Podcasts about Dred Scott

President Trump's order that would end automatic citizenship for the children of many categories of immigrants has been blocked from going into effect by three separate federal judges. Those injunctions have been upheld by three separate appeals courts.So Thursday's case at the Supreme Court was really about two questions: Whether the constitution guarantees birthright citizenship and whether judges can issue nationwide injunctions against federal policies.University of Virginia law professor Amanda Frost, author of the book You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers, followed the arguments and breaks down clues that point to the Justices' thinking.For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org.Email us at considerthis@npr.org.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Whether it's attempting to overturn birthright citizenship, effectively stripping citizenship from American children, or claiming Alien Enemy Act war powers under an imaginary invasion, Trump's anti-immigrant moves are outlandishly unconstitutional. They are also being met with significant pushback from judges, even conservative ones. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern who explains the landmark ruling from a Trump-appointed judge in the southern district of Texas that declared the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act is unlawful. Next, Amanda Frost, University of Virginia law professor and author of  You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers, joins Dahlia to explain what Birthright Citizenship really means, and all the ways Trump is working to redefine what it means to be an American, including stripping citizenship from children and denaturalizing adults.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Whether it's attempting to overturn birthright citizenship, effectively stripping citizenship from American children, or claiming Alien Enemy Act war powers under an imaginary invasion, Trump's anti-immigrant moves are outlandishly unconstitutional. They are also being met with significant pushback from judges, even conservative ones. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern who explains the landmark ruling from a Trump-appointed judge in the southern district of Texas that declared the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act is unlawful. Next, Amanda Frost, University of Virginia law professor and author of  You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers, joins Dahlia to explain what Birthright Citizenship really means, and all the ways Trump is working to redefine what it means to be an American, including stripping citizenship from children and denaturalizing adults.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Whether it's attempting to overturn birthright citizenship, effectively stripping citizenship from American children, or claiming Alien Enemy Act war powers under an imaginary invasion, Trump's anti-immigrant moves are outlandishly unconstitutional. They are also being met with significant pushback from judges, even conservative ones. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern who explains the landmark ruling from a Trump-appointed judge in the southern district of Texas that declared the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act is unlawful. Next, Amanda Frost, University of Virginia law professor and author of  You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers, joins Dahlia to explain what Birthright Citizenship really means, and all the ways Trump is working to redefine what it means to be an American, including stripping citizenship from children and denaturalizing adults.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In light of recent national news involving young citizens being sent out of the country, I revisited an interview from 2021 about historical efforts to strip citizenship rights, including the right to remain, from Americans. In the inverview, I spoke with Amanda Frost about her book on the topic. You can find her book here: You Are Not American: Citizen Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers by Amanda Frost

President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship has reignited debates over the 14th Amendment and the meaning of citizenship in America. Legal experts Gabriel Chin of the University of California, Davis School of Law; Amanda Frost of the University of Virginia School of Law; Kurt Lash of the University of Richmond School of Law; and Ilan Wurman of the University of Minnesota Law School analyze the legal challenges surrounding birthright citizenship, explore the constitutional and historical arguments on all sides of this debate, and discuss its broader implications for immigration. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources Trump v. CASA, Inc., United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (2025) Trump v. Washington, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2025) Trump v. New Jersey, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (2025) Amanda Frost, You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers (2021) Amanda Frost, “The Coming Assault on Birthright Citizenship,” The Atlantic (Jan. 7, 2025) Ilan Wurman and Randy Barnett, “Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship,” The New York Times (Feb. 15, 2025) Ilan Wurman, “Jurisdiction and Citizenship,” Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 25-27 (April 14, 2025) Gabriel “Jack” Chin and Paul Finkelman, “Birthright Citizenship, Slave Trade Legislation, and the Origins of Federal Immigration Regulation,” UC Davis Law Review, Vol. 54 (April 8, 2021) Gabriel J. Chin, “America Has Freaked Out Over Birthright Citizenship For Centuries,” Talking Points Memo (Aug. 2015) Kurt Lash, “Prima Facie Citizenship: Birth, Allegiance and the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause,” SSRN (Feb. 22, 2025) Kurt Lash, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities of American Citizenship (2014) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. ⁠Sign up⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠live program⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠YouTube⁠. Support our important work. ⁠Donate

Today Dr. Scott Spillman joins in to talk about how historians have conceptualized slavery and its role in the development of the United States. Get ready for a history of the history of slavery.About our guest:Scott Spillman is an American historian and the author of the book Making Sense of Slavery: America's Long Reckoning, from the Founding Era to Today (2025). His essays and reviews have appeared in The Point, Liberties, The New Yorker, The New Republic, n+1, the Chronicle Review, and the Los Angeles Review of Books, and he has published academic articles in Reviews in American History, History of Education Quarterly, and North Carolina Historical Review.Scott has a PhD in history from Stanford University, and before that he studied history, English, and political philosophy at the University of North Carolina (and Duke University) as a Robertson Scholar. Originally from Atlanta, he now lives in Denver with his partner and their twin daughters. He also spends part of his time in Leadville, where he serves as chair of the city's historic preservation commission. When he is not reading and writing, he enjoys running in the mountains.

First Chris and Amy discuss President Trump's announcement of new tariffs and the potential effects on the economy, including rising consumer prices and strained international relations. Ryan McClure joins to talk about the historic reopening of St. Louis' Old Courthouse, highlighting renovations, new exhibits, and its connection to the Dred Scott case. Major Garrett and financial expert Dave Simons dive deeper into the global impact of the tariffs, political pushback, and the stock market reaction. Later, Samantha Waigand shares details about Waigand Wheels, a nonprofit that pairs adults with special needs with a buddy for community deliveries, while promoting their Wagon Wheel Speedway Spectacular fundraiser on April 26th. Matt Pauley breaks down the early season for the Cardinals, including Ivan Herrera's standout performances. Lastly, Lukas Denis calls in to discuss his key interception in the Battlehawks' victory over the Houston Roughnecks and previews the upcoming game against the San Antonio Brahmas.

After the Civil War, it took a century of protests, boycotts, demonstrations, and legal challenges to end the Jim Crow system of segregation and legal discrimination. Learn about the brave men, women, and children that risked their personal safety, and sometimes their lives, in the quest for Black Americans to achieve equal rights.

The One Stupid Fuck returns from ep. 130 with much more new information about how to liberate yourself from the corporate controlled matrix & how to truly be a sovereign person without being deceived & manipulated by your "country". Please check this one out on YouTube because Brandon presents a lot of screen sharing & you may want to pause & read along. It's a lot to take in so hold onto your hats! What are you waiting for? Visit https://onestupidfuck.com/ & breaking free now with his free courses! Please like, share, subscribe and leave a review on Apple Podcasts & Spotify!! Also you can feed Nigel the goat some extra shekels at my patreon if you would be so kind. He will love you for all eternity. Please like, share, subscribe and leave a review on Apple Podcasts & Spotify!! Also you can feed Nigel the goat some extra shekels at my patreon if you would be so kind. He will love you for all eternity. Patreon here: patreon.com/redpillcartelpodcast Always feel free to ask to get on the show! Email redpillcartelpod@gmail.com One stop shop for all links: https://linktr.ee/redpillcartelpodcast

