Body of law
POPULARITY
Categories
95 episodes with Constitutional law
83 episodes with Constitutional law
156 episodes with Constitutional law
47 episodes with Constitutional law
38 episodes with Constitutional law
17 episodes with Constitutional law
33 episodes with Constitutional law
26 episodes with Constitutional law
31 episodes with Constitutional law
30 episodes with Constitutional law
36 episodes with Constitutional law
8 episodes with Constitutional law
8 episodes with Constitutional law
8 episodes with Constitutional law
7 episodes with Constitutional law
11 episodes with Constitutional law
7 episodes with Constitutional law
5 episodes with Constitutional law
6 episodes with Constitutional law
11 episodes with Constitutional law
5 episodes with Constitutional law
6 episodes with Constitutional law
3 episodes with Constitutional law
5 episodes with Constitutional law
7 episodes with Constitutional law
11 episodes with Constitutional law
11 episodes with Constitutional law
6 episodes with Constitutional law
10 episodes with Constitutional law
3 episodes with Constitutional law
5 episodes with Constitutional law
8 episodes with Constitutional law
5 episodes with Constitutional law
6 episodes with Constitutional law
5 episodes with Constitutional law
6 episodes with Constitutional law
3 episodes with Constitutional law
6 episodes with Constitutional law
15 episodes with Constitutional law
6 episodes with Constitutional law
2 episodes with Constitutional law
5 episodes with Constitutional law
6 episodes with Constitutional law
6 episodes with Constitutional law
5 episodes with Constitutional law
5 episodes with Constitutional law
3 episodes with Constitutional law
3 episodes with Constitutional law
7 episodes with Constitutional law
3 episodes with Constitutional law
4 episodes with Constitutional law
4 episodes with Constitutional law
12 episodes with Constitutional law
5 episodes with Constitutional law
Musqueam Agreement Sparks Property Rights Debate in Metro Vancouver Dr. Dwight Newman, Professor of Law and Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Rights, Communities, and Constitutional Law at the University of Saskatchewan Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
When President Trump declared a national emergency and imposed sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), businesses challenged the move, arguing the president did not have authority under that statute to impose tariffs. The Supreme Court recently agreed. On this episode of Stanford Legal, co-host Professor Pamela Karlan sits down with international trade expert Alan Sykes, professor of law and Warren Christopher Professor in the Practice of International Law and Diplomacy, to unpack the Court's 6–3 decision. Sykes is a leading expert on the application of economics to legal problems and the author of the book The Law and Economics of International Trade Agreements. At the heart of the case, Sykes explains, was the question of whether a statute that allows the president to “regulate importation” can be stretched to authorize taxes on imports. The majority said no, emphasizing that the Constitution assigns the taxing power to Congress, and that if Congress intended to hand that power over, it would have said so clearly. The conversation explores the statutory arguments, the role of the Major Questions Doctrine, and the unusual alignments among the justices. But the ruling raises as many questions as it answers, Sykes notes. What happens to billions in tariffs already collected? Do international trade deals struck in the shadow of these tariffs still stand? And with other statutory tools available is this really the end of the tariff saga, or just the next chapter? Links: Alan O. Sykes >>> Stanford Law page The Law and Economics of International Trade Agreements >>> Stanford Law page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00) Tariffs and IEEPA (00:10:53) Statutory text and the history of tariffs (00:13:54) “Regulate importation” and the Major Questions Doctrine (00:17:56) Liquidation Timing, finality, and the 314‑day rule (00:19:11) The Court of International Trade (00:29:53) From IEEPA to Section 122 and what's next under Section 301 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
In this podcast, Jeff discusses the attack on the Iranian terror regime by the U.S. and Israel — and the impact on the Middle East and the world. Will loud MAGA voices continue to do all they can to stop the fall of the mullahs of Iran? Or will they put aside their anti-semitism for the sake of America and the free world?
Mea Culpa welcomes back our good friend Harry Litman. Harry was a former US Attorney and Deputy Assistant Attorney General and is currently the legal affairs columnist for the Los Angeles Times Opinion Page and professor of Constitutional Law at UCLA and UCSD. He can be seen as a legal and political commentator on CBS, NPR MSNBC, and CNN. Litman is also the creator and host of the Talking Feds Podcast, a must-listen for its sharp analysis of the corruption, crimes, and moral failures of the Trump era and beyond. Michael and Harry dig deep into the legalities of January 6th.
Are Politicians Fighting The Wrong Battles While Americans Fight Their Bills? In this episode of Go Right with Peter Boykin, The Constitutionalist for Liberty, we break down the growing disconnect between political headlines and real-life kitchen-table struggles. While politicians argue over symbolic issues, Americans are dealing with rising power bills, grocery costs, housing prices, insurance premiums, and everyday financial pressure that continues to reshape trust in government.This monologue explores how federal policies, state regulations, and local decisions all contribute to the cost-of-living crisis and why many voters feel ignored by both parties. From constitutional consistency to economic reality, this is a direct look at how leadership priorities impact real people and why affordability may be the defining issue shaping the future of our Constitutional Republic.Watch and Listen:https://rumble.com/v766730-are-politicians-fighting-the-wrong-battles-while-americans-fight-their-bill.html https://youtu.be/owDjjoREFIg?si=Q0iKOWsX2kF7REVZhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/are-politicians-fighting-the-wrong-battles-while-americans-fight-their-bills--70243586Visit and follow:https://gorightnews.com/are-politicians-fighting-the-wrong-battles-while-americans-fight-their-bills/ Follow Go Right with Peter Boykin, The Constitutionalist for Liberty at GoRightNews.com. Watch on Rumble. Listen on Spreaker, Spotify, Apple, and Amazon. Support independent journalism at Cash App $GoRightNews. Watch more episodes and join the movement by following and subscribing. Share your thoughts in the comments and help keep the conversation focused on solutions, accountability, and constitutional principles.#GoRight, #GoRightNews, #PeterBoykin, #ConstitutionalistForLiberty, #CostOfLivingCrisis, #Inflation, #KitchenTableIssues, #EconomicReality, #SupremeCourt, #SCOTUS, #FederalPower, #StateGovernment, #LocalGovernment, #ConstitutionalRepublic, #WeThePeople, #JohnRoberts, #ConstitutionalLaw, #RuleOfLaw, #JudicialActivism, #JudicialConsistency, #SeparationOfPowers, #ChecksAndBalances, #TaxingPower, #HealthcareMandate, #VaccineMandate, #TradePolicy, #Tariffs, #EconomicNationalism, #AmericaFirst, #PoliticalCommentary, #CitizenJournalism, #LibertyFirst, #GovernmentPower, #LegalDebate, #AmericanPolitics, #HighBills, #EnergyCosts, #HousingAffordability, #PropertyTaxes, #SmallBusinessStruggles, #RegulatoryReform, #FiscalResponsibility, #CountyCommissioners, #CityCouncil, #GovernmentAccountability, #EconomicFreedom, #MiddleClass, #IndependentVoters, #PoliticalReformBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/go-right-with-peter-boykin-the-constitutionalist-for-liberty--3096608/support.
Professor of Constitutional Law at University of Sydney Anne Twomey joined David & Will to discuss whether David Speirs can legally run for Parliament.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In this explosive episode, you'll get breaking analysis of the Supreme Court's landmark 6-3 decision declaring Trump's tariffs unconstitutional, and what it means for the economy, Congress, and the upcoming State of the Union address. Key topics you'll explore in this episode: • The Supreme Court's constitutional reasoning behind striking down Trump's tariff authority and why this wasn't an ideological decision • Trump's immediate response and his plan to impose new tariffs under different legal authority • The massive logistical nightmare facing businesses: Will companies have to refund tariff costs to consumers? How will they prove what was passed on? • The rising power of Commerce Secretary and how Section 232 and Section 301 trade authorities become the new battleground • Whether Congress will finally reclaim its Article One constitutional duty to regulate tariffs through a new reconciliation package • State of the Union preview: Will Trump stay on teleprompter or go off-script attacking the Supreme Court? • The strategic debate: Should Democrats attend the State of the Union or boycott? Our panel is deeply divided • Alternative State of the Union events on the National Mall and at the National Press Club—who's attending and why it matters • How the rise of independent journalism and platforms like Substack are changing political media consumption • The proper decorum debate: Is sitting silently while the President lies a dereliction of duty, or is disrupting the institution worse? This episode features passionate debate between our co-hosts about institutional norms, political strategy, and what Democrats should do on Tuesday night. You'll hear arguments for maintaining decorum versus the moral imperative to resist, and why this moment represents a fundamental question about American democratic institutions. Whether you're concerned about rising prices, worried about constitutional checks and balances, or just trying to understand what happens next in this chaotic political moment, this episode gives you the insider analysis you need.
