Podcasts about executive power

What happened to Milo Yiannopoulos?Was this simply the enforcement of existing immigration law, or was Milo specifically targeted because of his political enemies, relationships, and increasingly independent views? Let's discuss it, and pray for Milo's safety.--https://www.youversion.com/bible-app

250th Anniversary of the USA Ep.9: Dr. Charles C. Thach, Ph.D. on The Creation of The Presidency VIII Episode 9 in the series marking the 250th Anniversary of the USA in this year 2026. It's part 8 of our discussion of this book. We're still in ch. 4 which is called the Presidency in the Federal Convention starting on the top of p.69 through to middle of p. 78. When the Founders signed their names onto the Declaration of Independence, they were committing a capital crime, and they were signing their own death warrants if they were caught. They took themselves not to be looking for a fight, but rather, refusing any longer to duck the fight that in fact had come to them. And they sought to ground their cause, their reaction, to right reason in the natural law, consistent with Revelation and the Scriptures. They sought to articulate such an argument for their cause in such a way that would be rightly persuasive to any future reader and any of the nations which may inquire as to the source of their actions. Of course, their cause was initially, in large measure, a reaction against abuse of Executive Power. But such a war required itself strong Executive Power. Therein lies the rub: how can Executive Power be strong yet consistent with the principles of Liberty ? We're making a fair use, doing a transformative reading and discussion of Charles C. Thach's doctoral dissertation at Johns Hopkins in 1922 called "The Creation of the Presidency, 1775-1789," made available by Liberty Fund INC in Indianapolis, Indiana in 2007. Go out and get your physical copy today. Follow along. We'd like to thank Liberty Fund for making this material available, and we'd like to thank Charles C. Thach for writing it. This material was required reading in my Ph.D. program in Public Law and American Politics at The Claremont Colleges. It was used on the 6 hour comprehensive exams (6 hours each) and in a course called The Presidency and the Constitution taught by Joseph M. Bessette, who also served on my dissertation committee many years later. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-understanding-the-American-Presidency, anti-grade-inflation-plantation podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D

In this Federalist Society America 250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.In Federalist 23, Alexander Hamilton identified the common defense and the preservation of peace against external attacks as two of the principal purposes served by union. The Constitution that union adopted divides the power to declare war—vested in Congress—and the power to direct war—vested in the President as Commander in Chief. But what does it say about national security more broadly? The Founders were not without reservation about the risks of concentrating the means of defense, with James Madison warning the Constitutional Convention that a “standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.” It was also clear from the start, however, that functions like intelligence gathering belonged more naturally to the executive, whose institutional character supported the necessary secrecy and dispatch.This webinar will explore how the Founders understood national security power beyond the battlefield, how closely subsequent practice tracked their design, and whether today’s allocation of powers serves both the nation's security and its liberty.Featuring:Dr. Alberto Coll, Director, Global Engagement; Vincent de Paul Professor of Law, DePaul University College of LawProf. Matthew Waxman, Liviu Librescu Professor of Law, Columbia School of LawProf. John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Senior Research Fellow, School of Civic Leadership, Civitas Institute, University of Texas at Austin; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute(Moderator) Molly Nixon, Senior Fellow in Executive Power, Cato Institute

The Supreme Court's latest term featured landmark decisions on executive power, birthright citizenship, voting rights, and more. But beyond the headlines, what did the term tell us about the Roberts Court itself? In this episode, Masha Hansford and Jonathan Adler examine the justices' opinions to explore the defining decisions, shifting coalitions, and influential concurrences and dissents that shaped the term. Together, they consider the Court's institutional role, the distinct jurisprudence of its individual justices, and what this term may signal for the future of constitutional law.  Julie Silverbrook, chief content and learning officer at the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources  2026 Supreme Court Review: Key Decisions, Executive Power, Civil Discourse, National Constitution Center  “Four cases to watch in the Supreme Court's next term,” Scott Bomboy for the National Constitution Center's Constitution Daily Blog  “The Supreme Court in Review: Another Landmark Term,” Scott Bomboy for the National Constitution Center's Constitution Daily Blog  Stay Connected and Learn More  Stay connected with We the People—follow, rate, and review the show wherever you listen.  Questions or comments? Email ⁠⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠⁠⁠.  Follow @ConstitutionCtr on social media and ⁠⁠⁠⁠sign up⁠⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.  Support our important work by making a donation today.  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