This Day in Legal History: Dred Scott DecidedOn March 6, 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its infamous ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, a decision that deepened national tensions over slavery. The Court held that Dred Scott, an enslaved man who had lived in free territories, was not a U.S. citizen and therefore had no legal standing to sue for his freedom. In a sweeping opinion by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court went further, declaring that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in federal territories. This effectively struck down the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had restricted the spread of slavery in certain parts of the country. The ruling was celebrated in the South but outraged abolitionists and many in the North, who saw it as an alarming expansion of pro-slavery power.The Dred Scott decision is widely regarded as one of the worst in Supreme Court history, as it denied citizenship and legal protections to Black Americans. It also emboldened pro-slavery forces while further alienating the growing anti-slavery movement. The backlash contributed to the intensifying sectional divide that would lead to the Civil War just four years later. During the war, President Abraham Lincoln and Congress took steps to undermine the decision, culminating in the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments. These amendments abolished slavery and established birthright citizenship, directly overturning Dred Scott. Today, the case stands as a stark reminder of how the law has been used to uphold racial injustice—and how later legal reforms can correct such profound wrongs.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against President Donald Trump's effort to withhold payments from foreign aid organizations for work already completed. The decision upheld an order by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, requiring the government to release nearly $2 billion in funds owed to contractors and grant recipients under USAID and the State Department. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court's liberal justices to form the majority, while four conservative justices dissented. The Trump administration had paused all foreign aid on January 20, citing an “America First” agenda, which disrupted humanitarian efforts worldwide. Aid organizations sued, arguing Trump exceeded his authority by defunding programs approved by Congress. The administration contended that enforcing payments without proper review amounted to judicial overreach. Despite Ali's repeated orders, the administration largely kept the funds frozen, prompting legal battles over compliance. Plaintiffs warned that continued delays would cause “extraordinary and irreversible harm” to millions relying on aid. The Supreme Court did not provide a rationale for its order but instructed Ali to clarify compliance obligations. A hearing is scheduled for March 7 to determine the next steps.US Supreme Court won't let Trump withhold payment to foreign aid groups | ReutersDozens of U.S. hospital systems and healthcare providers have filed lawsuits against Blue Cross Blue Shield, alleging the insurer underpaid them by billions. These providers chose to opt out of a $2.8 billion class-action settlement in Alabama, which is awaiting final approval. The new lawsuits, filed in federal courts in California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, argue that Blue Cross and its affiliates conspired to divide the market, reducing competition and driving down reimbursement rates in violation of antitrust laws. Plaintiffs, including Bon Secours Mercy Health and Temple University Health, believe they could recover more through individual lawsuits than the settlement. Blue Cross has denied wrongdoing and declined to comment. The final approval hearing for the Alabama settlement is scheduled for July 29. This litigation follows a separate $2.7 billion antitrust settlement in 2020 for commercial and individual subscribers, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld last year. Some large companies also opted out of that settlement to pursue their own claims.Hospitals line up to sue Blue Cross, opting out of $2.8 bln settlement | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has the authority to license temporary nuclear waste storage sites, a case brought by Texas and oil industry interests. The dispute centers on a facility in western Texas, licensed by the NRC in 2021, which opponents argue poses environmental and security risks. Some conservative justices questioned whether "temporary" storage could last indefinitely, undermining efforts to establish a permanent waste site. Liberal justices focused on whether the plaintiffs had legal standing, as they did not initially challenge the NRC's decision through the agency's process. The case follows past failures to establish a permanent nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, despite significant federal investment. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled the NRC lacked authority under the Atomic Energy Act, prompting the Biden administration to appeal—a move continued under Trump. A decision is expected by June.US Supreme Court hears Texas nuclear waste storage dispute | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

National Oreo Cookie day. Entertainment from 1976. Battle of the Alamo ended, Dred Scott decision, Aspirin invented, Silly Putty went on sale. Todays birthdays - Michelangelo, Lou Costello, Ed McMahon, Mary Wilson, Kiki Dee, Rob Reiner, Tom Arnold, D.L. Hughley, Skip Ewing, Connie Britton. Nancy Reagan died.Intro - Pour some sugar on me - Def Leppard   http://defleppard.com/Oreo cookie TV commercialLove machine part 1 - MiraclesGood hearted woman - Waylon Jennings Willie NelsonBirthdays - In da club - 50 Cent    http://50cent.com/Who's on first - Abbott and CostelloPretty Baby - SupremesDon't go breaking my heart - Kiki Dee Elton JohnAll in the family TV themeBurnin a hole in my heart - Skip EwingExit - Its not love -    Dokken http://dokken.net/History and Factoids home page

In the latest episode of Liberty and Learning, Mark Levin and Dr. Larry Arnn engage in a captivating discussion about the role of federal district judges and their impact on the executive branch. As the conversation unfolds, they explore the historical context of judicial power, the implications of overreach by judges, and the urgent need for Congress to take action to restore balance within the government. Levin and Arnn begin by discussing how federal judges are created by Congress and the limitations of their authority. They highlight the importance of the separation of powers, a fundamental principle that ensures no single branch of government can dominate the others. This principle is crucial for maintaining the rule of law and protecting the rights of citizens. One of the key points raised is the alarming trend of federal judges making nationwide rulings that disrupt the functioning of the executive branch. Levin and Arnn argue that this overreach not only violates the common sense understanding of judicial authority but also undermines the very foundation of our constitutional system. They emphasize that judges should only decide cases that directly involve the parties before them, rather than issuing sweeping injunctions that affect the entire nation. As the conversation progresses, the duo delves into the role of Congress in addressing judicial overreach. They stress that Congress has the power to legislate and could easily pass laws to limit the authority of district judges. This is a crucial point, as it highlights the responsibility of elected officials to uphold the Constitution and ensure that the government operates within its designated boundaries. The discussion also touches on the historical significance of the Dred Scott decision, which serves as a reminder of the potential consequences of judicial overreach. Levin and Arne draw parallels between past and present, suggesting that we are at a critical juncture in history where the balance of power is being tested once again. Liberty and Learning with Mark Levin and Larry Arnn is a 10-part series, hosted by veteran broadcaster and constitutional law expert, Mark Levin, and his good friend, Dr. Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale College, dives deep into the founding principles of the U.S., as Americans face both crisis and opportunity. Levin and Arnn take listeners on a journey forward, as they unpack the country's basic foundations and the self-government they require. Mark Levin and Dr. Arnn bring their knowledge and wisdom to bear in a candid conversation between lifelong friends on today's latest news events. They will touch on the points of crisis in America, addressing each in light of our constitutional government, and tackling the pressing issues of our time to see how they fit into the grand tapestry of American history. The discussion will delve deep into the issues at the forefront of our nation's concerns, like education, borders, citizenship, separation of powers, state and local government, and much more. To learn more about Hillsdale College, go to https://www.hillsdale.edu/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In the latest episode of Liberty and Learning, Mark Levin and Dr. Larry Arnn engage in a captivating discussion about the role of federal district judges and their impact on the executive branch. As the conversation unfolds, they explore the historical context of judicial power, the implications of overreach by judges, and the urgent need for Congress to take action to restore balance within the government. Levin and Arnn begin by discussing how federal judges are created by Congress and the limitations of their authority. They highlight the importance of the separation of powers, a fundamental principle that ensures no single branch of government can dominate the others. This principle is crucial for maintaining the rule of law and protecting the rights of citizens. One of the key points raised is the alarming trend of federal judges making nationwide rulings that disrupt the functioning of the executive branch. Levin and Arnn argue that this overreach not only violates the common sense understanding of judicial authority but also undermines the very foundation of our constitutional system. They emphasize that judges should only decide cases that directly involve the parties before them, rather than issuing sweeping injunctions that affect the entire nation. As the conversation progresses, the duo delves into the role of Congress in addressing judicial overreach. They stress that Congress has the power to legislate and could easily pass laws to limit the authority of district judges. This is a crucial point, as it highlights the responsibility of elected officials to uphold the Constitution and ensure that the government operates within its designated boundaries. The discussion also touches on the historical significance of the Dred Scott decision, which serves as a reminder of the potential consequences of judicial overreach. Levin and Arne draw parallels between past and present, suggesting that we are at a critical juncture in history where the balance of power is being tested once again. Liberty and Learning with Mark Levin and Larry Arnn is a 10-part series, hosted by veteran broadcaster and constitutional law expert, Mark Levin, and his good friend, Dr. Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale College, dives deep into the founding principles of the U.S., as Americans face both crisis and opportunity. Levin and Arnn take listeners on a journey forward, as they unpack the country’s basic foundations and the self-government they require. Mark Levin and Dr. Arnn bring their knowledge and wisdom to bear in a candid conversation between lifelong friends on today’s latest news events. They will touch on the points of crisis in America, addressing each in light of our constitutional government, and tackling the pressing issues of our time to see how they fit into the grand tapestry of American history. The discussion will delve deep into the issues at the forefront of our nation’s concerns, like education, borders, citizenship, separation of powers, state and local government, and much more. To learn more about Hillsdale College, go to https://www.hillsdale.edu/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