There's a growing debate in Canada about balancing the relationship between courts and legislatures.For nearly four decades, one Supreme Court ruling has loomed large in shaping an aspect of this debate: how conflicts between rights – and their limitations – are determined in Canada.That case – R v Oakes, decided in 1986 – gave Canadian jurisprudence the famous “Oakes test,” which courts still use to assess whether limits on Charter rights are justified.The test is widely cited. But critics argue it's become confusing, unpredictable, and undermines the historic power legislatures are meant to share in the construction of rights.That's why a new paper published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute – titled Renovating Oakes: Why Section 1 Justifies Reasonable Limits and Not Infringements on Charter Rights – says the Oakes test is in need of a “renovation.”The authors of that paper, Gerard Kennedy and Geoffrey Sigalet, joined Inside Policy Talks to make that case.Gerard Kennedy is an associate professor and associate dean at the University of Alberta's Faculty of Law. He's also a constitutional lawyer with extensive experience in public law and Charter litigation.Geoffrey Sigalet is an associate professor of political science at the University of British Columbia and director of the UBC Research Group for Constitutional Law.On the podcast, they tell Mark Mancini, an MLI senior fellow and assistant professor at Thompson Rivers University Faculty of Law, that when it comes to the Oakes test, courts have drifted away from the Charter's original logic.“People are not skeptical enough about what happens in courts, and they are extremely skeptical about what happens in legislatures,” says Sigalet. “And I don't think that they're wrong sometimes about the legislatures. I just think we should be applying our skepticism a bit more evenly.”
Professor Anne Twomey, Professor of Constitutional Law at University of Sydney, joined David & Will to discuss what implications if there is not a proper opposition elected after the State Election. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
As part of our series devoted to the pasts and futures of higher education in the United States, this conversation, hosted by LCHP Director David Myers, features Princeton sociologist Kim Lane Scheppele alongside legal scholars Ariela Gross from UCLA and Nomi Stolzenberg from USC to discuss an escalating war on universities by the Trump administration. Scheppele frames the assault as a distinctly modern autocratic strategy: not bullets, but budgets that target elite institutions to seek ideological conformity, weaken leadership, and force anticipatory compliance. Drawing on her experience living in Hungary under Viktor Orbán, she identifies an authoritarian playbook that pairs fiscal strangulation with autocratic legalism, the repurposing of law to anti-democratic ends, while leveraging accusations to mask or legitimize discriminatory and coercive governance.Gross emphasizes how long-standing right-wing projects, especially attacks on DEI, are being accelerated through institutional bargaining (for example, over withheld scientific funding) while trading away racial and gender justice infrastructure. Stolzenberg adds a longue durée account of U.S. conservative opposition to the modern university, highlighting theological currents that cast universities as battlegrounds in a moral struggle over national identity. Kim Lane Scheppele is the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and International Affairs in the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs and the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. She is also a faculty fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Her book, Legal Secrets,won Special Recognition in the Distinguished Scholarly Publication competition of the American Sociological Association as well as the Corwin Prize of the American Political Science Association.Ariela Gross is a Distinguished Professor of Law and History at UCLA and teaches Contract Law, Constitutional Law, Enslavement and Racialization in U.S. Legal History, as well as other courses on race and legal history. Gross is the author of Becoming Free, Becoming Black: Race, Freedom, and Law in Cuba, Virginia, and Louisiana, with Alejandro de la Fuente (Cambridge UP 2020) and What Blood Won't Tell: A History of Race on Trial in America (Harvard UP 2008).Nomi M. Stolzenberg is the Nathan and Lilly Shapell Chair in Law at the USC Gould School of Law. Her research spans a range of interdisciplinary interests, including law and religion, law and liberalism, law and psychoanalysis, and law and literature. Stolzenberg's scholarly publications include the frequently cited “The Profanity of Law”. With David N. Myers, she has published American Shtetl: The Making of Kiryas Joel, a Hasidic Village in Upstate New Yo
Cutting the Deadwood and the Fat DeWine is now threatening up to a 20% sales tax if property taxes get eliminated. Somehow the idea of cutting any costs never seems to be a discussion with the politicians. We talk about the spending of government, the fighting for rights by 1851 Center for Constitutional Law and Pacific Legal Foundation, how to have less drug and alcohol problems in society, and more. As we look for the logic regarding cutting government expenditures, we give examples of real life situations we've encountered to bring light to the conversation. If the citizens can join together to protect our rights and prevent government from taking too much of our hard-earned money so they can misspend it, we can make this world a better place! https://ohioconstitution.org/donate/ https://pacificlegal.org/donate/ Sponsors: American Gold Exchange Our dealer for precious metals & the exclusive dealer of Real Power Family silver rounds. Get your first, or next bullion order from American Gold Exchange like we do. Tell them the Real Power Family sent you! Click on this link to get a FREE Starters Guide. Or Click Here to order our new Real Power Family silver rounds. 1 Troy Oz 99.99% Fine Silver Abolish Property Taxes in Ohio: www.AxOHTax.com Get more information about abolishing all property taxes in Ohio. Our Links: www.RealPowerFamily.com Info@RealPowerFamily.com 833-Be-Do-Have (833-233-6428)
Mea Culp welcomes back Harry Litman. Harry is a former US Attorney, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, legal affairs columnist for the Los Angeles Times Opinion Page, and professor of Constitutional Law at UCLA and UCSD. Join us as Harry and Michael dive into the January 6th hearings and talk strategy for the mid-terms
In December 2025, writer, civil rights attorney, playwright, speaker, and Professor of Constitutional Law at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Gloria J. Browne-Marshall spoke with New Books Network host, Sullivan Summer, about her book, A Protest History of the United States (Beacon Press, 2025). Little did Browne-Marshall and Summer know that, at the time of the book's paperback release in early 2026, the nation would be in the midst of widespread and ongoing protests. So Browne-Marshall is back, this time with conversation focused specifically on the chapter of the book titled, “Protesting Violent Policing.” In this episode, we mention Terence Keel's The Coroner's Silence (Beacon Press, 2025). Keel's New Books Network episode is available here. A Protest History of the United States: In this timely new book in Beacon's successful ReVisioning History series, professor Gloria Browne-Marshall delves into the history of protest movements and rebellion in the United States. Beginning with Indigenous peoples' resistance to European colonization and continuing through to today's climate change demonstrations, Browne-Marshall sheds light on known and forgotten movements and their unsung leaders, offering insights into past successes and setbacks. Drawing upon legal documents, archival material, memoir, government documents and secondary sources, A Protest History of the United States expands the definition of protest beyond traditional marches and rallies. Acts of resistance also include journalism, legal battles, boycotts, everyday defiance, and more. Browne-Marshall highlights stories of individuals from all walks of life and time periods who helped bring strong attention to their causes. As contemporary movements struggle with inertia and doubt, Browne-Marshall underscores the essential role of protest as an American tradition in shaping and preserving democratic principles. By illuminating the strategies and sacrifices of activists past and present, A Protest History of the United States empowers readers to find their own voice in today's fights for justice. Find author Gloria J. Browne-Marshall at her website and on Instagram. Find host Sullivan Summer at her website, on Instagram, and on Substack. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies
In December 2025, writer, civil rights attorney, playwright, speaker, and Professor of Constitutional Law at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Gloria J. Browne-Marshall spoke with New Books Network host, Sullivan Summer, about her book, A Protest History of the United States (Beacon Press, 2025). Little did Browne-Marshall and Summer know that, at the time of the book's paperback release in early 2026, the nation would be in the midst of widespread and ongoing protests. So Browne-Marshall is back, this time with conversation focused specifically on the chapter of the book titled, “Protesting Violent Policing.” In this episode, we mention Terence Keel's The Coroner's Silence (Beacon Press, 2025). Keel's New Books Network episode is available here. A Protest History of the United States: In this timely new book in Beacon's successful ReVisioning History series, professor Gloria Browne-Marshall delves into the history of protest movements and rebellion in the United States. Beginning with Indigenous peoples' resistance to European colonization and continuing through to today's climate change demonstrations, Browne-Marshall sheds light on known and forgotten movements and their unsung leaders, offering insights into past successes and setbacks. Drawing upon legal documents, archival material, memoir, government documents and secondary sources, A Protest History of the United States expands the definition of protest beyond traditional marches and rallies. Acts of resistance also include journalism, legal battles, boycotts, everyday defiance, and more. Browne-Marshall highlights stories of individuals from all walks of life and time periods who helped bring strong attention to their causes. As contemporary movements struggle with inertia and doubt, Browne-Marshall underscores the essential role of protest as an American tradition in shaping and preserving democratic principles. By illuminating the strategies and sacrifices of activists past and present, A Protest History of the United States empowers readers to find their own voice in today's fights for justice. Find author Gloria J. Browne-Marshall at her website and on Instagram. Find host Sullivan Summer at her website, on Instagram, and on Substack. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies
In December 2025, writer, civil rights attorney, playwright, speaker, and Professor of Constitutional Law at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Gloria J. Browne-Marshall spoke with New Books Network host, Sullivan Summer, about her book, A Protest History of the United States (Beacon Press, 2025). Little did Browne-Marshall and Summer know that, at the time of the book's paperback release in early 2026, the nation would be in the midst of widespread and ongoing protests. So Browne-Marshall is back, this time with conversation focused specifically on the chapter of the book titled, “Protesting Violent Policing.” In this episode, we mention Terence Keel's The Coroner's Silence (Beacon Press, 2025). Keel's New Books Network episode is available here. A Protest History of the United States: In this timely new book in Beacon's successful ReVisioning History series, professor Gloria Browne-Marshall delves into the history of protest movements and rebellion in the United States. Beginning with Indigenous peoples' resistance to European colonization and continuing through to today's climate change demonstrations, Browne-Marshall sheds light on known and forgotten movements and their unsung leaders, offering insights into past successes and setbacks. Drawing upon legal documents, archival material, memoir, government documents and secondary sources, A Protest History of the United States expands the definition of protest beyond traditional marches and rallies. Acts of resistance also include journalism, legal battles, boycotts, everyday defiance, and more. Browne-Marshall highlights stories of individuals from all walks of life and time periods who helped bring strong attention to their causes. As contemporary movements struggle with inertia and doubt, Browne-Marshall underscores the essential role of protest as an American tradition in shaping and preserving democratic principles. By illuminating the strategies and sacrifices of activists past and present, A Protest History of the United States empowers readers to find their own voice in today's fights for justice. Find author Gloria J. Browne-Marshall at her website and on Instagram. Find host Sullivan Summer at her website, on Instagram, and on Substack. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