Wednesday, July 22, 2026 Today, RFK Jr pauses a billion dollars in Medicaid to California and Minnesota; Rep. Jamie Raskin is seeking documents related to Jeffrey Epstein's foreign contacts; IRS Chief Frank Bisignano spied on colleagues when he worked at JPMorgan; Trump and the OMB are violating the Impoundment Control Act by ignoring Congressional appropriations; an appeals court has overturned the release order of Mohsen Mahdawi; an appeals court has denied Peter Navarro's bid to overturn his contempt of Congress conviction; and a federal judge says Trump has to hand over his financials in discovery in the BBC libel case; plus Allison delivers your Good News. Thank You, Fast Growing Trees Get 20% off your first purchase  FastGrowingTrees.com/dailybeans The Daily Beans is proud to partner with Miles Taylor and our friends at DEFIANCE.org For a limited time, members of the Daily Beans community can receive a FREE 3-month full membership to DEFIANCE.org and gain access to one of the fastest-growing pro-democracy movements in America. Join here: https://www.defiance.org/beans Join The Daily Beans and give a gift today to ensure The Trevor Project can continue its crucial work in the face of continued challenges. Donate to The Trevor Project - Daily Beans Podcast The Latest Breakdown→ Epstein Survivor Recounts Meeting With Todd Blanche StoriesRFK Jr pauses $1bn Medicaid funding to California and Minnesota Raskin seeks documents into Jeffrey Epstein's foreign contacts - Live Updates - POLITICO IRS Chief Frank Bisignano Spied on Colleagues When He Worked at JPMorgan - WSJ Congress rejected some of Trump's proposed budget cuts. OMB is making them anyway. US appeals court raises prospect of re-arrest of pro-Palestinian advocate Mahdawi | Reuters Judge says Trump must hand over financial records to BBC - POLITICOGood Trouble Check your voter registration status →Vote.orgVoter Registration Deadlines - Vote.org →Help save Texas from Ken Paxton! →Urge Democrats to Oppose and Stop Trump's Crypto Corruption | Indivisible Guide →Defiance.org/beans →Show up for our Libraries - action.ala.org →Stand With Minnesota →ICE List  →iceout.org Good NewsGrassRoots Garden | Food for Lane County – Eugene, Oregon INDIVISIBLE KANSAS CITY sfcva.org dana-goldbergs-southwest-funnyfest Oct 9 -Email Dana@DanaGoldberg.com for sponsorship informationTickets for Dana Goldberg: Outrageous - Sep 23 - Den Theater - Chicago  →Share your Good News & Good Trouble - The Daily Beans →Beans Talk audio -beans-talk.simplecast.com →Email Dana LGBTQ Owned eating establishments in your area - hello@mswmedia.com Subject: “Dana's Project” Subscribe to the MSW YouTube Channel - MSW Media - YouTube Our Donation Links The Trevor Project - trevorproject.org/beans Blue Wave California - https://secure.actblue.com/donate/msw-bwc Donate to Public Citizen - https://citizen.org/beans/ Donate to It Gets Better / The Daily Beans Fundraiser Pathways to Citizenship link to MATCH Allison's Donationhttps://crm.bloomerang.co/HostedDonation?ApiKey=pub_86ff5236-dd26-11ec-b5ee-066e3d38bc77&WidgetId=6388736 Join Dana and The Daily Beans in support of Human Rights Campaign http://onecau.se/_ekes71National Security Counselors - Donate, ActBlue.com/donate/msw-bwc, WhistleblowerAid.org/beans Dr. Allison Gill - The Breakdown | Allison Gill, Mueller, She Wrote @muellershewrote.com - Bluesky, MSW & The Daily Beans Podcast @muellershewrote - Instagram, MSW Media - YouTube →Federal workers - email AG - fedoath@pm.me Dana Goldberg - Dana is on Patreon! At Dana's Dugout, @dgcomedy - Bluesky, @dgcomedy - IG, Dana Goldberg - Facebook,  DanaGoldberg.com More from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | Allison Gill Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:https://apple.co/3XNx7ckWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://patreon.com/thedailybeanshttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/https://apple.co/3UKzKt0 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode, legal scholars Jonathan Adler, Greg Garre, Katherine Mims Crocker, and Howard Wasserman discuss the state of civil discourse inside the Supreme Court and in public debate about the Court. Julie Silverbrook, chief content and learning officer at the National Constitution Center, moderates. This conversation was recorded live in Philadelphia on July 7, 2026, as part of the National Constitution Center's 2026 Supreme Court Review, which is presented in partnership with the Center on the Structural Constitution at Texas A&M University School of Law. The program featured three panels with scholars of differing perspectives examining the Court's 2025–2026 term, its approach to executive power, and civil discourse surrounding the Court.    Resources  2026 Supreme Court Review: Key Decisions, Executive Power, Civil Discourse, National Constitution Center “Retired Justice Kennedy laments coarse discourse of Trump era and its effects on the Supreme Court,” Associated Press, Oct. 8, 2025 “Justice Thomas Bemoans Incivility as Security Prompts Cancellation of In-Person Speech,” The New York Times, Feb. 27, 2026 “Justices Hint at Strains as Supreme Court Comes Under Scrutiny,” The New York Times, May 18, 2026 “Takeaways From Rare Congressional Testimony by Two Supreme Court Justices,” The New York Times, July 15, 2026 Stay Connected and Learn More  Stay connected with Live at the National Constitution Center—follow, rate, and review the show wherever you listen.  Questions or comments? Email ⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠.  Follow @ConstitutionCtr on social media and ⁠⁠sign up⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.  Support our important work by making a donation today.  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

In this episode, legal scholars Jonathan Adler, Greg Garre, Katherine Mims Crocker, and Howard Wasserman discuss the state of civil discourse inside the Supreme Court and in public debate about the Court. Julie Silverbrook, chief content and learning officer at the National Constitution Center, moderates. This conversation was recorded live in Philadelphia on July 7, 2026, as part of the National Constitution Center's 2026 Supreme Court Review, which is presented in partnership with the Center on the Structural Constitution at Texas A&M University School of Law. The program featured three panels with scholars of differing perspectives examining the Court's 2025–2026 term, its approach to executive power, and civil discourse surrounding the Court.    Resources  2026 Supreme Court Review: Key Decisions, Executive Power, Civil Discourse, National Constitution Center  “Retired Justice Kennedy laments coarse discourse of Trump era and its effects on the Supreme Court,” Associated Press, Oct. 8, 2025  “Justice Thomas Bemoans Incivility as Security Prompts Cancellation of In-Person Speech,” The New York Times, Feb. 27, 2026  “Justices Hint at Strains as Supreme Court Comes Under Scrutiny,” The New York Times, May 18, 2026  “Takeaways From Rare Congressional Testimony by Two Supreme Court Justices,” The New York Times, July 15, 2026 Stay Connected and Learn More  Stay connected with We the People—follow, rate, and review the show wherever you listen.  Questions or comments? Email ⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠.  Follow @ConstitutionCtr on social media and ⁠sign up⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.  Support our important work by making a donation today.  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

In this episode, legal scholars Gillian Metzger, Julian Mortenson, and Ilya Somin discuss the Supreme Court's approach to executive power in recent decisions. Thomas Donnelly, lead scholar at the National Constitution Center, moderates. This conversation was recorded live in Philadelphia on July 7, 2026, as part of the National Constitution Center's 2026 Supreme Court Review, which is presented in partnership with the Center on the Structural Constitution at Texas A&M University School of Law. The program featured three panels with scholars of differing perspectives examining the Court's 2025-2026 term, its approach to executive power, and civil discourse within and concerning the Court.    Resources ⁠2026 Supreme Court Review: Key Decisions, Executive Power, Civil Discourse⁠, National Constitution Center  ⁠Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump⁠ (2026) ⁠Trump v. Slaughter⁠ (2026) ⁠Trump v. Cook⁠ (2026) ⁠Trump v. Illinois⁠ (2025) Stay Connected and Learn More  Stay connected with Live at the National Constitution Center—follow, rate, and review the show wherever you listen.  Questions or comments? Email ⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠.  Follow @ConstitutionCtr on social media and ⁠sign up⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.  Support our important work by making a donation today.  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