DRED SCOTT “THE PACIFIC JAZZ GROUP” Los Angeles 2022Bernie's Tune, Nights At The Turntable, Utter ChaosEric Crystal (st) Dred Scott (p) John Wiitala (b) Smith Dobson (dr) VINCENT ARCHER “SHORT STORIES” New York, June 9, 2022Lighthouse, Mirai, Message to a friend, It takes two to know oneGerald Clayton (p) Vicente Archer (b) Bill Stewart (d) ROY CAMPBELL PYRAMID TRIO “ETHNIC STEW AND BREW” Chicago, IL, October 11 & 12, 2000Amadou diallo, Impressions of Yokohama (1)Roy Campbell (tp,flhrn,pocket-tp,perc) William Parker (b,perc,shakuhachi-fl-1) Hamid Drake (d,perc) Continue reading Puro Jazz 20 de febrero, 2025 at PuroJazz.

DRED SCOTT “THE PACIFIC JAZZ GROUP” Los Angeles 2022Bernie's Tune, Nights At The Turntable, Utter ChaosEric Crystal (st) Dred Scott (p) John Wiitala (b) Smith Dobson (dr) VINCENT ARCHER “SHORT STORIES” New York, June 9, 2022Lighthouse, Mirai, Message to a friend, It takes two to know oneGerald Clayton (p) Vicente Archer (b) Bill Stewart (d) ROY CAMPBELL PYRAMID TRIO “ETHNIC STEW AND BREW” Chicago, IL, October 11 & 12, 2000Amadou diallo, Impressions of Yokohama (1)Roy Campbell (tp,flhrn,pocket-tp,perc) William Parker (b,perc,shakuhachi-fl-1) Hamid Drake (d,perc) Continue reading Puro Jazz 20 de febrero, 2025 at PuroJazz.

About this episode: In 1868, the 14th Amendment established birthright citizenship in the United States. In this episode: a look at the court cases, historical events, and people that shaped one of the Constitution's human rights provisions. Guest: Martha Jones is a writer, historian and legal scholar, and a professor of history at the SNF Agora Institute. Host: Dr. Josh Sharfstein is vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, a faculty member in health policy, a pediatrician, and former secretary of Maryland's Health Department. Show links and related content: Dred Scott v. Sandford—National Archives Opinion of the Maryland Court of Appeals, Hughes v. Jackson (1858)—National Constitution Center United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)—National Constitution Center The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution Contact us: Have a question about something you heard? Looking for a transcript? Want to suggest a topic or guest? Contact us via email or visit our website. Follow us: @‌PublicHealthPod on Bluesky @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Instagram @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Facebook @‌PublicHealthOnCall on YouTube Here's our RSS feed

In this captivating episode of Dave Does History on Bill Mick Live, Dave Bowman takes us on a thought-provoking journey through the legal, historical, and cultural ramifications of birthright citizenship. This discussion dives into the heart of the 14th Amendment, unpacking its revolutionary impact on defining citizenship in the United States, while tracing its origins back to the Reconstruction Era. With his signature mix of wit and analytical insight, Dave explains the challenges and controversies surrounding the interpretation of the citizenship clause. From its role in overturning the infamous Dred Scott decision to its enduring implications in modern debates on immigration, the episode lays bare the struggles of a nation reconciling its foundational ideals with its ever-evolving demographics. Bowman also highlights key moments in the legal battles, including the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which cemented the principle of jus soli—citizenship by birthright. Listeners are treated to an engaging exploration of the broader cultural and geopolitical impacts of U.S. immigration policy, such as the exclusionary Immigration Act of 1924 and its unintended consequences, including strained international relations with Japan. Bowman challenges listeners to consider the long-term implications of revisiting this issue, raising essential questions about the balance between legal precedent, constitutional interpretation, and the nation's values. This episode isn't just a lesson in history—it's a masterclass in connecting the past to the present, reminding us why understanding history is crucial for navigating today's challenges. Whether you're a history enthusiast or just curious about the roots of today's debates, this discussion offers a fresh and insightful take that shouldn't be missed.

Some legal “experts” are claiming that the Supreme Court‘s infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision is still used in current law. That, of course, is nonsense. In fact, soon after its passage, many northern states essentially nullified “Scott” at the state level.Original article: Dred Scott, Politics, and the “Living” Constitution

Welcome to another episode of The Round Table! This week, Daniel, Preena, and Viola sit down with C. Evan Stewart, author of The Worst Supreme Court Decisions Ever! and a professor at Cornell University. Stewart delves into America's legal history, examining cases like Dred Scott v. Sanford and the importance of addressing the uncomfortable truths of the legal system. Stewart discusses the role of lawyers, explaining that their job is to represent clients rather than determine guilt or innocence, which is the responsibility of the jury and judge. He underscores how this distinction is vital to maintaining fairness and integrity in the legal system, even when cases involve contentious or morally complex issues. As a professor, Stewart highlights the need to teach history in its entirety, including its darker moments. He emphasizes that avoiding uncomfortable truths risks creating a distorted view of history, which hinders society's ability to learn from past mistakes. Stewart also stresses the significance of civic engagement, encouraging people to get involved in local elections and explore a variety of sources to understand history and legal cases. Informed voting and critical thinking, he argues, are crucial for shaping a more equitable and effective legal system. Despite its flaws, there's optimism about America's legal system and its potential for positive change. The system's resilience, he believes, comes from its ability to evolve through democratic processes and active participation from citizens.