In December 2025, writer, civil rights attorney, playwright, speaker, and Professor of Constitutional Law at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Gloria J. Browne-Marshall spoke with New Books Network host, Sullivan Summer, about her book, A Protest History of the United States (Beacon Press, 2025). Little did Browne-Marshall and Summer know that, at the time of the book's paperback release in early 2026, the nation would be in the midst of widespread and ongoing protests. So Browne-Marshall is back, this time with conversation focused specifically on the chapter of the book titled, “Protesting Violent Policing.” In this episode, we mention Terence Keel's The Coroner's Silence (Beacon Press, 2025). Keel's New Books Network episode is available here. A Protest History of the United States: In this timely new book in Beacon's successful ReVisioning History series, professor Gloria Browne-Marshall delves into the history of protest movements and rebellion in the United States. Beginning with Indigenous peoples' resistance to European colonization and continuing through to today's climate change demonstrations, Browne-Marshall sheds light on known and forgotten movements and their unsung leaders, offering insights into past successes and setbacks. Drawing upon legal documents, archival material, memoir, government documents and secondary sources, A Protest History of the United States expands the definition of protest beyond traditional marches and rallies. Acts of resistance also include journalism, legal battles, boycotts, everyday defiance, and more. Browne-Marshall highlights stories of individuals from all walks of life and time periods who helped bring strong attention to their causes. As contemporary movements struggle with inertia and doubt, Browne-Marshall underscores the essential role of protest as an American tradition in shaping and preserving democratic principles. By illuminating the strategies and sacrifices of activists past and present, A Protest History of the United States empowers readers to find their own voice in today's fights for justice. Find author Gloria J. Browne-Marshall at her website and on Instagram. Find host Sullivan Summer at her website, on Instagram, and on Substack. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history
In December 2025, writer, civil rights attorney, playwright, speaker, and Professor of Constitutional Law at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Gloria J. Browne-Marshall spoke with New Books Network host, Sullivan Summer, about her book, A Protest History of the United States (Beacon Press, 2025). Little did Browne-Marshall and Summer know that, at the time of the book's paperback release in early 2026, the nation would be in the midst of widespread and ongoing protests. So Browne-Marshall is back, this time with conversation focused specifically on the chapter of the book titled, “Protesting Violent Policing.” In this episode, we mention Terence Keel's The Coroner's Silence (Beacon Press, 2025). Keel's New Books Network episode is available here. A Protest History of the United States: In this timely new book in Beacon's successful ReVisioning History series, professor Gloria Browne-Marshall delves into the history of protest movements and rebellion in the United States. Beginning with Indigenous peoples' resistance to European colonization and continuing through to today's climate change demonstrations, Browne-Marshall sheds light on known and forgotten movements and their unsung leaders, offering insights into past successes and setbacks. Drawing upon legal documents, archival material, memoir, government documents and secondary sources, A Protest History of the United States expands the definition of protest beyond traditional marches and rallies. Acts of resistance also include journalism, legal battles, boycotts, everyday defiance, and more. Browne-Marshall highlights stories of individuals from all walks of life and time periods who helped bring strong attention to their causes. As contemporary movements struggle with inertia and doubt, Browne-Marshall underscores the essential role of protest as an American tradition in shaping and preserving democratic principles. By illuminating the strategies and sacrifices of activists past and present, A Protest History of the United States empowers readers to find their own voice in today's fights for justice. Find author Gloria J. Browne-Marshall at her website and on Instagram. Find host Sullivan Summer at her website, on Instagram, and on Substack. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/native-american-studies
In December 2025, writer, civil rights attorney, playwright, speaker, and Professor of Constitutional Law at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Gloria J. Browne-Marshall spoke with New Books Network host, Sullivan Summer, about her book, A Protest History of the United States (Beacon Press, 2025). Little did Browne-Marshall and Summer know that, at the time of the book's paperback release in early 2026, the nation would be in the midst of widespread and ongoing protests. So Browne-Marshall is back, this time with conversation focused specifically on the chapter of the book titled, “Protesting Violent Policing.” In this episode, we mention Terence Keel's The Coroner's Silence (Beacon Press, 2025). Keel's New Books Network episode is available here. A Protest History of the United States: In this timely new book in Beacon's successful ReVisioning History series, professor Gloria Browne-Marshall delves into the history of protest movements and rebellion in the United States. Beginning with Indigenous peoples' resistance to European colonization and continuing through to today's climate change demonstrations, Browne-Marshall sheds light on known and forgotten movements and their unsung leaders, offering insights into past successes and setbacks. Drawing upon legal documents, archival material, memoir, government documents and secondary sources, A Protest History of the United States expands the definition of protest beyond traditional marches and rallies. Acts of resistance also include journalism, legal battles, boycotts, everyday defiance, and more. Browne-Marshall highlights stories of individuals from all walks of life and time periods who helped bring strong attention to their causes. As contemporary movements struggle with inertia and doubt, Browne-Marshall underscores the essential role of protest as an American tradition in shaping and preserving democratic principles. By illuminating the strategies and sacrifices of activists past and present, A Protest History of the United States empowers readers to find their own voice in today's fights for justice. Find author Gloria J. Browne-Marshall at her website and on Instagram. Find host Sullivan Summer at her website, on Instagram, and on Substack. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/lgbtq-studies
In December 2025, writer, civil rights attorney, playwright, speaker, and Professor of Constitutional Law at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Gloria J. Browne-Marshall spoke with New Books Network host, Sullivan Summer, about her book, A Protest History of the United States (Beacon Press, 2025). Little did Browne-Marshall and Summer know that, at the time of the book's paperback release in early 2026, the nation would be in the midst of widespread and ongoing protests. So Browne-Marshall is back, this time with conversation focused specifically on the chapter of the book titled, “Protesting Violent Policing.” In this episode, we mention Terence Keel's The Coroner's Silence (Beacon Press, 2025). Keel's New Books Network episode is available here. A Protest History of the United States: In this timely new book in Beacon's successful ReVisioning History series, professor Gloria Browne-Marshall delves into the history of protest movements and rebellion in the United States. Beginning with Indigenous peoples' resistance to European colonization and continuing through to today's climate change demonstrations, Browne-Marshall sheds light on known and forgotten movements and their unsung leaders, offering insights into past successes and setbacks. Drawing upon legal documents, archival material, memoir, government documents and secondary sources, A Protest History of the United States expands the definition of protest beyond traditional marches and rallies. Acts of resistance also include journalism, legal battles, boycotts, everyday defiance, and more. Browne-Marshall highlights stories of individuals from all walks of life and time periods who helped bring strong attention to their causes. As contemporary movements struggle with inertia and doubt, Browne-Marshall underscores the essential role of protest as an American tradition in shaping and preserving democratic principles. By illuminating the strategies and sacrifices of activists past and present, A Protest History of the United States empowers readers to find their own voice in today's fights for justice. Find author Gloria J. Browne-Marshall at her website and on Instagram. Find host Sullivan Summer at her website, on Instagram, and on Substack. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In December 2025, writer, civil rights attorney, playwright, speaker, and Professor of Constitutional Law at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Gloria J. Browne-Marshall spoke with New Books Network host, Sullivan Summer, about her book, A Protest History of the United States (Beacon Press, 2025). Little did Browne-Marshall and Summer know that, at the time of the book's paperback release in early 2026, the nation would be in the midst of widespread and ongoing protests. So Browne-Marshall is back, this time with conversation focused specifically on the chapter of the book titled, “Protesting Violent Policing.” In this episode, we mention Terence Keel's The Coroner's Silence (Beacon Press, 2025). Keel's New Books Network episode is available here. A Protest History of the United States: In this timely new book in Beacon's successful ReVisioning History series, professor Gloria Browne-Marshall delves into the history of protest movements and rebellion in the United States. Beginning with Indigenous peoples' resistance to European colonization and continuing through to today's climate change demonstrations, Browne-Marshall sheds light on known and forgotten movements and their unsung leaders, offering insights into past successes and setbacks. Drawing upon legal documents, archival material, memoir, government documents and secondary sources, A Protest History of the United States expands the definition of protest beyond traditional marches and rallies. Acts of resistance also include journalism, legal battles, boycotts, everyday defiance, and more. Browne-Marshall highlights stories of individuals from all walks of life and time periods who helped bring strong attention to their causes. As contemporary movements struggle with inertia and doubt, Browne-Marshall underscores the essential role of protest as an American tradition in shaping and preserving democratic principles. By illuminating the strategies and sacrifices of activists past and present, A Protest History of the United States empowers readers to find their own voice in today's fights for justice. Find author Gloria J. Browne-Marshall at her website and on Instagram. Find host Sullivan Summer at her website, on Instagram, and on Substack. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day
2.5.26 - Greg Willard - SLU Constitutional Law and Presidential Powers Professor – Bill and Hillary testify on Epstein, but will Donald…and Melania?; Executive Privilege offered to Trump, extend to Melania, or the kids?; Trump wants to Federalize election by