New Realities with Alan Steinfeld Disclosure, Consciousness, and the Hidden Architecture of the UFO Secret Guest, Ross Coulthart, UAP Journalist Ross Coulthart and the Story Journalism Avoided In this episode of New Realities, host Alan Steinfeld welcomes investigative journalist Ross Coulthart for a wide-ranging conversation about UFOs, UAP disclosure, alleged classified programs, consciousness, and the cultural resistance surrounding the subject. Coulthart explains that he originally approached UFO reporting with skepticism, expecting to disprove the phenomenon as misidentified aerospace technology, but says conversations with senior officials led him to reverse his position and conclude that the public has been misled. David Grusch, Media Failure, and the Disclosure Inflection Point Alan frames Coulthart's interview with David Grusch as a major turning point in UFO history, alongside Roswell and the 2017 New York Times reporting. Coulthart resists being personally elevated but strongly criticizes mainstream journalism for what he sees as neglect, ridicule, and failure to investigate. He argues that major outlets and the White House press corps have treated the subject with nervous laughter rather than seriousness, despite Grusch's status and testimony. The discussion also includes criticism of media “hit pieces” and the possibility that intelligence-linked narratives are shaping public perception. Controlled Disclosure, the Legacy Program, and the National Security State A major part of the interview centers on what Coulthart calls the legacy program, which he describes as the hidden structure behind alleged recovered craft and reverse-engineering efforts. He suggests that the 2014–2015 period may have involved an attempt at controlled disclosure, including briefings connected to Tom DeLonge and To the Stars Academy. Coulthart argues that the national security state may have tried to manage disclosure while limiting how much the public learned about recovered technology, private aerospace involvement, and alleged reverse-engineering successes. Secrecy, Executive Power, and Alleged Crimes Coulthart and Alan discuss whether secrecy around the phenomenon is justified by national security or whether it has become self-protecting and corrosive. Coulthart raises concerns about alleged illegal activity, including claims of deaths, private aerospace power, JSOC involvement, underground facilities, and programs hidden from Congress or presidents. He favors a truth-and-reconciliation-style process for many involved in secrecy, while distinguishing that alleged murders or capital crimes should still be investigated. The conversation repeatedly returns to constitutional accountability, presidential authority, and whether Congress has the power or will to force disclosure. Agreements, Abductions, and the Mystery of the Phenomenon Itself The discussion moves beyond government secrecy into the larger question of what the phenomenon may be doing and why it is here. Coulthart points to David Grusch's reference to “agreements” as especially significant and speculates, while acknowledging uncertainty, about possible arrangements between governments and non-human intelligences. Alan brings up claims around Eisenhower, Holloman Air Force Base, alien abductions, and John Mack's research, while Coulthart says he has become more open to abduction testimony after hearing many firsthand accounts. Both speakers treat the phenomenon as broader than hardware alone. Consciousness, Love, Blue Beings, and a New Reality Model One of the episode's most important turns is toward consciousness. Coulthart says people connected to alleged legacy programs often become less focused on alien hardware and more focused on consciousness. The conversation touches on quantum physics, nonlocal awareness, psychic phenomena, remote viewing, autistic nonverbal communication research, and the possibility that matter may arise from consciousness rather than consciousness emerging from matter. Coulthart also discusses repeated accounts of “blue beings” and “downloads,” saying he received numerous independent reports from people describing similar experiences. Jake Barber, Catastrophic Disclosure, and What Comes Next The interview closes by returning to whistleblowers, especially Jake Barber, whom Coulthart describes as a firsthand witness connected to alleged retrieval operations. Coulthart says Barber and others have risked much by coming forward and criticizes both mainstream media and parts of the UFO community for attacking witnesses rather than following the implications of their claims. He suggests catastrophic disclosure may come from insiders trying to get ahead of the story, while Alan continues pressing for hope, public action, and a consciousness shift. The episode ends with the sense that disclosure may not only reveal hidden technology, but also force a transformation in how humanity understands reality itself.

Episode 8 in the series marking the 250th Anniversary of the USA in this year 2026. It's part 7 of our discussion of this book. We're covering the last few pages of chapter 3: National Executive Power before the US Constitution but after July 4th, 1776 starting on the top of p.61. We then continue into chapter 4 which is called "The Presidency in the Federal Convention" for a few pages, stopping at the top of p. 69. When the Founders signed their names onto the Declaration of Independence, they were committing a capital crime, and they were signing their own death warrants if they were caught. They took themselves not to be looking for a fight, but rather, refusing any longer to duck the fight that in fact had come to them. And they sought to ground their cause, their reaction, to right reason in the natural law, consistent with Revelation and the Scriptures. They sought to articulate such an argument for their cause in such a way that would be rightly persuasive to any future reader and any of the nations which may inquire as to the source of their actions. Of course, their cause was initially, in large measure, a reaction against abuse of Executive Power. But such a war required itself strong Executive Power. Therein lies the rub: how can Executive Power be strong yet consistent with the principles of Liberty ? We're making a fair use, transformative reading and discussion of Charles C. Thach's doctoral dissertation at Johns Hopkins in 1922 called "The Creation of the Presidency, 1775-1789 made available by Liberty Fund INC in Indianapolis, Indiana in 2007. Go out and get your physical copy today. Follow along. We'd like to thank Liberty Fund for making this material available, and we'd like to thank Charles C. Thach for writing it. This material was required reading in my Ph.D. program in Public Law and American Politics at The Claremont Colleges. It was used on the 6 hour comprehensive exams (6 hours each) and in a course called The Presidency and the Constitution taught by Joseph M. Bessette, who also served on my dissertation committee many years later. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-understanding-the-American-Presidency, anti-grade-inflation-plantation podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

The New Yorker contributing writer Ruth Marcus joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss the Supreme Court's now concluded term and what some of the recent decisions indicate about the bench's willingness to check President Trump's use of executive power. They talk about the Court's rulings on immigration, transgender athletes, the President's authority to fire heads of independent federal agencies, and what various opinions reveal about the Republican-appointed justices' tendency to side with the Trump Administration. They also explore the Court's rejection of Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship, and whether the ruling should be seen as a reassuring defense of settled law or a warning that even long-established constitutional protections may be more vulnerable than they once appeared. This week's reading: “The Supreme Court Enables Trump's Cruel Immigration Agenda,” by Ruth Marcus “The Supreme Court's Check on Trump's Power Was Too Close for Comfort,” by Ruth Marcus “How Political Is This Supreme Court?,” by Isaac Chotiner “Behind the Supreme Court's Ruling on Transgender Athletes,” by Jeannie Suk Gersen “The Supreme Court Upheld Birthright Citizenship—but the Fight May Not Be Over,” by Amy Davidson Sorkin Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode, legal scholars Gillian Metzger, Julian Mortenson, and Ilya Somin discuss the Supreme Court's approach to executive power in recent decisions. Thomas Donnelly, lead scholar at the National Constitution Center, moderates. This conversation was recorded live in Philadelphia on July 7, 2026, as part of the National Constitution Center's 2026 Supreme Court Review, which is presented in partnership with the Center on the Structural Constitution at Texas A&M University School of Law. The program featured three panels with scholars of differing perspectives examining the Court's 2025-2026 term, its approach to executive power, and civil discourse within and concerning the Court.    Resources 2026 Supreme Court Review: Key Decisions, Executive Power, Civil Discourse, National Constitution Center  Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (2026) Trump v. Slaughter (2026) Trump v. Cook (2026) Trump v. Illinois (2025) Stay Connected and Learn More  Stay connected with We the People—follow, rate, and review the show wherever you listen.  Questions or comments? Email podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Follow @ConstitutionCtr on social media and sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.  Support our important work by making a donation today.  ⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

Clark Neily discusses the Supreme Court, executive authority, and why federal prosecutors wield too much power.