Seth on New Years' Resolutions. Peggy Noonan's Wall Street Journal opinion entitled "Signposts on the Wisdom Trail." Seth reads from Justice John McLean's dissent in the 1857 Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sandford.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

HOUR 1 CALLS: history, "reparations," education, crime. HOUR 2 GUEST Cam Higby: Border horrors. Trump picks. Pro-Palestinian violence. The Hake Report, Wednesday, November 20, 2024 AD GUEST LINKS: Cam Higby linktr.ee/camhigby  |  News site: todayisamerica.com TIMESTAMPS * (0:00:00) Start: Cam Higby coming * (0:04:56) Biden mad Putin said the "N-word" * (0:06:27) Hey, guys! * (0:08:15) WILLIAM: Antron Brown; 3/5ths, Illegal; Reparations * (0:23:57) WILLIAM: Black Panthers, CA gun control, BHI * (0:25:51) JEFF: Reparations research; Trump UFC; Matt Gaetz Sonny Hostin * (0:31:31) JOE, AZ… history, 3/5ths, Dred Scott, the Fed * (0:40:30) JOE: Not wanting to be nerdy, Ivy League * (0:45:26) MARK: Sweet. NY stabbing. History. Hostin apology. * (0:51:52) WILLIAM #7: Keystone Cops? "You search the scriptures…" -Jesus * (0:59:58) GUEST: Cam Higby, border documentary… "Unlocked"  * (1:10:00) Cam: Hake's illegal story, Tom Homan, Wall, Asylum problem * (1:16:08) Tom Homan, Welfare vs Taxpayers, Immigrant crime * (1:21:49) Matt Gaetz, Pete Hegseth, Dr. Oz * (1:30:00) Al Sharpton, black people * (1:32:28) MARK, Atlanta, 1st: Ramon Rivera, alleged stabbing suspect * (1:34:27) Today is America site, pro-Palestinian protester violence * (1:43:22) RICK, VA: Truth about Israel * (1:49:26) Closing: Follow Cam Higby… Supers tomorrow! * (1:49:58) Starflyer 59 - "Fell in Love at 22" - 1998, The Fashion Focus LINKS BLOG  https://www.thehakereport.com/blog/2024/11/20/hake-cam-higby-2nd-hour-wed-11-20-24 PODCAST / Substack  HAKE NEWS from JLP  https://www.thehakereport.com/jlp-news/2024/11/20/hake-news-wed-11-20-24 Hake is live M-F 9-11a PT (11-1CT/12-2ET) Call-in 1-888-775-3773 https://www.thehakereport.com/show VIDEO  YouTube  -  Rumble*  -  Facebook  -  X  -  BitChute  -  Odysee*  PODCAST  Substack  -  Apple  -  Spotify  -  Castbox  -  Podcast Addict  *SUPER CHAT on platforms* above or  BuyMeACoffee, etc.  SHOP  Spring  -  Cameo  |  All My Links  JLP Network:  JLP  -  Church  -  TFS  -  Nick  -  Joel  -  Punchie   Get full access to HAKE at thehakereport.substack.com/subscribe

In his new book, Decade of Disunion, Robert W. Merry explores the critical lessons from the 1850s when the United States faced a growing crisis over slavery. The Mexican War's vast new territories sparked debates on expanding slavery, clashing with the 1820 Missouri Compromise. Key events such as the Compromise of 1850, the 1854 repeal of the Missouri Compromise, the 1857 Dred Scott decision, and John Brown's 1859 raid heightened tensions, leading to violent conflicts and further division between North and South. Merry focuses on the contrasting roles of South Carolina and Massachusetts. South Carolina, reliant on slave labor, debated secession, while Massachusetts became an antislavery stronghold, questioning the Constitution's role in abolishing slavery. These states' actions widened the national divide, making disunion inevitable. In December 1860, South Carolina's secession following Abraham Lincoln's election triggered the South's departure from the Union. Through the lens of key figures, Merry underscores the fragile nature of democracy and the continuous effort required to sustain it. Robert W. Merry spent 45 years in Washington, D.C., as a Wall Street Journal reporter and executive at Congressional Quarterly, including 12 years as CQ's president and editor-in-chief. After CQ was sold to the Economist, he also served as editor of the polemical magazines The National Interest and The American Conservative. He is the author of six books on American history and foreign policy, including the forthcoming Decade of Disunion: How Massachusetts and South Carolina Led the Way to Civil War, 1849-1861. Buy the Companion Book Decade of Disunion: How Massachusetts and South Carolina Led the Way to Civil War, 1849-1861 Third Place Books

BIN News anchors Bri Wood and Morgyn Wood join Host Ramses ja on today's podcast to review this week's major stories.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week on Look Forward, Jay and Brad return to have a wrap up conversation on the Democratic National Convention, Trump trying to push anti-constitutional rhetoric on flag burning, RFK Jr suspends his campaign but is it too late, Kamala Harris introduces her idea of going after unrealized capital gains on the mega wealthy, Trump will host a Jan 6th awards gala at his property, Republican group tries to use Dred Scott case to push new version of birtherism, Brian Kemp maybe unwilling to help Trump cheat, Jack Smith is back, the disappointing political downfall of Cornel West, James Comey popped his head back up again for attention, RFK Jr vs Whale - the single nuttiest thing you've ever heard, and much more!StoriesHarris and Co. knock it out of the park at the DNCThe campaign has raised half a billion dollars in a monthNew conservative hot topic…flag burning?Historical contextRFK Jr. is a massive sellout; who knew?But he may have waited too long?Kamala Harris' plan to tax unrealized capital gainsJanuary 6 was awesome, actually, here's an awards galaThis may be the dumbest Republican example of birtherism yetBrian Kemp might be signaling something very worrying for TrumpworldJack Smith's appeal is now activeWhy is this clown still running, again? ---- Second clown-like storyLocal arsonist voices support for Fire DepartmentThis Week in StupidA Whale…A WHALE!!!!!?

The National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) has outrageously invoked the infamous Dred Scott Supreme Court ruling in their challenge to Vice President Kamala Harris' candidacy — a move steeped in white nationalist ideology. The group argues that Harris is ineligible to run for president because her parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of birth. The Dred Scott ruling in 1857 said that Black people weren't citizens and could not expect any protection from the courts or government. This was one of the most racist and damaging Supreme Court decisions in American history and played a major role in pushing the country closer to the Civil War. In the current-day lawsuit filed to the Supreme Court, Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley, both Republicans, are also named, arguing that they're not natural-born citizens either. Legal experts are condemning this as a blatant racist attempt to revive racist rhetoric in the 2024 presidential race. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Send us a textHello and welcome back to 50Talk. This is Episode 114 and your hosts Cathy and Victor are happy that you all could join again this week. We have a few things to talk about and we have a "very special guest" joining us this week with an inside look at the goings on at the NABJ convention a few weeks ago in Chicago. We welcome once again one of our favorite listeners to the show. Kyla has a story to tell and she has waited to share it with 50Talk.While we have Kyla with us I bring up a topic that she has talked about a couple different times on Social Media. "The Grits Debate", how do you eat your grits? It amazes me to this day that people actually put sugar on their grits. I also want to take the food conversation a little further and talk about "the Watermelon Debate" and what type of watermelon you guys prefer. Cathy and I got a delicious watermelon this weekend and it had seeds and you know how Victor's mind works. Not only did Cathy and I have Covid a month ago but cases are on the rise in the United States. I heard on the News that at least 400 people a week are dying from Covid related issues. I know we have all heard this before but we still need to be safe out there. A new Vaccine dealing with the new strains is coming in early September. The CDC advice is to get Covid vaccine in September with your Flu shot. There is an article that I found in the Independent that is headlined " Republican group  cites notorious Dred Scott ruling as reason Kamala Harris can't be President". Yes it is real and yes I have heard this argument on a few different media outlets. You all have to look into this as well. On Fox News the "new Tucker Carlson" made some sexists remarks about our Vice President. Jesse Watters is a piece of work an needs to be held accountable for this horrible disrespect. Fox News just doesn't get it even after the almost $1billion fine they had to pay for lying. To end the show we hit Kyla with some fun questions but some question that get you to thinking for real. Thank you all for listening to Episode 114. We'll see you next week for another episode. Have a great Holiday weekend.     