President Trump's Border Czar Tom Homan is reporting a sudden surge of "unprecedented cooperation" from local officials in Minnesota, potentially signaling a major shift in the standoff between federal agents and sanctuary jurisdictions. While high-profile clashes and calls for ICE reform from Democratic leaders in Washington continue, federal authorities are moving forward with nationwide bodycam rollouts and targeted mass deportation efforts. Former Acting Homeland Security Secretary, Chad Wolf, joins the Rundown to discuss why this shift in enforcement could become a nationwide model despite opposition from many Democrats. Jury selection continues in a landmark trial taking place in Los Angeles that will examine whether or not social media platforms are to blame for harmful addictions in children, causing suicides, bullying, and depression. Both TikTok and Snapchat were initially involved but have already settled, leaving Google and Meta as sole remaining defendants. FOX News Contributor and Constitutional Law expert, Jonathan Turley, joins us to discuss how difficult it will be to prove these companies are at fault, who's testimony will hold the most weight, and tells us about his news book, "Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution." Plus, commentary by Brilyn Hollyhand, 19-year-old political commentator, bestselling author of "One Generation Away: Why Now is the Time to Restore American Freedom," and host of "The Brilyn Hollyhand Show." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Ep. 220 (Part 2 of 2) | In part 2 of Sliding Towards Authoritarianism, Constitutional Law expert and Ethics professor Mark Fischler unpacks the significance of the extreme lack of civic understanding in the United States and, well informed about students' cognitive abilities and mental health status nationwide, adds the precipitous drop in achievement scores and through-the-roof diagnoses of ADHD, autism, anxiety, and depression to the mix, concluding, “You begin to see why an authoritarian world requiring only simple actions and answers would be more attractive than a democratic world that requires complexity, conversation, and the ability to see the intrinsic worth of the person across from you… to collectively decide to honor democratic processes and the winner who was voted in.”This is the challenge, Mark says: “Since everybody has a partial piece of the truth, we need to ask ourselves, am I curious enough to understand another's partial piece of truth in order to enrich myself and help me understand that we are all in this together?” “We need to take up the fight for greater awareness that recognizes the good, the true, the beautiful, and the oneness of what is,” he continues. Despite all that Mark has shared with us regarding the current Administration's dehumanizing, authoritarian tactics and other significant factors contributing to the deterioration of our democracy, when asked what gives him hope, Mark answers, “A lot of things!” The discussion ends in a hopeful place—grim realities balanced with inspiring trends, including the growing recognition around the world that we are all in this together in what is essentially one global village. Recorded December 4, 2025.“To understand is to forgive.” – Dr. Michael FischlerTopics & Time Stamps – Part 2What the problem of pervasive civic ignorance signifies for our democracy (01:02)Our susceptibility to authoritarian leaders is not surprising considering our ignorance of civil responsibility (04:53)Future shock: people under stress regress psychologically, making it even easier for an authoritarian to take over (06:57)There is more than one reason for our pervasive civic ignorance (09:08)Using A.I. to fact-check what we see and hear (10:37)Education: cognitive understanding in young people has plunged below lowest-level functioning thresholds (16:35)Among students, autism, ADHD, anxiety & depression diagnoses are through the roof (18:03)Because of people's lack of achievement & lack of civic understanding, it makes sense that people are willing to let democracy go (19:40)Cultivating a quest for truth is part of the solution (22:48)A call to contemplative warriors to take up the fight for greater awareness that recognizes the good, the true, the beautiful—and the oneness of what is (25:35)
President Trump's Border Czar Tom Homan is reporting a sudden surge of "unprecedented cooperation" from local officials in Minnesota, potentially signaling a major shift in the standoff between federal agents and sanctuary jurisdictions. While high-profile clashes and calls for ICE reform from Democratic leaders in Washington continue, federal authorities are moving forward with nationwide bodycam rollouts and targeted mass deportation efforts. Former Acting Homeland Security Secretary, Chad Wolf, joins the Rundown to discuss why this shift in enforcement could become a nationwide model despite opposition from many Democrats. Jury selection continues in a landmark trial taking place in Los Angeles that will examine whether or not social media platforms are to blame for harmful addictions in children, causing suicides, bullying, and depression. Both TikTok and Snapchat were initially involved but have already settled, leaving Google and Meta as sole remaining defendants. FOX News Contributor and Constitutional Law expert, Jonathan Turley, joins us to discuss how difficult it will be to prove these companies are at fault, who's testimony will hold the most weight, and tells us about his news book, "Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution." Plus, commentary by Brilyn Hollyhand, 19-year-old political commentator, bestselling author of "One Generation Away: Why Now is the Time to Restore American Freedom," and host of "The Brilyn Hollyhand Show." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
President Trump's Border Czar Tom Homan is reporting a sudden surge of "unprecedented cooperation" from local officials in Minnesota, potentially signaling a major shift in the standoff between federal agents and sanctuary jurisdictions. While high-profile clashes and calls for ICE reform from Democratic leaders in Washington continue, federal authorities are moving forward with nationwide bodycam rollouts and targeted mass deportation efforts. Former Acting Homeland Security Secretary, Chad Wolf, joins the Rundown to discuss why this shift in enforcement could become a nationwide model despite opposition from many Democrats. Jury selection continues in a landmark trial taking place in Los Angeles that will examine whether or not social media platforms are to blame for harmful addictions in children, causing suicides, bullying, and depression. Both TikTok and Snapchat were initially involved but have already settled, leaving Google and Meta as sole remaining defendants. FOX News Contributor and Constitutional Law expert, Jonathan Turley, joins us to discuss how difficult it will be to prove these companies are at fault, who's testimony will hold the most weight, and tells us about his news book, "Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution." Plus, commentary by Brilyn Hollyhand, 19-year-old political commentator, bestselling author of "One Generation Away: Why Now is the Time to Restore American Freedom," and host of "The Brilyn Hollyhand Show." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Hey folks, imagine this: it's early 2026, and I'm glued to my screen in my Washington D.C. apartment, coffee going cold as the Supreme Court ramps up for what could be the biggest clash yet with President Donald Trump. Just days ago, on January 28th, News4JAX aired a riveting breakdown on Politics & Power, hosted by Bruce Hamilton alongside a constitutional law scholar, dissecting how Chief Justice John Roberts subtly defended the court's independence in his end-of-2025 year-end report. Roberts leaned hard on history over politics, but they warned 2026 is the real showdown—cases testing if Trump can unilaterally rewrite citizenship laws, slap massive tariffs worldwide, and even fire Federal Reserve governors like Lisa Cook.Let me take you back a bit. Trump's second term kicked off January 20, 2025, and he hit the ground running with executive orders that shook everything up. By February and April, he'd unleashed tariffs on imports from nearly every country—10 to 50 percent reciprocal hits, tweaking them for toys from China or steel from Europe. Two Illinois companies, Learning Resources, Inc., and hand2mind, Inc., weren't having it. They sued in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president carte blanche for unlimited tariffs. The district court sided with them in May, issuing a preliminary injunction. The Court of International Trade echoed that without the injunction, and by August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shot down Trump's appeal. Boom—the Supreme Court grabbed it for expedited review, hearing oral arguments on November 5, 2025, right in the thick of their term that started October 6.SCOTUSblog's been all over it, noting the justices are in winter recess now, not back on the bench until February 20. That's when we might get the tariffs ruling—unless they drop it early like they did with Trump v. Anderson in 2024, zipping out a decision before Super Tuesday primaries. Trump's fighting tooth and nail, calling the stakes massive for America's economy.But tariffs are just the appetizer. There's Trump v. Barbara, straight from Oyez, challenging Executive Order No. 14,160 that aims to gut birthright citizenship—can he really end it by fiat? Then there's the Lisa Cook drama. Trump tried firing the Federal Reserve Governor over alleged mortgage fraud, claiming dual primary residences in D.C. and Atlanta. Lower courts blocked it, saying no full hearing yet, and the Supreme Court agreed across ideologies: Cook stays put until it's sorted. The Ninth Circuit's National TPS Alliance v. Noem ruling ties in too—Trump's team, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed January 25, 2025, moved fast to vacate Haiti's Temporary Protected Status extension set to expire August 2025.And don't get me started on Kilmar Orega or those nationwide injunctions Trump hates—judges in far-off districts halting his policies for the whole U.S. without everyone getting a say. Britannica lists these as marquee 2025-26 term battles: Learning Resources v. Trump, plus Chiles v. Salazar, Louisiana v. Callais, Little v. Hecox—all probing separation of powers. Experts on that News4JAX show predict Trump might lose big on delegation doctrine; Congress, not the president, sets agency rules. It's midterm election year, Trump's termed out, politically weaker—courts historically push back harder then. The Supreme Court's legitimacy hangs in the balance, walking that tightrope between executive muscle and judicial check.Whew, listeners, what a whirlwind these past days. From tariff showdowns to citizenship overhauls, Trump's vision collides head-on with the robes in black. Thanks for tuning in—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
Ep. 219 (Part 1 of 2) | Constitutional Law expert and Ethics professor Mark Fischler joins Deep Transformation again, to help us make sense of the slide towards authoritarianism happening in the United States today. Mark's vast knowledge of the law, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court, his deep comprehension of ethics and morality, his Integral understanding, and his profound contemplative awareness all make for an extraordinary exploration of what is going on in this country at levels we don't often consider. Beginning with examples of events in 2025 that are representative of various facets of authoritarianism, Mark goes on to discuss how the very crassness of the current Administration is undermining democracy: “We need to demand civil, fact-based discussion from our leaders, but we're all accepting it's okay to act like toddlers and dehumanize each other.”Mark cites some stunning figures illustrating the widespread ignorance of democratic processes and institutions among the populace in this country, and describes why a lack of civic understanding makes us susceptible to authoritarians coming in and taking over. He also acknowledges that progressives are at fault for marginalizing conservatives, and calls on us to recognize the honor and dignity of all people, regardless of their politics—this is part of the solution, he explains. Mark's passionate caring, wanting the best for all people and all beings, is a current that flows throughout, grounding the discussion in a beautiful way, while also making for a heartbreaking contrast relative to the chilling events happening in the political arena now. Recorded December 4, 2025.“An ignorant people can never remain a free people.” – Thomas JeffersonTopics & Time Stamps – Part 1Introducing a frequent guest on Deep Transformation: Ethics, Law & Criminal Justice professor Mark Fischler, to help us make sense of our deteriorating democracy (00:43)The trajectory of Trump's presidency: the devolution of democracy towards authoritarian government (01:51)John presents defining characteristics of fascism according to A. I. (04:01)How does Mark define authoritarianism? (07:24)Mark offers examples of 12 hallmarks of authoritarian government that happened in 2025, beginning with the stifling of dissent and speech (08:12)Statistics on how U.S. citizens feel our democracy is performing (16:51)What surprises Mark the most? The crassness & crudeness of the Trump Administration (18:15) The deterioration in the greater culture at large: who and what is responsible? (21:19)Deflecting our attention using whataboutism breeds cynicism & corrodes our democracy (24:45)We need to demand civil, fact-based discussion from our leaders, but we're all accepting it's okay to act like toddlers and dehumanize each other (30:00)
