some information. An explanation of #895-AThis is coming out much earlier than usual, just as the Week Ahead for the period beginning July 14 will also be out earlier. I'm taking a road trip which means making adjustments. However, as a one-person operation, that doesn't mean the work will stop. Hundreds of you are paying me to do this work, and so I do! I'm absolutely grateful. Sunday is also the fifth anniversary of the newsletter. I've not done anything too terribly special for it except decide to go on a road trip which will keep me away from the screen for most of the day. Instead I'll see a good chunk of the country as I help out a friend. In any case, do take a listen if you've not heard one of these before. I got my professional start in public radio and realized fairly on that no public radio station in their right mind would hire me because in the early 2000's I was quite critical of the shrinking amount of time available for local stories. So, stubborn old me created the Charlottesville Podcasting Network in 2005, a website I still maintain but won't send you a link because I've not figured out how to fix something. And then I created a podcast called the Charlottesville Quarantine Report in March 2020 out of a desperate need to return to journalism. The podcast gets about a tenth of the audience, but I believe it's the best version of the work I do. I love being able to mix in people's voices, and there's so much more to be done. However, I'm a one-person operation with many ideas to unfurl. Thanks to paid subscribers for helping to keep this thing sailing along and let's hope I find the map. Charlottesville Community Engagement is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit communityengagement.substack.com/subscribe

Childcare providers and parents will be gathering at the state Capitol this morning to rally and outline the next steps needed to address the crisis of affordable childcare. They say what was passed in last week's state budget is entirely inadequate to prevent continued closures, which will give parents fewer options and make the state's labor shortage worse. Also: Our Week In Review panel wants headlines to stop playing dumb by using question headlines? Less “Is Trump Violating the Constitution?” and more “Trump Is Violating the Constitution.” Mornings with Pat Kreitlow is powered by UpNorthNews, and it airs on several stations across the Civic Media radio network, Monday through Friday from 6-9 am. Subscribe to the podcast to be sure not to miss out on a single episode! To learn more about the show and all of the programming across the Civic Media network, head over to civicmedia.us/shows to see the entire broadcast line up. Follow the show on Facebook, X, and YouTube. Guests: Jim Santelle, Mark Jacob, Jennifer Schulze

How is this still a thing? The court case drags on over President Trump's attempt to declare that American children born in this country are not citizens if their parents aren't citizens. The Constitution begs to differ, so a federal judge has made a move to circumvent the sympathy coming from Trump's accomplices on the US Supreme Court. Mornings with Pat Kreitlow is powered by UpNorthNews, and it airs on several stations across the Civic Media radio network, Monday through Friday from 6-9 am. Subscribe to the podcast to be sure not to miss out on a single episode! To learn more about the show and all of the programming across the Civic Media network, head over to civicmedia.us/shows to see the entire broadcast line up. Follow the show on Facebook, X, and YouTube. Guest: Keya Vakil

Dans cette édition :Le chef d'état-major des armées, le général Thierry Burkhard, a tenu une conférence de presse pour détailler les menaces qui pèsent sur la France, notamment la Russie considérée comme le principal adversaire et l'instrumentalisation des flux migratoires pour déstabiliser le pays.La France et le Royaume-Uni ont annoncé un accord pour expérimenter un échange de migrants, où chaque migrant traversant illégalement la Manche sera renvoyé en France en échange d'un migrant retenu en France pouvant entrer légalement au Royaume-Uni.La ministre de la Culture, Rachida Dati, a invoqué l'article 44.3 de la Constitution pour raccourcir les débats sur la réforme de l'audiovisuel public au Sénat, provoquant la colère de la gauche.Le taux du livret A, le placement préféré des Français, devrait baisser une nouvelle fois pour passer sous la barre des 2% dès le 1er août, en raison du ralentissement de l'inflation.Le Français Laurent Mekies a été nommé à la tête de l'écurie Red Bull en Formule 1, succédant au Britannique Christian Horner.Notre équipe a utilisé un outil d'Intelligence artificielle via les technologies d'Audiomeans© pour accompagner la création de ce contenu écrit.Distribué par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

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

BREAKING: Trump Blocked in Federal Court.