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued two decisions on the president's power to remove leaders of federal agencies. In the first case, Trump v. Slaughter, the Court voted 6–3 to strike down a federal law that limited the president's power to fire Federal Trade Commission (FTC) members. In the second, Trump v. Cook, the Court voted 5–4 that Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook can remain in her role while her legal challenge to President Trump's attempt to fire her plays out. Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up! Click HERE to get 20% off your first year of ad-free episodes, exclusive interviews, and deep dives with Tangle's podcast membership.How we're celebrating.This weekend is the 250th anniversary of the United States declaring its independence, and this month marks seven years since we launched Tangle. To celebrate, Executive Editor Isaac Saul is penning an essay tomorrow on the history of press freedom and why we must continue to embrace the spirit of a free press in the years ahead. Keep an eye out for the special July 4 edition, which will land in your inbox around 12 PM ET.You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠ and today's “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: What do you think of the Slaughter and Cook decisions? Let us know.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast written by: Audrey Moorehead and audio engineered and edited by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jeff Fisher discusses a term marked by major rulings across executive power, voting, and civil rights, and what they signal about the Court's trajectory. --- The Supreme Court has wrapped up a consequential term, issuing decisions that could shape executive power, constitutional rights, and the balance between the branches of government for years to come. Rulings on birthright citizenship, independent federal agencies, voting rights, transgender athletes, and Fourth Amendment digital privacy all landed within weeks of one another, offering a rare, wide-angle view of where the Court is headed. In this episode, Professor Jeff Fisher joins Pam Karlan to unpack the term's biggest rulings. Fisher and Karlan co-direct the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, and are among the nation's leading experts on Supreme Court litigation and constitutional law, regularly briefing and arguing cases before the Court, giving them a close vantage point on its work.  The discussion traces how the Court is navigating open clashes with President Trump even as it advances long-standing goals of the conservative legal movement, and examines the Court's growing use of history and tradition as a tool of constitutional interpretation. Fisher and Karlan also discuss disagreements among the justices and consider how recent decisions may be emboldening the executive branch. Links: Jeff Fisher  >>> Stanford Profile Opinions of the Court 2025 >>> US Supreme Court Page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction 00:00:57 How to understand this Supreme Court term 00:03:12 A divided Court with rising tensions 00:04:35 Digital privacy and the Fourth Amendment 00:07:35 The Court and the democratic process 00:09:07 Race-conscious law and disparate impact 00:11:09 Election rules, fraud claims, and voting rights 00:14:56 Birthright citizenship and the limits of originalism 00:16:36 History, tradition, and judicial reasoning 00:18:39 Presidential power and independent agencies 00:23:08 The future of the unitary executive theory 00:25:31 Trump, the shadow docket, and executive authority 00:26:08 Immigration, presidential rhetoric, and Court deference 00:28:17 Presidential facts, tweets, and legal reality 00:30:48 Transgender rights and the law of school sports 00:32:23 Why context matters in Supreme Court decisions 00:35:47 Conclusion Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a significant win Monday by allowing him to remove the leaders of once-independent federal agencies at will, toppling a 1935 precedent in the process that could reorder the way the government functions. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Executive Authority and National Security Frameworks. Guest: John Yoo. Legal expert John Yoo analyzes the scope of executive power, particularly in relation to national security and foreign policy. He explores the constitutional foundations that grant the presidency authority during international crises and the legal debates surrounding the use of executive orders in managing the nation's defense and security. 91900 MAIN STREET LA

Today on Uncommon Sense, we're taking a deeper look at the Israel-Iran conflict, the continuing questions surrounding the Epstein files, and the assassination of Charlie Kirk. We'll discuss why these stories continue to dominate public conversation, explore the political and geopolitical questions people are asking, and examine why these events should be viewed together rather than in isolation.--https://www.youversion.com/bible-app

Episode 7 in the series marking the 250th Anniversary of the USA in this second quarter 2026. We're covering the next several pages of chapter 3: National Executive Power before the US Constitution but after July 4th, 1776. We discuss pp. 53 thru the top of p.61. When the Founders signed their names onto the Declaration of Independence, they were committing a capital crime, and they were signing their own death warrants if they were caught. They took themselves not to be looking for a fight, but rather, refusing any longer to duck the fight that in fact had come to them. And they sought to ground their cause, their reaction, to right reason in the natural law, consistent with Revelation and the Scriptures. They sought to articulate such an argument for their cause in such a way that would be rightly persuasive to any future reader and any of the nations which may inquire as to the source of their actions. Of course, their cause was initially, in large measure, a reaction against abuse of Executive Power. But such a war required itself strong Executive Power. Therein lies the rub: how can Executive Power be strong yet consistent with the principles of Liberty ? We're making a fair use, transformative reading and discussion of Charles C. Thach's doctoral dissertation at Johns Hopkins in 1922 called "The Creation of the Presidency, 1775-1789 made available by Liberty Fund INC in Indianapolis, Indiana in 2007. Go out and get your physical copy today. Follow along. We'd like to thank Liberty Fund for making this material available, and we'd like to thank Charles C. Thach for writing it. This material was required reading in my Ph.D. program in Public Law and American Politics at The Claremont Colleges. It was used on the 6 hour comprehensive exams (6 hours each) and in a course called The Presidency and the Constitution taught by Joseph M. Bessette, who also served on my dissertation committee many years later. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-understanding-the-American-Presidency, anti-grade-inflation-plantation podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and that aiding-and-abetting liability exists under neither the ATS nor the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991. The decision limits the use of U.S. courts to pursue transnational human-rights claims absent clear congressional authorization.In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), the Court held that the Helms-Burton Act removes sovereign immunity for Cuban agencies and instrumentalities sued for trafficking in property confiscated by the Cuban government. Plaintiffs suing those entities under the Act, therefore, do not need to separately satisfy one of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s enumerated exceptions.Join us for a discussion of these decisions, their implications, and what they reveal about the Court’s approach to statutory interpretation and separation of powers. Featuring: Prof. Julian Ku, Faculty Director of International Programs and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Hofstra University Molly Nixon, Senior Fellow in Executive Power, Cato Institute