It all makes sense now. In this jaw-dropping episode, the hosts walk listeners through a stunning mathematical breakdown that reframes American politics entirely. Drawing comparisons to historic liberation movements—from the Israelites to Gandhi's India—the argument is simple but explosive: this is not a divided country. It's an oppressed majority held down by fraud, manipulation, and elite control. Using newly released census projections, FOIA-exposed formulas, Supreme Court cases, and population migration data, the hosts claim Democrats are currently holding between 42 and 50 congressional seats that would not exist under an honest census and constitutional districting
Professor George Williams was uninterested in school, instead spending his time melting down lead to sell to a nearby scrap yard. Then a special primary school teacher gave him permanent detention, which changed his life.Growing up in Sydney, he was the rebellious child of a single mum who worked in a fruit shop to support the family.George was so disruptive at primary school that no teacher wanted him in class.At first he was flabbergasted at the unfairness of this punishment, but with this teacher's undivided attention, George began to enjoy learning and found that he was smart.His grades improved, and George became interested in studying Law.He has had a long career in Constitutional Law and working in university leadership.This episode was produced by Alice Moldovan. The Executive Producer is Nicola Harrison.It explores tertiary education, international students, online learning, lectures, tutorials, the casual workforce, academics, higher learning, lifelong learning, sandstone universities, student debt, HECS, affordable learning and poverty.To binge even more great episodes of the Conversations podcast with Richard Fidler and Sarah Kanowski go the ABC listen app (Australia) or wherever you get your podcasts. There you'll find hundreds of the best thought-provoking interviews with authors, writers, artists, politicians, psychologists, musicians, and celebrities.
Send us a textWe are back! Welcome to season 7 of the Serious Privacy podcast, with dr. K Royal, Ralph O'Brien and Paul Breitbarth. Also this season, we will keep you up to date of developments in the data protection and privacy community, artificial intelligence and some cybersecurity. And of course we'll bring you interviews with great guests! If you have comments or questions, find us on LinkedIn and Instagram @seriousprivacy, and on BlueSky under @seriousprivacy.eu, @europaulb.seriousprivacy.eu, @heartofprivacy.bsky.app and @igrobrien.seriousprivacy.eu, and email podcast@seriousprivacy.eu. Rate and Review us! From Season 6, our episodes are edited by Fey O'Brien. Our intro and exit music is Channel Intro 24 by Sascha Ende, licensed under CC BY 4.0. with the voiceover by Tim Foley.
Navigating the Complexities of the First Amendment's Religion ClausesIn this episode of the deep dive, we explore the complexities of the First Amendment's religion clauses, focusing on the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The discussion begins with the historical context and the evolving interpretations of these clauses, particularly the shift from the Lemon Test to a more historical analysis in modern jurisprudence. The hosts emphasized the importance of understanding the tension between government non-involvement in religion and the protection of individual religious practices, highlighting key cases that illustrate this dynamic.The conversation delves into significant Supreme Court rulings, including the implications of Employment Division v. Smith, which altered the standard of review for free exercise claims, and the subsequent legislative responses like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The episode concludes with a discussion on the current landscape of religious freedoms, the shrinking 'play in the joints' between the two clauses, and the potential future of government involvement in religious matters, leaving listeners with thought-provoking questions about the balance of these constitutional rights.The First Amendment's religion clauses, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, form a cornerstone of constitutional law, presenting a complex interplay between government neutrality and religious freedom. This blog post delves into the historical and modern interpretations of these clauses, exploring key legal tests like the Lemon Test and significant court cases that have shaped the current legal landscape.Understanding the Establishment ClauseHistorically, the Establishment Clause was interpreted through the lens of strict separation between church and state, epitomized by the Lemon Test. This three-pronged test evaluated whether a law had a secular purpose, its primary effect neither advanced nor inhibited religion, and it avoided excessive government entanglement with religion. However, modern jurisprudence has shifted towards a historical practices approach, examining whether government actions align with practices common at the nation's founding.The Free Exercise Clause: A Roller Coaster of Legal StandardsThe Free Exercise Clause has undergone significant changes, from the protective Sherbert-Yoder framework to the more restrictive Employment Division v. Smith decision. The latter established that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause, even if they incidentally burden religious practices. However, recent cases have introduced exceptions, allowing for strict scrutiny when laws target religion or provide secular exemptions but not religious ones.Balancing Act: The Courts' RoleCourts are tasked with balancing the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, ensuring government neutrality while protecting religious freedom. This delicate act involves navigating the "play in the joints," the space where government action is neither required nor prohibited by the clauses. As legal interpretations evolve, the tension between these principles continues to shape the landscape of religious freedom in the United States.The First Amendment's religion clauses remain a dynamic and challenging area of constitutional law. Understanding the historical context, key legal tests, and significant court cases is essential for navigating this complex field. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the balance between government neutrality and religious freedom will remain a pivotal issue for courts and legal scholars alike.First Amendment, Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, Lemon Test, RFRA, constitutional law, Supreme Court, religious freedoms, legal analysis, law exam
Understanding the Mechanics of First Amendment ScrutinyIn this episode of "The Deep Dive," the hosts tackle the complexities of the First Amendment, focusing on fundamental freedoms of speech and association. He emphasizes that while the text of the Constitution appears absolute, the reality is far more intricate, requiring a mechanical understanding of legal principles. The hosts introduced a structured approach to analyzing speech-related cases, breaking down the process into modules that cover general principles, unprotected categories, symbolic speech, and the forum doctrine.They highlight the importance of distinguishing between content-based and content-neutral regulations, explaining the levels of scrutiny that apply to each. Throughout the discussion, they provide practical examples and case law to illustrate these concepts, ultimately aiming to equip listeners with a solid framework for understanding and applying First Amendment principles in legal contexts.In the realm of constitutional law, the First Amendment stands as a beacon of freedom, yet its application is anything but straightforward. As we delve into the intricacies of First Amendment scrutiny, we uncover a labyrinth of doctrines that govern speech and association.The Complexity of Free Speech: Many approach the First Amendment with the belief that it grants absolute freedom of speech. However, the reality is far more nuanced. The Supreme Court has established a framework that categorizes speech and applies varying levels of scrutiny based on content and context. This diagnostic approach is akin to a flowchart, guiding legal minds through the maze of constitutional analysis.Content-Based vs. Content-Neutral: A pivotal distinction in First Amendment scrutiny is whether a law is content-based or content-neutral. Content-based laws, which target the message itself, are subject to strict scrutiny—a rigorous test that few laws survive. In contrast, content-neutral laws, which regulate the mechanics of speech, face intermediate scrutiny, allowing for more governmental leeway.Unprotected Categories: Certain types of speech, such as incitement, obscenity, and true threats, fall outside the protective umbrella of the First Amendment. These unprotected categories allow the government to regulate speech that poses a direct threat to public safety or morality.The Role of Expressive Association: The right to associate, though not explicitly stated in the Constitution, is a fundamental aspect of free speech. This right encompasses both the freedom to join with others to amplify a message and the freedom to exclude those who might dilute that message. The balance between association rights and anti-discrimination laws remains a contentious issue in constitutional law.Navigating the complexities of First Amendment scrutiny requires a structured approach. By understanding the distinctions between content-based and content-neutral laws, recognizing unprotected categories, and appreciating the role of expressive association, legal practitioners can effectively analyze and argue First Amendment cases. As we continue to explore the boundaries of free speech, the principles of tolerance and robust debate remain at the heart of our constitutional framework.Takeaways'You have to treat it like a flow chart.''The government needs a really, really good reason.''The cardinal sin of the First Amendment is viewpoint discrimination.''The First Amendment prefers tolerance over coercion.''If you follow that path, you won't get lost in the weeds of your own feelings about the speech.'First Amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of association, legal analysis, constitutional law, speech regulation, unprotected speech, case law, legal framework, exam strategy
Exploring the Equal Protection Clause: From Historical Roots to AI ChallengesIn this episode the hosts tackle the complexities of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, a cornerstone of American constitutional law. The discussion begins with the significance of this clause, which serves as a critical tool for civil rights and has implications for various legal issues, from school segregation to marriage equality. The hosts emphasized the importance of understanding the legal framework surrounding equal protection, particularly for law students preparing for exams. The conversation delves into the nuances of the clause, including the different tiers of scrutiny—strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis review—each with its own standards and implications for how laws are evaluated in terms of discrimination.The hosts explore the historical context of the Equal Protection Clause, its application to various classifications such as race, gender, and alienage, and the evolving nature of these legal interpretations in the face of modern challenges, including the rise of AI and algorithmic decision-making. The discussion highlights the tension between anti-classification and anti-subordination principles, particularly in the context of affirmative action and the implications of using algorithms that may inadvertently perpetuate discrimination. The episode concludes with a call to action for listeners to consider the future of equal protection in an era where discrimination may become less visible, raising critical questions about the relevance and adaptability of existing legal frameworks.The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment stands as a cornerstone of American constitutional law, shaping the landscape of civil rights from school segregation to marriage equality. In our latest podcast episode, we delve into this complex legal doctrine, unraveling its historical significance and examining its evolving role in today's world.The Historical FoundationThe 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was designed to address racial discrimination against newly freed slaves. Early cases like Strauder v. West Virginia set the stage for its application, striking down laws that blatantly discriminated based on race. Over time, the doctrine evolved, embracing the anti-classification principle, which demands that the government remain colorblind in its policies.Modern Implications and AI ParadoxAs we navigate the 21st century, the Equal Protection Clause faces new challenges, particularly in the realm of artificial intelligence and algorithms. The episode highlights the tension between anti-classification and anti-subordination principles, as AI systems inadvertently perpetuate societal biases. The paradox emerges when attempts to correct these biases trigger strict scrutiny, potentially stifling efforts to achieve equity.The Need for Legal EvolutionThe discussion underscores the urgent need for legal evolution to address the complexities of algorithmic bias. As discrimination becomes increasingly invisible, buried within code, the traditional legal frameworks may fall short. The question looms: will the courts adapt to this new reality, or will the doctrine remain tethered to its historical roots?The Equal Protection Clause remains a vital tool in the fight for civil rights, but its application must evolve to meet the challenges of our digital age. As we ponder the future of this doctrine, we invite you to join us in exploring these critical issues and their implications for the next generation of lawyers and judges.Subscribe now.Equal Protection Clause, 14th Amendment, constitutional law, civil rights, tiers of scrutiny, strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis review, discrimination, AI algorithmsEqual Protection Clause, 14th Amendment, constitutional law, civil rights, tiers of scrutiny, strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis review, discrimination