In this episode of The Optimistic American, host Paul Johnson sits down with James Phillips, a law professor at BYU and the Constitutional Government Initiative Director at the Wheatley Institute. The conversation dives into Phillips' thought-provoking theory on “juristocracy”—the idea that the Supreme Court has assumed an overactive role in shaping American policy, thereby undermining the role of Congress and, by extension, the people's voice in democracy. Topics Discussed in the Video: The Concept of Juristocracy: James Phillips introduces his concept of juristocracy, explaining how the Supreme Court's expanded role in deciding key political and moral issues is shifting power away from Congress, leading to an imbalance in American democracy. Historical Context and Modern Implications: The discussion explores how the framers of the Constitution envisioned Congress as the most powerful branch, responsible for addressing contentious issues. Phillips uses historical examples, such as the Dred Scott decision and the civil rights movement, to illustrate the dangers of over-relying on the courts. Chevron Doctrine and Judicial Overreach: Phillips and Johnson discuss the Chevron Doctrine and its implications, particularly in how it has allowed agencies to interpret laws, often at the expense of the individual's rights. Phillips argues for a return to a more restrained judicial role, advocating for Congress to reclaim its lawmaking responsibilities. The Impact of Partisan Primaries and Political Polarization: The conversation delves into how the current primary system fosters extreme positions within both major political parties, making compromise and effective legislation more difficult. Phillips suggests reforms that could restore balance and reduce polarization. Originalism, Textualism, and the Future of the Court: Finally, Phillips discusses his originalist and textualist approach to interpreting the Constitution and how this contrasts with both liberal and conservative judicial activism. The episode touches on the growing movement for "common good constitutionalism" and its implications for the future of American jurisprudence.

We wrap up our coverage of the 2024 DNC with highlights from Kamala Harris's acceptance speech. Nick Offerman's "Kamala Man" song parody. Donald is chickening out of the debate again -- or is he? Sleepy Donald is sleepy. Weirdo RFK drops out and endorses Donald. RFK sawed off the head of a dead whale and drove home with it. Racist Republicans say Kamala is ineligible to be president because of Dred Scott? Michael Tomasky on ridiculing Donald. Blocking MAGA operatives in Georgia. With Buzz Burbank, music by Brad Brooks, I Hate You Just Kidding, and more!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

By granting former President Donald Trump absolute immunity from criminal prosecution "for official acts" as Trump fights charges stemming from his attempt to overthrow the 2020 election results, the Supreme Court "descended to a level of shame reserved until now for the Roger B. Taney Court that decided the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857," says Princeton historian Sean Wilentz in an essay for The New York Review. In this episode, Wilentz discusses the problems with the Court's 6-3 ruling that declared a president above the law -- a first in U.S. history.

In this episode of Life Matters, Brian Johnston takes an even deeper dive into the real significance of the recent presidential debate. Previously, he explored the debate through the eyes of Fox News host, Shannon Bream and United States Senator from Pennsylvania, John Fetterman. But both of those commentators from right and left were dealing with a very facile, surface analysis, particularly focusing on the significance of Joe Biden‘s performance.  But that is what EVERY media outlet has focused on - every Republican and even Democrat pundit has made America focus on that topic. And while competence of the current president is indeed an important topic, the deeper issue of the policies of this president and his party are being skated over. In this episode, Brian discusses the real issue of the Democratic Party and its extreme radical policies on the issues of life and family economics. In fact, every single aspect of life in the United States is being destroyed by the policies of this Democrat Party. Many pro-life individuals are committed Catholics or even committed Evangelicals and yet have remained registered Democrats. It is vitally important that whatever registration you may currently have, you must understand that only the Republican Party has taken a wise and measured position and life-affirming public policy stance. Only victory by the Republican Party can help restore the right to life for the innocent in the United States again.  Brian underscores an important principal regarding digging deeper into objective facts. That principle is outlined in many places, but in particular he points out Proverbs 14:15. “The simple believe every word. But the wise look well to their going.” Many people do not take the time to understand the language they hear and the language that they use. A single word can carry much more significance, and at times we ourselves can actually apply the wrong mean ing to a single word and then draw the wrong conclusions to the very language that we're hearing and using. That is what people do.  Wise people step back, look, and measure what the real meaning is. “The simple believe every word.”  Brian applies this principal to the single word “overturn.” Many people think that Roe v. Wade has been overturned. That isn't quite right. In fact, in someways Roe v. Wade has been thrown open, and pro- abortion states and advocates of death like Gavin Newsom, are actually attacking pro-life states and bringing the abortion industry into pro-life states - even violating their laws. In many ways, the Dobbs decision, by simply reducing our understanding of Roe as being a states' rights issue, has simplified and dumbed down our understanding.  In many ways, the Dobbs decision was like the Dred Scott decision, seeming to draw a line between pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces, but actually giving a distinct advantage to the slaveholders and to advocates of slavery.  So the abortion issue still must be addressed by the Supreme Court in order to obtain a complete victory.  Nevertheless, in the presidential debate, former President Trump focused on the real issues and not just the stumbling and bumbling of President Biden. President Trump did what every pro-life individual must do today.  He understood that the Democrat Party themselves, not just Biden, are the radicals. He underscored the current law, which in fact, allows for abortion on-demand and simply empowers doctors to kill a baby through all nine months and even post-birth. Joe Biden, and all Democrats, like to pretend that that's not the case and will willingly lie. But Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton created that exact scenario. Doctors are now killers and unless we, as pro-lifers, focus on the killing nature of the medical profession as determined by Roe, we will not win. The debate has given all of us a great opportunity to cut through the fog regarding what Roe  is and was, and what real issues are at stake in this election.  Whether or not Joe Biden is the nominee really isn't the issue.  The entire policy structure of the Democrat Party is the real issue. 

Myths about the powers held by the United States are often supported by the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which derives its logic from the interpretation of a document that the US itself developed. Therefore, when pressure is placed on a specific legal precedent, the shallowness of its validity is revealed. Dr. Mónica A. Jiménez accomplishes this kind of scholarly work in her recently published book Making Never-Never Land: Race and Law in the Creation of Puerto Rico (University of North Carolina Press, 2024). By tracing the legal logic of what continues to animate the colonial dynamics between the United States and Puerto Rico, Jiménez offers a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that both folds time and space to make clear how late-19th century Supreme Court logics and opinions continue to subjugate the land and people of Puerto Rico to colonial violence. Split into two sections, the first half of the book details the key case Downes v. Bidwell (1901), while the second half explores how the legal ramifications of Downes continued to haunt the archipelago. The first chapter focuses on the development of Downes and its outcome, which argued that territories of the United States were not allowed to access certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The ambiguous legal foundation for this decision was established in 1900 after Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States when the US Supreme Court established the territorial incorporation doctrine, effectively creating the legal category of “unincorporated territory." Chapter two probes the white supremacist U.S. legal landscape to offer a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that shows the reader how U.S. settler colonialism and empire-making are dependent on the reuse and recycling of legal precedents and tactics that disenfranchised and dispossessed racially marginalized communities. By excavating the legal opinions handed down during the Marshal Trilolgy and Dred Scott v. Sandford – a collection of Supreme Court cases that defined 19th-century legal policy for Native Americans and African Americans, respectively – Jiménez makes clear that “It is not a coincidence that the most shameful cases in the United States' legal history of race should serve as direct precedents to a decision that continues to serve as the basis for Puerto Rico's exclusion more than one hundred years after it was handed down” (9). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/latino-studies