From birthright citizenship to the independence of federal agencies, the Supreme Court is poised to decide a series of cases that could redefine the balance of power in Washington. Yale legal scholar and New York Times Magazine staff writer Emily Bazelon joins Ian Bremmer to assess what's at stake and whether the judiciary remains an effective check on presidential authority. Bazelon argues that Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship is unlikely to succeed, but says other pending cases involving the Federal Reserve and the Federal Trade Commission could significantly expand presidential control over agencies that Congress intentionally designed to operate independently. "I think it's very likely the court will rule in the president's favor," she says of the FTC case. The conversation also examines the Court's recent decisions on tariffs and voting rights, including a ruling that further weakened protections against partisan gerrymandering. Bazelon argues that the consequences extend beyond individual cases, contributing to a broader perception that the Court is becoming increasingly political. Yet despite declining public trust, Bazelon sees reasons for cautious optimism. While Congress has largely failed to constrain executive power, she argues that the judiciary, particularly the lower courts, has repeatedly pushed back against actions that exceed legal authority. The bigger question is whether those guardrails will continue to hold as the Court confronts some of the most consequential constitutional disputes still ahead. Subscribe to the GZERO World with Ian Bremmer Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Episode 6 in the series marking the 250th Anniversary of the USA in this second quarter 2026. We're covering the first several pages of chapter 3: National Executive Power before the US Constitution but after July 4th, 1776. We discuss pp. 45 thru the top of p.53. When the Founders signed their names onto the Declaration of Independence, they were committing a capital crime, and they were signing their own death warrants if they were caught. They took themselves not to be looking for a fight, but rather, refusing any longer to duck the fight that in fact had come to them. And they sought to ground their cause, their reaction, to right reason in the natural law, consistent with Revelation and the Scriptures. They sought to articulate such an argument for their cause in such a way that would be rightly persuasive to any future reader and any of the nations which may inquire as to the source of their actions. Of course, their cause was initially, in large measure, a reaction against abuse of Executive Power. But such a war required itself strong Executive Power. Therein lies the rub: how can Executive Power be strong yet consistent with the principles of Liberty ? We're making a fair use, transformative reading and discussion of Charles C. Thach's doctoral dissertation at Johns Hopkins in 1922 called "The Creation of the Presidency, 1775-1789 made available by Liberty Fund INC in Indianapolis, Indiana in 2007. Go out and get your physical copy today. Follow along. We'd like to thank Liberty Fund for making this material available, and we'd like to thank Charles C. Thach for writing it. This material was required reading in my Ph.D. program in Public Law and American Politics at The Claremont Colleges. It was used on the 6 hour comprehensive exams (6 hours each) and in a course called The Presidency and the Constitution taught by Joseph M. Bessette, who also served on my dissertation committee many years later. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-understanding-the-American-Presidency, anti-grade-inflation-plantation podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

From birthright citizenship to the independence of federal agencies, the Supreme Court is poised to decide a series of cases that could redefine the balance of power in Washington. Yale legal scholar and New York Times Magazine staff writer Emily Bazelon joins Ian Bremmer to assess what's at stake and whether the judiciary remains an effective check on presidential authority. Bazelon argues that Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship is unlikely to succeed, but says other pending cases involving the Federal Reserve and the Federal Trade Commission could significantly expand presidential control over agencies that Congress intentionally designed to operate independently. "I think it's very likely the court will rule in the president's favor," she says of the FTC case. The conversation also examines the Court's recent decisions on tariffs and voting rights, including a ruling that further weakened protections against partisan gerrymandering. Bazelon argues that the consequences extend beyond individual cases, contributing to a broader perception that the Court is becoming increasingly political. Yet despite declining public trust, Bazelon sees reasons for cautious optimism. While Congress has largely failed to constrain executive power, she argues that the judiciary, particularly the lower courts, has repeatedly pushed back against actions that exceed legal authority. The bigger question is whether those guardrails will continue to hold as the Court confronts some of the most consequential constitutional disputes still ahead. Subscribe to the GZERO World with Ian Bremmer Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Send us Fan MailFederal judges just reminded America that the Constitution still exists.The Kilmar Abrego Garcia case is bigger than immigration politics — it's about whether executive power can ignore court orders, avoid accountability, and punish people after getting caught.Today's opening argument breaks down:Why this ruling matters for checks and balancesHow the courts pushed back against concentrated powerThe Article I vs. Article II fight nobody in corporate media is explainingWhy this is actually a win for constitutional accountability in AmericaThis isn't about parties.It's about whether power answers to law — or law answers to power.LIVE weekdays on The Tony Michaels Podcast.Become a paid supporter at The Coffman Chronicle for full episodes, deeper breakdowns, transcript analysis, and independent reporting focused on power, accountability, and working people.Rumble: https://rumble.com/v7agpp8-judge-torches-executive-power-in-kilmar-garcia-case-tmp-1058.htmlThe Coffman Chronicle: https://www.thecoffmanchronicle.com/ Pocket Constitution: https://thecoffmanchronicle.kit.com/pocket-constitutionYou're listening to today's Opening Argument from The Tony Michaels Podcast. The full show is free on Rumble, with clips, receipts, and the full breakdown. For the ad-free version and deeper breakdowns, subscribe to The Coffman Chronicle at TheCoffmanChronicle.com. Support the show

Episode 5 in the series marking the 250th Anniversary of the USA in this second quarter 2026. It should have been episode 4 because we accidentally skipped a ten page section between pp. 23- 33 last time that should have been episode 4, but we will just have those two sections out of chronological order and move on. Today we are doing those pages: pp. 23 -- 33 we had skipped accidentally last time, and then going from where we left off last time on page 40 through to the end of the chapter at p. 44. So, we're discussing pp. 23 through 33, then pp. 40 through 44 to the end of Chapter 2. When the Founders signed their names onto the Declaration of Independence, they were committing a capital crime, and they were signing their own death warrants if they were caught. They took themselves not to be looking for a fight, but rather, refusing any longer to duck the fight that in fact had come to them. And they sought to ground their cause, their reaction, to right reason in the natural law, consistent with Revelation and the Scriptures. They sought to articulate such an argument for their cause in such a way that would be rightly persuasive to any future reader and any of the nations which may inquire as to the source of their actions. Of course, their cause was initially, in large measure, a reaction against Executive Power. But such a war required itself strong Executive Power. Therein lies the rub: how can Executive Power be strong yet consistent with the principles of Liberty ? We're making a fair use, transformative reading and discussion of Charles C. Thach's doctoral dissertation at Johns Hopkins in 1922 called "The Creation of the Presidency, 1775-1789 made available by Liberty Fund INC in Indianapolis, Indiana in 2007. Go out and get your physical copy today. Follow along. We'd like to thank Liberty Fund for making this material available, and we'd like to thank Charles C. Thach for writing it. This material was required reading in my Ph.D. program in Public Law and American Politics at The Claremont Colleges. It was used on the 6 hour comprehensive exams (6 hours each) and in a course called The Presidency and the Constitution taught by Joseph M. Bessette, who also served on my dissertation committee many years later. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-understanding-the-American-Presidency, anti-grade-inflation-plantation podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