Understanding the Mechanics of Due Process: A Deep DiveIn this episode of the deep dive, the hosts explore the intricate mechanics of the U.S. Constitution, focusing specifically on the due process clauses found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. He emphasizes the importance of understanding these clauses for law students and bar exam candidates, as they serve as the foundation for constitutional litigation. The discussion begins with a breakdown of due process, highlighting its role as a gatekeeper for government intervention in personal liberties. The hosts elaborate on the distinction between procedural and substantive due process, explaining how each operates within the legal framework and the implications for individual rights.The episode delves into the complexities of procedural due process, detailing the necessary steps for legal analysis, including the Matthews v. Eldridge balancing test. The hosts also address substantive due process, tracing its historical evolution and the criteria for determining fundamental rights. He discusses landmark cases that have shaped the understanding of these rights, such as Griswold v. Connecticut and Lawrence v. Texas, while also touching on the ongoing debate surrounding the interpretation of liberty in constitutional law. The episode concludes with a synthesis of the key concepts, providing listeners with a roadmap for approaching due process issues in legal examinations.In the realm of constitutional law, mastering the intricacies of procedural and substantive due process is essential for any law student or legal professional. This blog post delves into the fundamental aspects of due process, exploring its significance in the US Constitution and its application in legal proceedings.Procedural Due Process: The HowProcedural due process is all about the fairness of the procedures used by the government when it takes away someone's life, liberty, or property. It ensures that individuals receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before any governmental deprivation. The key is to determine whether a protected interest is at stake and what kind of process is required. The Matthews v. Eldridge balancing test is crucial here, weighing the individual's interest, the risk of error, and the government's interest.Substantive Due Process: The WhatSubstantive due process, on the other hand, questions the legitimacy of the law itself. It asks whether the government has a compelling reason to regulate a particular aspect of life. This doctrine has evolved over time, with the court recognizing various fundamental rights related to privacy and personal autonomy. The bifurcated standard of review—strict scrutiny for fundamental rights and rational basis for non-fundamental rights—guides the analysis.Understanding the distinction between procedural and substantive due process is vital for navigating constitutional law. By following the structured framework and applying the appropriate tests, legal professionals can effectively analyze due process issues. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the tension between historical precedent and evolving liberty remains a central theme in constitutional law.TakeawaysDue process is the bedrock of constitutional litigation.The Fifth Amendment applies to federal actions, while the Fourteenth Amendment applies to state actions.Procedural due process focuses on the fairness of the procedures used by the government.due process, constitutional law, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, procedural due process, substantive due process, law school, bar exam, legal analysis, fundamental rights
Navigating Federalism: Power and ParadoxThe podcast episode delves into the complexities of American federalism, focusing on the constitutional constraints that shape the balance of power between federal and state governments. It explores key doctrines like anti-commandeering, the dormant commerce clause, and state sovereign immunity, highlighting landmark cases and their implications. The discussion also addresses the paradoxes and challenges these doctrines present, particularly in crisis scenarios, and questions whether the current legal frameworks effectively protect state sovereignty or inadvertently encourage federal overreach.Sound bites"Understanding federalism is understanding power.""Anti-commandeering: a shield for state sovereignty.""Dormant commerce clause: a check on state power.""State sovereign immunity: a constitutional safeguard.""New York v. United States: a federalism landmark.""Federalism's paradox: sovereignty vs. dominance.""Spending clause: federal influence unleashed.""Anti-coercion: protecting state choices.""State tolerance vs. federal preemption.""Supremacy clause: federal law reigns supreme."TakeawaysUnderstanding the balance of power between federal and state governments is crucial.The anti-commandeering doctrine prevents federal overreach into state governance.The dormant commerce clause limits state interference in national markets.State sovereign immunity protects states from certain federal judicial actions.Landmark cases like New York v. United States and Prince v. United States define federalism limits.The paradox of federalism: protecting state sovereignty can lead to federal dominance.The spending clause is a powerful tool for federal influence over states.The anti-coercion principle limits federal financial pressure on states.State laws that tolerate federally banned behavior are generally not preempted.The supremacy clause prevents states from interfering with federal operations.American federalism, constitutional constraints, anti-commandeering, dormant commerce clause, state sovereign immunity, federal power, state sovereignty, landmark cases, legal frameworks, federal overreach
The Tug of War: Congress vs. PresidentThis conversation delves into the intricate dynamics of power between Congress and the President within the framework of the U.S. Constitution. It explores the historical evolution of federalism, the implications of key constitutional clauses such as the Necessary and Proper Clause, Spending Clause, and Commerce Clause, and the limitations imposed on federal power to protect state sovereignty. The discussion also covers the scope of executive power, the Unitary Executive Theory, and the balance of authority in foreign affairs, culminating in a comprehensive framework for analyzing federal power.In the heart of the American constitutional framework lies a dynamic tension between Congress and the President, a balance of power that has shaped the nation's governance since its inception. This blog post delves into the historical and legal intricacies of federalism and separation of powers, exploring how these principles have evolved through landmark Supreme Court cases and legislative actions.The Evolution of Federalism: Federalism in the United States has undergone significant transformations, from the early days of dual federalism, where state and national powers were distinct, to the cooperative federalism of the 20th century, characterized by collaboration and federal financial influence. The shift towards contemporary federalism saw a resurgence of state rights, influenced by Supreme Court decisions that reined in federal overreach.Key Supreme Court Cases: The blog highlights pivotal cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland, which established the supremacy of federal law, and United States v. Lopez, which marked a turning point in limiting Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. These cases underscore the ongoing judicial role in defining the boundaries of federal and state authority.Congressional and Executive Dynamics: The interplay between congressional powers and executive authority is a cornerstone of American governance. The Necessary and Proper Clause and the Spending Clause have been instrumental in expanding congressional reach, while the President's powers are often tested in the realm of foreign affairs and executive orders. The Youngstown framework provides a critical lens for analyzing presidential actions, ensuring they align with constitutional mandates.As the nation continues to navigate complex legal and political landscapes, the principles of federalism and separation of powers remain vital in maintaining the balance of authority. Understanding these frameworks is essential for interpreting the Constitution's role in contemporary governance and ensuring that power remains checked and balanced.Subscribe Now: Stay informed on the latest constitutional insights and legal analyses by subscribing to our newsletter.TakeawaysThe enduring tension between Congress and the President defines American governance.Federalism has evolved through distinct historical phases, impacting state and national power dynamics.The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to extend its powers beyond those explicitly enumerated.The Spending Clause enables Congress to influence state policy through conditional funding.The Commerce Clause has undergone significant interpretation, affecting federal regulatory power.Post-Civil War amendments expanded congressional authority to enforce civil rights.The anti-commandeering doctrine protects state sovereignty from federal overreach.Executive power is limited by the need for congressional authorization and the Take Care Clause.The Unitary Executive Theory argues for broad presidential control over the executive branch.Checks and balances rely heavily on Congress to assert its legislative powers against presidential overreach.federalism, separation of powers, congressional authority, executive power, commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, spending clause, constitutional law, state sovereignty, checks and balances