Myths about the powers held by the United States are often supported by the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which derives its logic from the interpretation of a document that the US itself developed. Therefore, when pressure is placed on a specific legal precedent, the shallowness of its validity is revealed. Dr. Mónica A. Jiménez accomplishes this kind of scholarly work in her recently published book Making Never-Never Land: Race and Law in the Creation of Puerto Rico (University of North Carolina Press, 2024). By tracing the legal logic of what continues to animate the colonial dynamics between the United States and Puerto Rico, Jiménez offers a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that both folds time and space to make clear how late-19th century Supreme Court logics and opinions continue to subjugate the land and people of Puerto Rico to colonial violence. Split into two sections, the first half of the book details the key case Downes v. Bidwell (1901), while the second half explores how the legal ramifications of Downes continued to haunt the archipelago. The first chapter focuses on the development of Downes and its outcome, which argued that territories of the United States were not allowed to access certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The ambiguous legal foundation for this decision was established in 1900 after Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States when the US Supreme Court established the territorial incorporation doctrine, effectively creating the legal category of “unincorporated territory." Chapter two probes the white supremacist U.S. legal landscape to offer a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that shows the reader how U.S. settler colonialism and empire-making are dependent on the reuse and recycling of legal precedents and tactics that disenfranchised and dispossessed racially marginalized communities. By excavating the legal opinions handed down during the Marshal Trilolgy and Dred Scott v. Sandford – a collection of Supreme Court cases that defined 19th-century legal policy for Native Americans and African Americans, respectively – Jiménez makes clear that “It is not a coincidence that the most shameful cases in the United States' legal history of race should serve as direct precedents to a decision that continues to serve as the basis for Puerto Rico's exclusion more than one hundred years after it was handed down” (9). 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

Myths about the powers held by the United States are often supported by the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which derives its logic from the interpretation of a document that the US itself developed. Therefore, when pressure is placed on a specific legal precedent, the shallowness of its validity is revealed. Dr. Mónica A. Jiménez accomplishes this kind of scholarly work in her recently published book Making Never-Never Land: Race and Law in the Creation of Puerto Rico (University of North Carolina Press, 2024). By tracing the legal logic of what continues to animate the colonial dynamics between the United States and Puerto Rico, Jiménez offers a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that both folds time and space to make clear how late-19th century Supreme Court logics and opinions continue to subjugate the land and people of Puerto Rico to colonial violence. Split into two sections, the first half of the book details the key case Downes v. Bidwell (1901), while the second half explores how the legal ramifications of Downes continued to haunt the archipelago. The first chapter focuses on the development of Downes and its outcome, which argued that territories of the United States were not allowed to access certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The ambiguous legal foundation for this decision was established in 1900 after Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States when the US Supreme Court established the territorial incorporation doctrine, effectively creating the legal category of “unincorporated territory." Chapter two probes the white supremacist U.S. legal landscape to offer a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that shows the reader how U.S. settler colonialism and empire-making are dependent on the reuse and recycling of legal precedents and tactics that disenfranchised and dispossessed racially marginalized communities. By excavating the legal opinions handed down during the Marshal Trilolgy and Dred Scott v. Sandford – a collection of Supreme Court cases that defined 19th-century legal policy for Native Americans and African Americans, respectively – Jiménez makes clear that “It is not a coincidence that the most shameful cases in the United States' legal history of race should serve as direct precedents to a decision that continues to serve as the basis for Puerto Rico's exclusion more than one hundred years after it was handed down” (9). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Myths about the powers held by the United States are often supported by the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which derives its logic from the interpretation of a document that the US itself developed. Therefore, when pressure is placed on a specific legal precedent, the shallowness of its validity is revealed. Dr. Mónica A. Jiménez accomplishes this kind of scholarly work in her recently published book Making Never-Never Land: Race and Law in the Creation of Puerto Rico (University of North Carolina Press, 2024). By tracing the legal logic of what continues to animate the colonial dynamics between the United States and Puerto Rico, Jiménez offers a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that both folds time and space to make clear how late-19th century Supreme Court logics and opinions continue to subjugate the land and people of Puerto Rico to colonial violence. Split into two sections, the first half of the book details the key case Downes v. Bidwell (1901), while the second half explores how the legal ramifications of Downes continued to haunt the archipelago. The first chapter focuses on the development of Downes and its outcome, which argued that territories of the United States were not allowed to access certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The ambiguous legal foundation for this decision was established in 1900 after Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States when the US Supreme Court established the territorial incorporation doctrine, effectively creating the legal category of “unincorporated territory." Chapter two probes the white supremacist U.S. legal landscape to offer a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that shows the reader how U.S. settler colonialism and empire-making are dependent on the reuse and recycling of legal precedents and tactics that disenfranchised and dispossessed racially marginalized communities. By excavating the legal opinions handed down during the Marshal Trilolgy and Dred Scott v. Sandford – a collection of Supreme Court cases that defined 19th-century legal policy for Native Americans and African Americans, respectively – Jiménez makes clear that “It is not a coincidence that the most shameful cases in the United States' legal history of race should serve as direct precedents to a decision that continues to serve as the basis for Puerto Rico's exclusion more than one hundred years after it was handed down” (9). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/latin-american-studies

Myths about the powers held by the United States are often supported by the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which derives its logic from the interpretation of a document that the US itself developed. Therefore, when pressure is placed on a specific legal precedent, the shallowness of its validity is revealed. Dr. Mónica A. Jiménez accomplishes this kind of scholarly work in her recently published book Making Never-Never Land: Race and Law in the Creation of Puerto Rico (University of North Carolina Press, 2024). By tracing the legal logic of what continues to animate the colonial dynamics between the United States and Puerto Rico, Jiménez offers a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that both folds time and space to make clear how late-19th century Supreme Court logics and opinions continue to subjugate the land and people of Puerto Rico to colonial violence. Split into two sections, the first half of the book details the key case Downes v. Bidwell (1901), while the second half explores how the legal ramifications of Downes continued to haunt the archipelago. The first chapter focuses on the development of Downes and its outcome, which argued that territories of the United States were not allowed to access certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The ambiguous legal foundation for this decision was established in 1900 after Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States when the US Supreme Court established the territorial incorporation doctrine, effectively creating the legal category of “unincorporated territory." Chapter two probes the white supremacist U.S. legal landscape to offer a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that shows the reader how U.S. settler colonialism and empire-making are dependent on the reuse and recycling of legal precedents and tactics that disenfranchised and dispossessed racially marginalized communities. By excavating the legal opinions handed down during the Marshal Trilolgy and Dred Scott v. Sandford – a collection of Supreme Court cases that defined 19th-century legal policy for Native Americans and African Americans, respectively – Jiménez makes clear that “It is not a coincidence that the most shameful cases in the United States' legal history of race should serve as direct precedents to a decision that continues to serve as the basis for Puerto Rico's exclusion more than one hundred years after it was handed down” (9). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/caribbean-studies