Episode 4 in the series marking the 250th Anniversary of the USA in this second quarter 2026. It should have been episode 5 because we accidentally skipped a ten page section between pp. 23- 33 that should have been episode 4, but we will just have those two section out of chronological order and move on. When the Founders signed their names onto the Declaration of Independence, they were committing a capital crime, and they were signing their own death warrants if they were caught. They took themselves not to be looking for a fight, but rather, refusing any longer to duck the fight that in fact had come to them. And they sought to ground their cause, their reaction, to right reason in the natural law, consistent with Revelation and the Scriptures. They sought to articulate such an argument for their cause in such a way that would be rightly persuasive to any future reader and any of the nations which may inquire as to the source of their actions. Of course, their cause was initially, in large measure, a reaction against Executive Power. But such a war require itself strong Executive Power. Therein lies the rub: how can Executive Power be strong yet consistent with the principles of Liberty ? We're making a fair use, transformative reading and discussion of Charles C. Thach's doctoral dissertation at Johns Hopkins in 1922 called "The Creation of the Presidency, 1775-1789 made available by Liberty Fund INC in Indianapolis, Indiana in 2007. Go out and get your physical copy today. Follow along. We'd like to thank Liberty Fund for making this material available, and we'd like to thank Charles C. Thach for writing it. We are discussing in this second episode of Thach's thought the first third of his second chapter, entitled "State Executive Experience 1776 to 1787," through the top of his page 40 starting, mistakenly actually, at the top of p. 33. We were supposed to start on the top of p. 23 and continue there from last time, but we didn't. I made a mistake. Don't worry, we will fill in the incredibly valuable discussion of the material in pp. 23 through p. 33 at the top. This material was required reading in my Ph.D. program in Public Law and American Politics at The Claremont Colleges. It was used on the 6 hour comprehensive exams (6 hours each) and in a course called The Presidency and the Constitution taught by Joseph M. Bessette, who also served on my dissertation committee many years later. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-understanding-the-American-Presidency, anti-grade-inflation-plantation podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

Host James-Christian Blockwood talks with Academy Fellow and McGeorge School of Law Professor Clark Kelso and American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Adam White about why public agencies struggle and what the executive branch does in response. They discuss how checks and balances slow action and make errors hard to undo, while polarization and congressional dysfunction push presidents toward unilateral action, creating separation-of-powers conflicts and court intervention. The conversation centers on Schedule F and fears it could expand political appointments and erode civil service protections. They conclude trust is rebuilt through tangible, non-rhetorical improvements, suggesting a public-safety focus like FAA modernization.01:14 Why Agencies Fail03:25 Checks Balances and Speed05:22 Congress Gridlock Executive Action09:44 Unitary Executive and Independence12:47 Courts Guardrails and Chevron15:44 Real World Impacts and Trust19:30 Reforming Bureaucracy and DOGE23:45 Schedule F Debate29:31 Rebuilding Trust and OptimismManagement Matters is a presentation of the National Academy of Public Administration produced by Lizzie Alwan and Matt Hampton and edited by Matt Hampton. Support the Podcast Today at: donate@napawash.org or 202-347-3190Episode music: Hope by Mixaund | https://mixaund.bandcamp.comMusic promoted by https://www.free-stock-music.comFollow us on YouTube for clips and more: @NAPAWASH_YT

AP correspondent Julie Walker reports President Trump flouts lower court rulings in unprecedented display of executive power.

Episode 3 in the series marking the 250th Anniversary of the USA in this second quarter 2026. When the Founders signed their names onto the Declaration of Independence, they were committing a capital crime, and they were signing their own death warrants if they were caught. They took themselves not to be looking for a fight, but rather, refusing any longer to duck the fight that in fact had come to them. And they sought to ground their cause, their reaction, to right reason in the natural law, consistent with Revelation and the Scriptures. They sought to articulate such an argument for their cause in such a way that would be rightly persuasive to any future reader and any of the nations which may inquire as to the source of their actions. Of course, their cause was initially, in large measure, a reaction against Executive Power. But such a war require itself strong Executive Power. Therein lies the rub: how can Executive Power be strong yet consistent with the principles of Liberty ? We're making a fair use, transformative reading and discussion of Charles C. Thach's doctoral dissertation at Johns Hopkins in 1922 called "The Creation of the Presidency, 1775-1789 made available by Liberty Fund INC in Indianapolis, Indiana in 2007. Go out and get your physical copy today. Follow along. We'd like to thank Liberty Fund for making this material available, and we'd like to thank Charles C. Thach for writing it. We are discussing in this second episode of Thach's thought the first third of his second chapter, entitled "State Executive Experience 1776 to 1787," through the top of his page 23. This material was required reading in my Ph.D. program in Public Law and American Politics at The Claremont Colleges. It was used on the 6 hour comprehensive exams (6 hours each) and in a course called The Presidency and the Constitution taught by Joseph M. Bessette, who also served on my dissertation committee many years later. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-understanding-the-American-Presidency, anti-grade-inflation-plantation podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

Episode 2 in the series marking the 250th Anniversary of the USA in this second quarter 2026. When the Founders signed their names onto the Declaration of Independence, they were committing a capital crime, and they were signing their own death warrants if they were caught. They took themselves not to be looking for a fight, but rather, refusing any longer to duck the fight that in fact had come to them. And they sought to ground their cause, their reaction, to right reason in the natural law, consistent with Revelation and the Scriptures. They sought to articulate such an argument for their cause in such a way that would be rightly persuasive to any future reader and any of the nations which may inquire as to the source of their actions. Of course, their cause was initially, in large measure, a reaction against Executive Power. But such a war require itself strong Executive Power. Therein lies the rub: how can Executive Power be strong yet consistent with the principles of Liberty ? We're making a fair use, transformative reading and discussion of Charles C. Thach's doctoral dissertation at Johns Hopkins in 1922 called "The Creation of the Presidency, 1775-1789 made available by Liberty Fund INC in Indianapolis, Indiana in 2007. Go out and get your physical copy today. Follow along. We'd like to thank Liberty Fund for making this material available, and we'd like to thank Charles C. Thach for writing it. This material was required reading in my Ph.D. program in Public Law and American Politics at The Claremont Colleges. It was used on the 6 hour comprehensive exams (6 hours each) and in a course called The Presidency and the Constitution taught by Joseph M. Bessette, who also served on my dissertation committee many years later. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-understanding-the-American-Presidency, anti-grade-inflation-plantation podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

Kerri Miller hosted a community conversation with presidential historian and author Jeffrey Engel in Red Wing on Wednesday night, April 8. Engel was brought in by the Duff Endowment, as part of their free lecture series, designed to increase civic engagement in the Red Wing area.During their discussion, Engel talked about the expansion of executive power in the United States and how that threatens democracy. He also addressed the current military operation in Iran. His forthcoming book, “Seeking Monsters to Destroy: How America Goes to War, From Washington to Biden and Beyond,” is a history of how American leaders have identified enemies, and how their description alters the way Americans fight.