The Crisis That Shaped the ConstitutionThis conversation delves into the foundational principles of constitutional law, exploring the historical context of the Articles of Confederation, the influence of Enlightenment thinkers, the structure of government established by the Constitution, and the ongoing evolution of federalism and judicial review. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the amendment process as essential components of American governance.The journey of American constitutional law is a fascinating exploration of governance, power, and rights. It begins with the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a system that left the young nation vulnerable and fragmented. This failure set the stage for the creation of the Constitution, a document that would redefine governance by establishing a strong federal structure while balancing state autonomy.The Articles of Confederation: A Failed ExperimentThe Articles of Confederation were designed to preserve the independence of states, but they resulted in a weak central government incapable of addressing national issues. The inability to levy taxes or regulate commerce led to economic turmoil and highlighted the need for a more robust framework.The Constitution: A New FrameworkIn response, the framers crafted the Constitution, drawing heavily on Enlightenment ideas, particularly those of John Locke. This new framework introduced the separation of powers, dividing authority among legislative, executive, and judicial branches to prevent tyranny.Separation of Powers and Checks and BalancesThe Constitution's architecture ensures that no single branch becomes too powerful. Through checks and balances, each branch has the means to limit the others, fostering a system of accountability and preventing the concentration of power.Federalism: Balancing State and National PowerFederalism emerged as a key principle, dividing power between national and state governments. This dual sovereignty allows for diversity in policy and governance, with states acting as "laboratories of democracy."Judicial Review and Landmark CasesThe doctrine of judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison, empowers courts to interpret the Constitution and invalidate laws that conflict with it. This power is a cornerstone of American law, ensuring that legislative and executive actions remain within constitutional bounds.The 14th Amendment and Individual RightsThe 14th Amendment marked a significant shift, extending federal protection of individual rights against state actions. It laid the groundwork for landmark decisions that have shaped civil rights and liberties.Modern Constitutional Interpretation and ChallengesToday, constitutional interpretation continues to evolve, reflecting societal changes and challenges. The balance between state and federal power remains a dynamic negotiation, influenced by judicial decisions and political will.The American constitutional system is designed for conflict and negotiation, not swift efficiency. Its enduring strength lies in its ability to adapt and respond to new challenges while maintaining the foundational principles of liberty and justice.Understanding the foundational architecture of American governance is crucial.The Articles of Confederation highlighted the need for a stronger central government.Judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison, is a key mechanism for checks and balances.Federalism allows for both national unity and state diversity.The 14th Amendment significantly altered the relationship between citizens and states.The amendment process is intentionally difficult to ensure stability in governance.Conflict and negotiation are inherent in the constitutional system.constitutional law, separation of powers, federalism, judicial review, Articles of Confederation, 14th Amendment, Marbury v. Madison, checks and balances, amendment process, governance
# Trump Administration Supreme Court Cases: Week of January 16, 2026Welcome back to Quiet Please. I'm your host, and today we're diving into what's shaping up to be one of the most consequential weeks in recent Supreme Court history. As we head into the final stretch before the Court's April sitting, there are several major cases involving President Donald Trump that could fundamentally reshape American governance and policy for years to come.Let's start with what's happening right now. The Supreme Court is in what experts at SCOTUSblog describe as "maximum overdrive," with ninety-one cases already relisted for consideration and seventeen new cases added just this week. This Friday's conference marks the last real chance for the Court to grant petitions in time for arguments at the April sitting, the final session of this term. That means decisions are coming fast.Now, the Trump administration is front and center in several pivotal cases. According to reporting from the Constitution Center, one of the most immediate cases is Trump v. Cook, which involves the president's attempt to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Cook began her fourteen-year term in 2023, and Trump tried to remove her this year, alleging mortgage fraud from before her appointment. Here's the constitutional tension: the Federal Reserve Act only allows the president to remove board members "for cause." This case will be argued on January twenty-first, just five days from now, and it represents a much smaller preview of the larger question the Court is grappling with in another case, Trump v. Slaughter.That case, heard in December and coming to decision soon, asks whether the president can unilaterally remove members from independent, multi-member federal agencies without statutory cause. If Trump wins, according to legal analysis from Dykema, it would overturn a ninety-year-old precedent established in Humphrey's Executor v. United States. The background here is significant: Trump dismissed FTC officials Alvaro Bedoya and fired Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve, justifying both removals by saying their roles were inconsistent with his administration's policies.But there's more. According to reporting from Axios, the Supreme Court is also preparing to rule on Trump's birthright citizenship executive order in a case called Trump v. Barbara, expected in early 2026. If upheld, this would fundamentally alter the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants, a right that has stood for over a century.Then there's the tariffs case. Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump will determine whether Trump's invocation of a national emergency to impose extensive tariffs on imported goods without congressional approval is constitutional. What's at stake here is enormous. If the Court rules against Trump, the government could be forced to reimburse over one hundred billion dollars in tariffs already collected from businesses and consumers.According to SCOTUSblog, in an interview transcript, Trump himself said he would pursue tariffs through "some other alternative" if the Supreme Court strikes down his current tariffs, showing just how central this issue is to his policy agenda.What makes this moment particularly significant is that Trump has frequently used the Court's emergency docket during his second term to suspend lower court decisions while legal matters unfold. The administration is essentially testing the limits of executive power across multiple fronts simultaneously.These cases represent nothing less than a potential reshaping of the separation of powers, executive authority over independent agencies, the scope of immigration law, and trade policy. Decisions here could determine whether a president can act unilaterally on major policy questions or whether constitutional checks remain in place.Thank you for tuning in today. Come back next week for more as these cases develop. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, visit quietplease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
The state of Minnesota is the epicenter of the political universe as ICE agents flood the streets to mixed reactions here and abroad. Two guests joined Kenny and Jay today, the first Constitutional Law expert David Schultz, the second former attorney for the Minnesota Hospitals Association David Feinwachs, as they broke down the latest in ICE operations and courtroom drama.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Our Supreme Court Case Oral Arguments Does a law-abiding citizen have as many rights as a rapist, drug-dealer, or murderer? Can a city violate your 4th amendment rights, invade your privacy & enter your home without a warrant just because you are a tenant? Can they do this even if they have no proof of any possible violations? We talk about our experience at the Ohio Supreme Court as well as some of the information and questions that were brought up. We talk about problems in the real estate market and how some government officials are treating tenants like second-class citizens. We also talk about two organizations, 1851 Center for Constitutional Law and Pacific Legal Foundation. These groups focus on helping citizens fighting against unconstitutional laws. If you want to help stand up against government overreach, donating to these groups can be a great way to do that. In order to hold our government officials accountable, we need to be willing to stand up when they take actions that are unconstitutional. https://ohioconstitution.org/donate/ https://pacificlegal.org/donate/ Sponsors: American Gold Exchange Our dealer for precious metals & the exclusive dealer of Real Power Family silver rounds. Get your first, or next bullion order from American Gold Exchange like we do. Tell them the Real Power Family sent you! Click on this link to get a FREE Starters Guide. Or Click Here to order our new Real Power Family silver rounds. 1 Troy Oz 99.99% Fine Silver Abolish Property Taxes in Ohio: www.AxOHTax.com Get more information about abolishing all property taxes in Ohio. Our Links: www.RealPowerFamily.com Info@RealPowerFamily.com 833-Be-Do-Have (833-233-6428)
John O. McGinnis is the George C. Dix Professor of Constitutional Law at Northwestern University and one of the leading legal minds examining how wealth, influence, and democracy intersect in modern America. In this episode, he unpacks the core argument from his forthcoming book, Why Democracy Needs the Rich—that wealthy entrepreneurs and investors don't just drive economic growth, but also counterbalance left-leaning professional influencers and fund vital cultural, civic, and philanthropic institutions. The conversation dives into envy, academia, “professional influencers,” and why attempts to sideline the rich could unintentionally damage pluralism, innovation, and freedom. On this episode we talk about: Why critics like Bernie Sanders and big-city mayors argue that the rich are a problem for democracy—and how John dismantles that claim. How founders typically capture only a tiny fraction of the total value they create, and why innovations like Amazon massively increase “consumer surplus” for everyday people. The concept of “professional influencers” (academics, media, entertainers, bureaucrats), why they lean heavily left, and how wealthy individuals provide ideological and practical counterbalance. Historical and modern examples of the rich funding abolition, civil rights, environmental causes, education reform, museums, and other public goods that government is slow or incapable of providing. Why classical political thinkers feared static oligarchies, and how today's dynamic, constantly changing class of entrepreneurs is almost the opposite of that. The data and reality behind wealth creation—why most millionaires are first-generation—and what that says about opportunity and technological change. How resentment, envy, and “othering” the rich mirror older patterns of scapegoating minority groups, and why that's dangerous for a free society. Whether the wealthy are drifting right politically in response to regulation, energy policy, and growing hostility from the activist left. Practical thought experiments to challenge “eat the rich” rhetoric, including how much our daily lives resemble those of historical elites thanks to modern tech and markets. Top 3 Takeaways 1. The rich are not a monolithic right‑wing bloc; they are a diverse, constantly changing group whose entrepreneurship and philanthropy expand opportunity, fund public goods, and increase real living standards.2. Efforts to mute or punish the rich don't create a level playing field—they simply hand even more power to already-dominant professional influencers in academia, media, entertainment, and bureaucracy.3. Envy-driven politics may feel emotionally satisfying, but they ignore how much ordinary people benefit from innovation, consumer surplus, and the pluralism that wealthy funders help sustain in a free society. Notable Quotes “Founders often only capture one or two percent of the value they create—the rest goes to consumers in the form of better, cheaper, more abundant goods and services.” “If you push the rich out of the public square, you don't get ‘pure democracy'—you get even more power for academics, media, and bureaucrats who already lean heavily to one side.” “Envy is a thief of joy; before you condemn the rich, it's worth asking how much of your everyday life was made possible by the very people you claim to hate.” Purchase John O. McGinnis' book: Book –Why Democracy Needs the Rich : https://a.co/d/eKcmirX ✖️✖️✖️✖️
And Judge Ho's auditioning for MAGA favor takes a disgusting turn. ------ With polls showing more Americans now favor abolishing ICE than keeping it, a lot of people will be disappointed to learn that the law is set up to make it almost impossible to hold anyone accountable for killing Renee Good. From sovereign immunity, to the Federal Officer Removal Statute, to the decline of Bivens, to qualified immunity, the whole system is arrayed to shield federal agents from legal redress. Speaking of the Minnesota ICE surge, we moved a step closer to a genuine Third Amendment case after the Department of Homeland Security pressured Hilton Hotels into dropping a franchisee that had refused to rent rooms to DHS. And finally, Judge James Ho published a broadside against fellow judges in his bid to reach the top of the Trump administration's Supreme Court wishlist. And all he had to do was mock judges receiving violent threats and dishonor a judge's murdered son.