Myths about the powers held by the United States are often supported by the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which derives its logic from the interpretation of a document that the US itself developed. Therefore, when pressure is placed on a specific legal precedent, the shallowness of its validity is revealed. Dr. Mónica A. Jiménez accomplishes this kind of scholarly work in her recently published book Making Never-Never Land: Race and Law in the Creation of Puerto Rico (University of North Carolina Press, 2024). By tracing the legal logic of what continues to animate the colonial dynamics between the United States and Puerto Rico, Jiménez offers a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that both folds time and space to make clear how late-19th century Supreme Court logics and opinions continue to subjugate the land and people of Puerto Rico to colonial violence. Split into two sections, the first half of the book details the key case Downes v. Bidwell (1901), while the second half explores how the legal ramifications of Downes continued to haunt the archipelago. The first chapter focuses on the development of Downes and its outcome, which argued that territories of the United States were not allowed to access certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The ambiguous legal foundation for this decision was established in 1900 after Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States when the US Supreme Court established the territorial incorporation doctrine, effectively creating the legal category of “unincorporated territory." Chapter two probes the white supremacist U.S. legal landscape to offer a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that shows the reader how U.S. settler colonialism and empire-making are dependent on the reuse and recycling of legal precedents and tactics that disenfranchised and dispossessed racially marginalized communities. By excavating the legal opinions handed down during the Marshal Trilolgy and Dred Scott v. Sandford – a collection of Supreme Court cases that defined 19th-century legal policy for Native Americans and African Americans, respectively – Jiménez makes clear that “It is not a coincidence that the most shameful cases in the United States' legal history of race should serve as direct precedents to a decision that continues to serve as the basis for Puerto Rico's exclusion more than one hundred years after it was handed down” (9). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Myths about the powers held by the United States are often supported by the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which derives its logic from the interpretation of a document that the US itself developed. Therefore, when pressure is placed on a specific legal precedent, the shallowness of its validity is revealed. Dr. Mónica A. Jiménez accomplishes this kind of scholarly work in her recently published book Making Never-Never Land: Race and Law in the Creation of Puerto Rico (University of North Carolina Press, 2024). By tracing the legal logic of what continues to animate the colonial dynamics between the United States and Puerto Rico, Jiménez offers a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that both folds time and space to make clear how late-19th century Supreme Court logics and opinions continue to subjugate the land and people of Puerto Rico to colonial violence. Split into two sections, the first half of the book details the key case Downes v. Bidwell (1901), while the second half explores how the legal ramifications of Downes continued to haunt the archipelago. The first chapter focuses on the development of Downes and its outcome, which argued that territories of the United States were not allowed to access certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The ambiguous legal foundation for this decision was established in 1900 after Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States when the US Supreme Court established the territorial incorporation doctrine, effectively creating the legal category of “unincorporated territory." Chapter two probes the white supremacist U.S. legal landscape to offer a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that shows the reader how U.S. settler colonialism and empire-making are dependent on the reuse and recycling of legal precedents and tactics that disenfranchised and dispossessed racially marginalized communities. By excavating the legal opinions handed down during the Marshal Trilolgy and Dred Scott v. Sandford – a collection of Supreme Court cases that defined 19th-century legal policy for Native Americans and African Americans, respectively – Jiménez makes clear that “It is not a coincidence that the most shameful cases in the United States' legal history of race should serve as direct precedents to a decision that continues to serve as the basis for Puerto Rico's exclusion more than one hundred years after it was handed down” (9). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Join me today as we delve into the tumultuous presidency of James Buchanan, the fifteenth President of the United States. Discover how his support for the controversial Dred Scott decision and the ongoing conflicts over slavery and sectional tensions set the stage for the Civil War. Let's explore the intriguing and complex life of a president who struggled to unite a nation in perilous times. Podcast notes: https://ancestralfindings.com/james-buchanan-the-precarious-presidency/  

The Supreme Court didn't JUST rule that presidents have absolute presidential immunity. They actually ruled that presidents have absolute presidential immunity PLUS.Constitutional scholars left, right, and center are excoriating the new Supreme Court opinion that 1. contradicts the expressed language of our constitution, 2. actually repeals portions of our constitution, and, in essence, 3. declares the constitution is unconstitutional. Yes, that is illogical, but that is precisely what Chief Justice Roberts and the radical right-wing block of justices did in Trump vs. United States.This ruling gives Donald Trump a blueprint to convert America into a banana republic. And Donald Trump is exactly the kind of day-one-dictator who will do it. This ruling not only excuses lawless conduct by a corrupt president, it endorses such conduct, and thereby encourages future presidents to act lawlessly and to direct others to to the same then simply exercise his core constitutional power of the presidential pardon to pardon all of his criminal associates who carry out his unlawful commands. This is not just absolute presidential power. It is absolute presidential power PLUS. And like Dred Scott, Korematsu, and Plessy vs. Ferguson, this opinion must not stand.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Supreme Court didn't JUST rule that presidents have absolute presidential immunity. They actually ruled that presidents have absolute presidential immunity PLUS.Constitutional scholars left, right, and center are excoriating the new Supreme Court opinion that 1. contradicts the expressed language of our constitution, 2. actually repeals portions of our constitution, and, in essence, 3. declares the constitution is unconstitutional. Yes, that is illogical, but that is precisely what Chief Justice Roberts and the radical right-wing block of justices did in Trump vs. United States.This ruling gives Donald Trump a blueprint to convert America into a banana republic. And Donald Trump is exactly the kind of day-one-dictator who will do it. This ruling not only excuses lawless conduct by a corrupt president, it endorses such conduct, and thereby encourages future presidents to act lawlessly and to direct others to to the same then simply exercise his core constitutional power of the presidential pardon to pardon all of his criminal associates who carry out his unlawful commands. This is not just absolute presidential power. It is absolute presidential power PLUS. And like Dred Scott, Korematsu, and Plessy vs. Ferguson, this opinion must not stand.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

By granting Donald Trump immunity for the crimes he committed against the American people; the radical, right-wing block of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, actually encourages presidents to commit crimes.Eventually, this Supreme Court opinion will go the way of Dred Scott vs. Sanford, and Plessy vs. Ferguson - it will be reversed and will go down in American history as an opinion that sought to destroy honest and honorable governing, and accountability for crimes a president commits against the American people.But given that the opinion is in effect at the moment, President Joe Biden needs to exercise the powers the Supreme Court has given him to hold treasonous actors accountable and protect American democracy from the likes of Donald Trump and those who support his efforts to destroy American democracy.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

By granting Donald Trump immunity for the crimes he committed against the American people; the radical, right-wing block of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, actually encourages presidents to commit crimes.Eventually, this Supreme Court opinion will go the way of Dred Scott vs. Sanford, and Plessy vs. Ferguson - it will be reversed and will go down in American history as an opinion that sought to destroy honest and honorable governing, and accountability for crimes a president commits against the American people.But given that the opinion is in effect at the moment, President Joe Biden needs to exercise the powers the Supreme Court has given him to hold treasonous actors accountable and protect American democracy from the likes of Donald Trump and those who support his efforts to destroy American democracy.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This week on The Learning Curve co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and DFER’s Alisha Searcy interview POLITICO’s Peter Canellos, biographer of Justice John Marshall Harlan. Mr. Canellos delves into Harlan’s upbringing in a prominent slaveholding family, his Civil War service in the Union Army, and his rapid rise in Kentucky politics as a Republican. He highlights John Harlan's mixed-race half-brother Robert Harlan and key legal precedents like the notorious Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which influenced Harlan’s […]

Lochner v New York, a 1905 Supreme Court case about working hours and contracts, is considered anti-canon. Right up there with Dred Scott, Plessy and Korematsu. The question is, how did it get there? Why do people think it's so bad? And what does this decision, and the era that followed, say about politics and the Supreme Court?Our guides to this case and what came after are Rebecca Brown, Rader Family Trustee Chair in Law at USC Gould School of Law and Matthew Lindsay, Associate Professor of Law at University of Baltimore School of Law. CLICK HERE: Visit our website to donate to the podcast, sign up for our newsletter, get free educational materials, and more!