We return after a brief hiatus to catch up on a whirlwind of recent headlines, from political drama to bizarre claims about aliens, before turning to the Supreme Court's consideration of birthright citizenship and the broader question of executive power versus congressional authority. We examine how Congress has gradually ceded its responsibilities on issues like tariffs, war powers, and immigration, and what that means for the balance of power in government. We then head to Ireland, where one enterprising citizen used AI to track the true price of a pint of Guinness, before moving to Texas for our Foolishness of the Week, where a congressional race has taken an unusual turn as a candidate campaigns by performing at quinceañeras. Finally, we dive into financial bubbles, exploring how markets price uncertainty, why emerging technologies like AI attract massive investment despite unclear outcomes, and how bubbles function as part of the process of discovering what new innovations are actually worth. 00:00 Introduction: A Month of Chaos 02:43 Supreme Court, Birthright Citizenship, and Trump's Presence 03:45 Executive Power vs Congressional Authority 06:16 Why Congress Keeps Ceding Its Power 09:09 Can a System This Large Even Function? 10:17 Ireland's Guinness Price Investigation with AI 13:04 Foolishness of the Week: Texas Campaigning at Quinceañeras 16:04 Redistricting, Demographics, and Political Miscalculations 18:11 Financial Bubbles and Why Economists Ignore Them 19:17 The “Real Economy” vs Financial Markets 22:24 Pricing the Unknown: Cars, Dot-Coms, and AI 24:56 AI Investing, Speculation, and Bubble Pricing 26:53 AI as the Next Internet and Technological Integration 30:53 Amazon, Spillover Innovation, and Unexpected Winners 37:22 Consumer Power, Corporate Fear, and Market Discipline Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We return after a brief hiatus to catch up on a whirlwind of recent headlines, from political drama to bizarre claims about aliens, before turning to the Supreme Court's consideration of birthright citizenship and the broader question of executive power versus congressional authority. We examine how Congress has gradually ceded its responsibilities on issues like tariffs, war powers, and immigration, and what that means for the balance of power in government. We then head to Ireland, where one enterprising citizen used AI to track the true price of a pint of Guinness, before moving to Texas for our Foolishness of the Week, where a congressional race has taken an unusual turn as a candidate campaigns by performing at quinceañeras. Finally, we dive into financial bubbles, exploring how markets price uncertainty, why emerging technologies like AI attract massive investment despite unclear outcomes, and how bubbles function as part of the process of discovering what new innovations are actually worth. 00:00 Introduction: A Month of Chaos 02:43 Supreme Court, Birthright Citizenship, and Trump's Presence 03:45 Executive Power vs Congressional Authority 06:16 Why Congress Keeps Ceding Its Power 09:09 Can a System This Large Even Function? 10:17 Ireland's Guinness Price Investigation with AI 13:04 Foolishness of the Week: Texas Campaigning at Quinceañeras 16:04 Redistricting, Demographics, and Political Miscalculations 18:11 Financial Bubbles and Why Economists Ignore Them 19:17 The “Real Economy” vs Financial Markets 22:24 Pricing the Unknown: Cars, Dot-Coms, and AI 24:56 AI Investing, Speculation, and Bubble Pricing 26:53 AI as the Next Internet and Technological Integration 30:53 Amazon, Spillover Innovation, and Unexpected Winners 37:22 Consumer Power, Corporate Fear, and Market Discipline Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner joins Marc Elias to break down why the rule of law is hanging by a thread. They also discuss the Epstein files cover-up, DOJ ethics violations, and why we need a scorched-earth accountability effort.Support Democracy Docket's mission:https://newsletters.democracydocket.com/anchor-youtube-tuesday00:00 Today's Guest: Glenn Kirschner00:41 One Year In: How is the Nation and the Rule of Law Doing?02:47 What Does the New "Accountability Project" Look Like?05:43 Where Will the Next Generation of Non-Political Prosecutors Come From?07:40 Context: Glenn's History with Eric Holder and Bob Mueller09:42 Unpacking Legal Standards: Probable Cause vs. Likelihood of Conviction11:06 Case Study: The Sean Dunn "Sandwich Throwing" Prosecution17:58 Accountability After Jan 6th: What Was Done Right and Wrong?23:56 Avoiding the "Normalizing" of Political Crimes in 202926:19 Current Events: The Seizure of Ballots in Fulton County28:15 Discussion: The "Presumption of Regularity" in Trump-era Courts35:02 Is the Supreme Court Recalibrating on Executive Power?37:21 Potential DOJ Interference in the Upcoming Election40:13 The Epstein Files: What is Happening with the Missing Records?47:44 Final Thoughts: What Can Everyday Americans Do to Fight Back?

CannCon and Ashe in America are joined by attorney Peter Ticktin for a wide-ranging discussion on constitutional law, executive authority, and the legal frameworks surrounding election legitimacy. The conversation explores how the Constitution is interpreted in modern legal battles, the limits of federal power, and how legal strategies are being used to challenge or defend election outcomes. Peter breaks down complex constitutional arguments into plain terms, walking through the role of the executive branch, the judiciary, and the tension between state and federal authority. The discussion also touches on legal precedent, the importance of due process, and how courts approach politically sensitive cases. Throughout the episode, the panel examines how legal narratives shape public perception and why understanding constitutional structure is critical in evaluating election-related disputes. It is a deep dive into law, power, and the ongoing debate over how America governs itself.

International law expert Rebecca Ingber of Cardozo Law joins Leah at the top of the show to talk about the US and Israel's war on Iran. Then, Leah welcomes guest co-host Chris Geidner of Law Dork to run through domestic legal news, including the omission of allegations against Trump from the Epstein files, the President's MAHA Surgeon General nominee Casey Means's confirmation hearing, the administration's wildly illegal halting of Medicaid funds to Minnesota, the role of independent media in Trump 2.0, and some of the stories Chris has been breaking. They also unpack last week's oral arguments and opinions before Leah is joined by Marc Elias, chair of Elias Law Group and founder of Democracy Docket, to discuss how voting rights are under attack from all three branches of government.Favorite Things: Chris: Upcoming theatre including As You Like It (RSC), The Rock Horror Show (Broadway), and Sunday in the Park With George (Barbican, London) Leah: Upcoming article for the Georgetown Law Review, The Passive Vices; independent media including Law Dork; Democracy Docket; and One First; The Supreme Court is Not "Reining in" Executive Power, Steve Vladeck (One First); Crooked on MS NOW premiering on Saturday at 9pm ET on MS NOW Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2026!  3/6/26 – San Francisco 3/7/26 – Los Angeles Learn more: http://crooked.com/eventsPreorder Melissa's book, The U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern ReaderBuy Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Justice Scalia and the Unitary Executive Theory. Reflecting on Justice Antonin Scalia's legacy, Professor John Yoodetails the concept of the unitary executive. Scalia powerfully argued that the Constitution vests all executive power directly in the president, warning that independent agencies fragment federal authority, diminish democratic accountability, and disrupt the essential separation of powers. #151910 BOOK OF MINES