The people of Palm Beach County are fighting a proposed data center.Learn more about data centers by subscribing to our weekly "Florida Conservation Newsletter."Clarence Earl Gideon was tried and found guilty of burglary in 1961 in a circuit court near Panama City. He was poor, and despite asking for legal counsel, was denied that request. At the time, Florida was one of 13 states that did not guarantee legal counsel for all defendants in state court proceedings regardless of their ability to pay. The right was guaranteed in federal court.Gideon petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court that he had been unfairly treated in violation of his 14th Amendment rights. The Court picked up his case, ultimately ruling in his favor and requiring that defendants in all U.S courtrooms, including state courts, have access to counsel.Bruce Jacob represented the State of Florida before the Supreme Court in the Gideon case and joins us to discuss his upcoming book on the proceedings, "The Gideon Case: Inside the Supreme Court's Historic Right to Counsel Decision."
Minnesota and Illinois are suing the Trump administration to slow down or reshape ICE operations—using the language of federalism and constitutional rights to challenge how immigration law is enforced. Todd Huff breaks down what these lawsuits are really arguing (administrative warrants, “sensitive locations,” and claims of political retaliation), and why the bigger story is a sudden left-wing “concern” for federalism only when enforcement shows up in blue jurisdictions. He also revisits Arizona v. United States and explains the difference between civil immigration removal and criminal conviction—plus why enforcement isn't “punishment,” it's the federal government doing its job.
Minnesota and Illinois are suing the Trump administration to slow down or reshape ICE operations—using the language of federalism and constitutional rights to challenge how immigration law is enforced. Todd Huff breaks down what these lawsuits are really arguing (administrative warrants, “sensitive locations,” and claims of political retaliation), and why the bigger story is a sudden left-wing “concern” for federalism only when enforcement shows up in blue jurisdictions. He also revisits Arizona v. United States and explains the difference between civil immigration removal and criminal conviction—plus why enforcement isn't “punishment,” it's the federal government doing its job.
On June 27, 2025, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire challenging President Trump's Executive Order No. 14,160, which denies birthright citizenship to children born after February 19th, 2025 to parents who are either illegally present in or temporary residents of the United States. On July 10th, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction barring the execution of the order, and, in September, the Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari before judgment. The Court granted cert and will hear oral arguments in early 2026.The case hinges on the question of whether children born to illegal or temporary residents of the United States are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and thus entitled to citizenship under the 14th amendment. Join us for this timely discussion on a case with immense implications for immigration enforcement, our understanding of the 14th amendment, and the meaning of birthright citizenship.Featuring:Trent McCotter, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLCProf. Michael Ramsey, Warren Distinguished Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of LawProf. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School(Moderator) Prof. Randy Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center
On January 3, 2026, history was made.In this special episode of The Right Side, Doug Billings breaks down the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces — an operation that shocked the world and triggered immediate panic from the political Left and corporate media.This is not a rant. This is a step-by-step explanation of what actually happened.Doug explains:How the U.S. operation unfolded in CaracasWhat was happening behind the scenes long before the arrestWhy Maduro was a wanted criminal under U.S. lawThe federal indictments, narco-terrorism charges, and cartel connectionsAnd why this operation was legal, constitutional, and lawful under existing U.S. authorityMost importantly, this episode dismantles the false claims that the arrest was “illegal,” “imperialistic,” or “unauthorized,” and explains why those talking points collapse under even basic legal scrutiny.This is a defining moment — not just for Venezuela, but for the principle that criminal regimes do not get immunity when they poison nations and traffic terror.If you want facts, context, and constitutional clarity — not hysteria — this episode is for you.Subscribe to The Right Side on YouTube: @TheRightSideDougBillingsSupport the show
Send us a textJoin your hosts on this week of Serious Privacy, Paul Breitbarth, Ralph O'Brien, and Dr. K Royal as they close out 2025 with favorite moments and episodes, state law review, and predictions. And of course, a little bit about EU data protection. We'll be back January 28, global privacy / data protection day! If you have comments or questions, find us on LinkedIn and Instagram @seriousprivacy, and on BlueSky under @seriousprivacy.eu, @europaulb.seriousprivacy.eu, @heartofprivacy.bsky.app and @igrobrien.seriousprivacy.eu, and email podcast@seriousprivacy.eu. Rate and Review us! From Season 6, our episodes are edited by Fey O'Brien. Our intro and exit music is Channel Intro 24 by Sascha Ende, licensed under CC BY 4.0. with the voiceover by Tim Foley.
What are the legal implications of the unprecedented mass pardoning of the January 6th rioters? What does it say about American rule of law? President Biden's DOJ prosecuted nearly 1,600 of the January 6, 2021, rioters—many for acts of shocking violence against police and government offices. On January 20, newly sworn-in President Trump, in one of his first official acts, issued a sweeping grant of clemency to all of the rioters charged in connection with the attack on the Capitol attack. He pardoned most defendants and commuted the sentences of 14 members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers militia, most of whom had been convicted of seditious conspiracy. The response from some of these violent rioters since the pardons has been alarming.“The people who did this, they need to feel the heat. We need to find and put them behind bars for what they did,” said Enrique Tarrio, the former national Proud Boys leader, sentenced to a 22-year sentence on seditious conspiracy charges, on Alex Jones' podcast soon after his pardon. Our guests today are Stanford Law Professor Shirin Sinnar and former DOJ prosecutor Brendan Ballou.Sinnar's scholarship, including a recent study of hate groups, focuses on the legal treatment of political violence, the procedural dimensions of civil rights litigation, and the role of institutions in protecting individual rights and democratic values in the national security contextBallou was a lawyer at the Department of Justice for five years. He resigned on January 23 soon after President Trump's pardons. In a New York Times opinion essay, he wrote: “For while some convicted rioters seem genuinely remorseful, and others appear simply ready to put politics behind them, many others are emboldened by the termination of what they see as unjust prosecutions. Freed by the president, they have never been more dangerous.” He graduated from Stanford Law in 2016.Links:Shirin Sinnar >>> Stanford Law pageNew York Times piece by Brendan Ballou >>> I Prosecuted the Capitol Rioters. They Have Never Been More Dangerous.Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>> Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) The January 6th Prosecutions and the Pardon Power(00:06:26) Rewriting History and the Threat of Political Violence (00:11:56) The Future of Political Violence in the U.S. (17:24) Addressing Militia Violence and Legal Gaps(21:37) State-Level Prosecutions and Risks of Expanding Criminal Laws(25:27) Pardons, Political Violence, and Historical Parallels Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Birthright citizenship is headed to the Supreme Court — and the stakes couldn't be higher. Michael Smerconish sits down with Washington Post columnist and National Review editor Ramesh Ponnuru to unpack one of the most consequential constitutional debates of our time. As the Court prepares to hear a challenge to birthright citizenship, they explore what the Constitution actually says, how the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should be interpreted, and whether the U.S. is truly an outlier compared to the rest of the world. From immigration enforcement and executive authority to American exceptionalism and global norms, this conversation breaks down the legal arguments, policy tradeoffs, and political realities surrounding a case that could reshape who gets to be an American. A must-listen ahead of what could be a landmark Supreme Court decision. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