When the Supreme Court says something is or isn't constitutional, what does that really mean? What are the effects, or lack thereof, of their decisions? And what do we do if we don't agree with what they say?Today Linda Monk, author of The Bill of Rights: A User's Guide, walks us through four times in US History that the Supreme Court was not the be-all-end-all decision maker.Here are some links to shows we reference in the episode:Dred Scott v SandfordBrown vs. Board of Education of Topeka CLICK HERE: Visit our website to donate to the podcast, sign up for our newsletter, get free educational materials, and more!

From San Francisco's controversial apology to Black residents to Shaq & TI's conversation, Amanda Seales is breaking down the latest headlines you need to know. Starting dissected by the NAACP, to the intriguing conversations between TI, Shaq, and their take on the evolving landscape of hip-hop and the NBA. Explore the outage mysteries of major social media platforms on Super Tuesday and delve into Supreme's revelations about Lil Baby's son catching his mother in a twerk session. Celebrate birthdays, engage with the Black Pop Quiz, and join the heated debate in the "Am I Trippin?" segment, where Tasha questions if leaving a weird date abruptly was the right move. Tune in for the word of the day, a historical reflection on the Dred Scott Decision, and hilarious moments in "Politicians Say the Darndest Things," featuring Trump's candid response on deportations. Listen, Laugh, and Learn on The Amanda Seales Show! If You Have A Comment Leave Amanda A Message At 1 855-Amanda-8 That's 1-855-262-6328 FOLLOW ALONG AS WE COVER:   (2:39) - Blackurate News The San Francisco Board of Directors is apologizing to their Black residents for decades of racism. This historic resolution apologizes on behalf of San Francisco to the African American community and their descendants. Take a listen. Other facts: This is the first reparations recommendation out of 100 reparations related proposals made by a city committee to win approval.   (6:50) - Pop Culture Story 2: It seems like conversations about the current state of hip hop will never end. T.I. and Shaq are comparing the current hip hop landscape to the NBA landscape. Take a listen.   (11:19) - Bringing Up Old Ish w/ Kimberly Renee   (16:17) - 60 Second Headlines It's the Amanda Seales show… I'm Amanda Seales… And now it's time for 60 Second Headlines.   Story 1: The Opill, the first oral contraceptive approved for over-the-counter use in the United States, will be available in stores and online this month. Suggested retail price of $19.99 for a one-month supply.   Story 2: Sinbad says he has felt all the prayers directed his way since his debilitating stroke in 2020, and he is vowing to make a comeback. The cast of A Different World is on an HBCU Tour, and Sinbad showed up virtually at their first stop last week at the Atlanta University Center, which is home to Clark Atlanta University, Morehouse College, and Spelman College.   Story 3: According to a new study, smoking, vaping, or eating marijuana has been linked to a significantly higher risk of heart attack and stroke, even if a person had no existing heart conditions and did not smoke or vape tobacco.   Story 4: 9-time Pro Bowler Russell Wilson will be released after 2 years with Denver Broncos. Wilson's two seasons in Denver have been disappointing for both the front office and fans. The team missed out on the playoffs twice, and he was benched at the end of the 2023 season.   (19:35) - We Up, We Up, We Up! Happy birthday if today is your birthday! Also, happy birthday to: - DL Hughley - Steadman Graham - Beanie Sigel - Bubba Sparxxx - Shaquille O'Neal - Tyler, the Creator - To the late Harriet Tubman (1820 - 1913) - Yvette Wilson (Andell on Moesha) - Marion Barry (Former DC Mayor)   Coming up: Blackurate News: Yesterday was Super Tuesday, and Instagram and Facebook both experienced a global outage. Supreme Splaining' - Supreme will break down how Lil Baby's son felt when he caught his mother in a twerk session. Plus, today's big up/let down… which today involves a bad girl, the bag, and a headline.   (21:17) - Blackurate News/Pop Culture: Global Outages & Conspiracy Theories   (25:22) - Supreme Splaining   (28:04) - Big Up, Let Down Big up - Rihanna for staying relevant and securing the bag!   (32:40) – We Hear From Our Listeners   (34:43) - Introduction - We Up, We Up, We Up!! It was on this day in 1857 that the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court denied Black people U.S. citizenship, as well as the right to sue in courts of law.   (36:26) - Am I Trippin - Part 1: Send us a DM @SealesSaidIt and tell us about your dilemma, and I'll weigh in on whether you're tripping like Ella Mai or somebody playing in your face.   (37:59) - Am I Trippin Part 2: Is she wrong… for ditching out on the date?   (41:18) - Blop Quiz   (44:31) - I Voted Today   (44:32) - Word Of The Day Is: Inveterate (in-VET-uh-rut) (adjective)   (46:23) - Politicians Say the Darndest Things: What Trump said about deportations if he wins the White House   (50:05) - Thanks for listening   FOLLOW THE SHOW ON ALL SOCIALS: @Sealessaidit @Amandaseales If You Have A Comment Leave Amanda A Message At 1 855-Amanda-8 That's 1-855-262-6328  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

March 6, 1857. In the landmark case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, the US Supreme Court rules that African Americans are not entitled to citizenship. This episode originally aired in 2023.Support the show! Join Into History for ad-free listening and more.History Daily is a co-production of Airship and Noiser.Go to HistoryDaily.com for more history, daily.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Gonzales v. Williams is one of the Insular Cases, and because it was about the citizenship status of Isabel González of Puerto Rico, it stands out from the many other Insular Cases that focus on goods and tariffs. Research:  Burnett, Christina Duffy. "'They say I am not an American...': The Noncitizen National and the Law of American Empire.” Virginia Journal of International Law. Vol. 48, No. 4. 2008. Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States at October Term, 1903. “Gonzalez v. Williams.” No. 225.. Argued December 4, 7, 1903.-Decided January 4, 1904. https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep192/usrep192001/usrep192001.pdf Connecticut General Assembly Office of Legislative Research. “OLR Research Report.” 3/3/1997. https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS97/rpt/olr/htm/97-R-0359.htm Erman, Sam. “Almost Citizens: Puerto Rico, the U.S. Constitution, and Empire (Studies in Legal History).” Cambridge University Press. 2018. Erman, Sam. “Meanings of Citizenship in the U.S. Empire: Puerto Rico, Isabel Gonzalez, and the Supreme Court, 1898 to 1905.” Journal of American Ethnic History. Summer 2008. Volume 27. Number 4. Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27501851 Fifty-first Congress. “An act in amendment to the various acts relative to immigration and the importation of aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor.” chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/26/STATUTE-26-Pg1084a.pdf Halperin, Anna Danziger. “Isabel González and Puerto Rican Citizenship: A Q&A with Historian Sam Erman.” New York Historical Society Museum and Library. https://www.nyhistory.org/blogs/isabel-gonzalez-and-puerto-rican-citizenship-a-qa-with-historian-sam-erman On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court Of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit. “Brief of the Descendants of Dred Scott and Isabel Gonzalez as Amici Curae in support of the Petitioners.” No. 21-1394 in the Supreme Court of the United States. Silsby, Gilen. “The Legal Story Behind Puerto Rico's Colonial Conundrum.” USC TrojanFamily. Spring 2019. https://news.usc.edu/trojan-family/sam-erman-usc-puerto-rican-citizenship/ Silsby, Gilen. “Who in the world was Isabel Gonzalez?” With Sam Erman. USC Gould School of Law. 10/17/2018. https://gould.usc.edu/about/news/?id=4489 Women and the American Story. “Puerto Rican Citizenship.” https://wams.nyhistory.org/industry-and-empire/expansion-and-empire/puerto-rican-citizenship/ New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]), 25 Nov. 1906. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1906-11-25/ed-1/seq-13/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.