Buckle up, patriots—@intheMatrixxx and @shadygrooove are tearing into *Season 7, Episode 129, “CIA Report Confirms Trump was Framed; I Stand with Ice,”* airing July 10, 2025, at 12:05 PM Eastern! The dynamic duo dives headfirst into a blockbuster CIA report exposing how top intelligence officials, including Brennan, Clapper, and Comey, manipulated evidence to push the discredited Russia collusion narrative against Trump, sidelining career analysts and peddling the debunked Steele dossier. Jeff and Shannon break down the report's damning details, questioning the establishment's lies with razor-sharp analysis. They also stand firm with ICE, spotlighting their critical role in protecting America amidst mainstream media distortions. With live intel drops and unfiltered truth, the MG Show delivers the facts you won't hear from the propaganda machine. The truth is learned, never told, and the Constitution is your weapon—tune in at noon-0-five Eastern LIVE to stand with Trump! Trump, CIA report, Russia hoax, ICE, America First, @intheMatrixxx, @shadygrooove, MG Show, Brennan, Steele dossier, intelligence corruption, patriot mgshow_s7e129_cia_trump_framed_ice Tune in weekdays at 12pm ET / 9am PST, hosted by @InTheMatrixxx and @Shadygrooove. Catch up on-demand on https://rumble.com/mgshow or via your favorite podcast platform. Where to Watch & Listen Live on https://rumble.com/mgshow https://mgshow.link/redstate X: https://x.com/inthematrixxx Backup: https://kick.com/mgshow PODCASTS: Available on PodBean, Apple, Pandora, and Amazon Music. Search for "MG Show" to listen. Engage with Us Join the conversation on https://t.me/mgshowchannel and participate in live voice chats at https://t.me/MGShow. Social & Support Follow us on X: @intheMatrixxx https://x.com/inthematrixxx @ShadyGrooove https://x.com/shadygrooove Support the show: Fundraiser: https://givesendgo.com/helpmgshow Donate: https://mg.show/support Merch: https://merch.mg.show MyPillow Special: Use code MGSHOW at https://mypillow.com/mgshow for savings! Wanna send crypto? Bitcoin: bc1qtl2mftxzv8cxnzenmpav6t72a95yudtkq9dsuf Ethereum: 0xA11f0d2A68193cC57FAF9787F6Db1d3c98cf0b4D ADA: addr1q9z3urhje7jp2g85m3d4avfegrxapdhp726qpcf7czekeuayrlwx4lrzcfxzvupnlqqjjfl0rw08z0fmgzdk7z4zzgnqujqzsf XLM: GAWJ55N3QFYPFA2IC6HBEQ3OTGJGDG6OMY6RHP4ZIDFJLQPEUS5RAMO7 LTC: ltc1qapwe55ljayyav8hgg2f9dx2y0dxy73u0tya0pu All Links Find everything on https://linktr.ee/mgshow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – Modern presidential debates have become more about spectacle than substance. I question policies by asking whether they're constitutionally sound, rather than following party lines or personalities. By debating the actual powers granted to the government, I seek truth and clarity in evaluating issues like border security and federal laws, always prioritizing the Constitution as my guiding...

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

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

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

Buckle up, patriots—@intheMatrixxx and @shadygrooove are tearing through the swamp in Season 7, Episode 121, FBI Criminal Investigations of Brennan & Comey: Those Pesky Proofs, airing live July 9, 2025, at 12:05 PM Eastern! The dynamic truth-seeking duo dives into the bombshell FBI probes targeting former CIA Director John Brennan and ex-FBI chief James Comey, accused of a “conspiracy” in the discredited Trump-Russia hoax, including alleged false statements to Congress. With CIA Director John Ratcliffe's declassified “lessons learned” review exposing the rushed, anomaly-ridden 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment and Brennan's push for the debunked Steele dossier, Jeff and Shannon unpack the hard proofs shattering mainstream lies. Expect real-time analysis of DOJ sources, X posts buzzing with patriot sentiment, and Karoline Leavitt's fiery White House response. The truth is learned, never told—wield the Constitution as your weapon and tune in at noon-0-five Eastern LIVE to stand with Trump! Trump, Brennan, Comey, FBI investigation, Russia hoax, Steele dossier, America First, @intheMatrixxx, @shadygrooove, MG Show, Ratcliffe, Leavitt mgshow_s7e128_fbi_investigations_brennan_comey Tune in weekdays at 12pm ET / 9am PST, hosted by @InTheMatrixxx and @Shadygrooove. Catch up on-demand on https://rumble.com/mgshow or via your favorite podcast platform. Where to Watch & Listen Live on https://rumble.com/mgshow https://mgshow.link/redstate X: https://x.com/inthematrixxx Backup: https://kick.com/mgshow PODCASTS: Available on PodBean, Apple, Pandora, and Amazon Music. Search for "MG Show" to listen. Engage with Us Join the conversation on https://t.me/mgshowchannel and participate in live voice chats at https://t.me/MGShow. Social & Support Follow us on X: @intheMatrixxx https://x.com/inthematrixxx @ShadyGrooove https://x.com/shadygrooove Support the show: Fundraiser: https://givesendgo.com/helpmgshow Donate: https://mg.show/support Merch: https://merch.mg.show MyPillow Special: Use code MGSHOW at https://mypillow.com/mgshow for savings! Wanna send crypto? Bitcoin: bc1qtl2mftxzv8cxnzenmpav6t72a95yudtkq9dsuf Ethereum: 0xA11f0d2A68193cC57FAF9787F6Db1d3c98cf0b4D ADA: addr1q9z3urhje7jp2g85m3d4avfegrxapdhp726qpcf7czekeuayrlwx4lrzcfxzvupnlqqjjfl0rw08z0fmgzdk7z4zzgnqujqzsf XLM: GAWJ55N3QFYPFA2IC6HBEQ3OTGJGDG6OMY6RHP4ZIDFJLQPEUS5RAMO7 LTC: ltc1qapwe55ljayyav8hgg2f9dx2y0dxy73u0tya0pu All Links Find everything on https://linktr.ee/mgshow

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

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

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

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

BREAKING: Federal Judge Blocks Trump Bill.

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