SCOTUS:: Guest: Richard Epstein. Epstein analyzes the legal implications of President Trumpfiring Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, debating the limits of the unitary executive power.1889 SCOTUS

From February 12, 2025: Jack Goldsmith, the Learned Hand Professor at Harvard Law School and co-founder of Lawfare, joins Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at Lawfare, to talk about his recent Lawfare article discussing last year's Supreme Court decision in Trump v. United States and its implications for executive power. They discuss how the ruling extends beyond presidential immunity, the broader shift toward a maximalist theory of executive authority, and what this means for the future of American democracy.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Plus: Speaker of the House Mike Johnson embraces warrantless ICE searches, the Super Bowl halftime culture war, and Trump continues funding the Department of Education

One year into Trump 2.0, we examine the administration's record on free speech and how it compares to the president's campaign pledge to "bring back free speech to America."  We also discuss recent ICE protests, including the right to carry a gun and to film law enforcement, and what these encounters reveal about protest rights today. Today we are joined by: Clark Neily, senior vice president for legal studies at the Cato Institute Timothy Zick, professor of government and citizenship at William & Mary Law School and author of the new book Trump 2.0: Executive Power and the First Amendment Conor Fitzpatrick, supervising senior attorney at FIRE Zick is also the author of Public Protest and Governmental Immunities, Managed Dissent: The Law of Public Protest, and Arming Public Protests.   Timestamps:  00:00 Intro   01:47 ICE protests: Alex Pretti, filming police, and the right to carry a gun 13:30 How to hold law enforcement accountable 19:10 Don Lemon's arrest 23:27 Trump's retribution politics and the "domestic terrorist" label 35:05 FCC pressure and attacks on the media  39:40 Free speech for noncitizens 53:49 Attacks on higher education 58:40 Trump 1.0 vs. Trump 2.0 01:02:25 What reforms are needed? 1:09:13 Outro Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more.  If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.

Richard Epstein of the Hoover Institution endorses Kevin Walsh for the Fed, arguing that while independent boards challenge executive power, long-standing institutions gain legal legitimacy through historical prescription.

This is the fifth episode of our ongoing series breaking down the U.S. Constitution.This month, Roman and Elizabeth turn to the rest of Article Two with former CDC director Dr. Tom Frieden, talking about the experience of being a highly trained expert in an inherently political institution within the executive branch. Dr. Frieden was also the New York City Public Health Commissioner under Mayor Bloomberg from 2002 to 2009, and he discusses the difference between running a city and a federal health agency.Elizabeth also explains the constitutional powers and limitations of the presidency, including hiring and firing, impeachment, pardons, and presidential duties—and how President Trump and the current Supreme Court are upending those powers. Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of 99% Invisible ad-free and a whole week early. Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

EXECUTIVE POWER AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES Colleague Professor Richard Epstein, Hoover Institution. Epstein discusses a Supreme Court case regarding the President's power to fire members of independent boards like the FTC. He fears Chief Justice Roberts will side with executive power, a move Epstein views as an "unmitigated disaster" that undermines the necessary independence of agencies like the Federal Reserve. NUMBER 14

Leah, Kate, and Melissa recap the oral argument in Trump v. Slaughter, a case that could nuke the administrative state as we know it by giving Trump broad leeway to fire heads of independent agencies. They also cover the other arguments in cases involving campaign finance and the death penalty, and various and sundry bits of legal news including the antics of Judge Emil Bove and Trump's ongoing game of U.S. attorney musical chairs.Favorite things:Leah: At will? Whose will? By Don Moynihan (Can We Still Govern?)Melissa: Trump's Very Weird Night at the Kennedy Center Honors, Alexandra Petri (The Atlantic); A Flower Traveled in My Blood, Haley Cohen GillilandKate: How a Manosphere Star Accused of Rape and Trafficking Was Freed, Megan Twohey and Isabella Kwai (NYT) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 3/6/26 – San Francisco3/7/26 – Los AngelesLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Supreme Court appears ready to let Donald Trump fire Federal Trade Commission members at will. On this week's On the Media, why the court's expansion of presidential powers would impact the entire government. Plus, how two Hollywood giants are squaring off over a massive merger. [02:47] Host Brooke Gladstone sits down with Noah Rosenblum, associate professor of law at New York University, to discuss how the Supreme Court's pending decision in Trump v. Slaughter could radically expand the president's power, and the history behind the case. [23:02] Host Micah Loewinger talks with Oliver Darcy, lead author of the newsletter Status and co-host of the podcast Power Lines, about the moguls at Netflix and Paramount Skydance battling over Warner Brothers Discovery, and what this means for the future of CNN, which is owned by Warner Brothers Discovery, and Hollywood. [37:41] Micah speaks with Joel Simon, founding director of the Journalism Protection Initiative at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism, about what happened with Blake Lively's legal team subpoenaed Perez Hilton, the gossip blogger, and why expanding the legal framework of journalistic protections is essential.  Further reading / watching:The Supreme Court Is About to Hand Trump a Cudgel in the Paramount-Netflix Fight, by Mark Joseph SternThe CNN Sacrifice, by Oliver DarcyThe O.G. News Influencer, by Joel Simon   On the Media is supported by listeners like you. Support OTM by donating today (https://pledge.wnyc.org/support/otm). Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @onthemedia, and share your thoughts with us by emailing onthemedia@wnyc.org.

On episode 109 of Native Land Pod, hosts Tiffany Cross, Angela Rye, Andrew Gillum, and Bakari Sellers discuss Jasmine Crockett’s campaign launch, and bring on one of our favorite guests: Elie Mystal. Racial profiling, birthright citizenship, executive power, and campaign finance are all up for judgement by the US Supreme Court. There’s no one better to walk us through SCOTUS’s recent and upcoming decisions than the Justice Correspondent for The Nation, Elie Mystal. Elie on Executive Power: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/supreme-court-ftc-slaughter/ Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (TX 30) is running for senate in Texas in 2026. There’s a lot of chatter out there about her announcement, that she’s a Republican plant, that she can’t win–and it’s true that it’s tough for a Dem to win a senate seat in Texas. Our hosts take a critical look at the media coverage of her announcement and speculate on a possible path to victory. We’ll get to more of your questions this week, including one about legacy media’s complicity in the Trump administration's agenda. A lot of y’all had smoke for Tiffany in the questions this week, we’ll get to those in our MiniPod. Read More about the recent SCOTUS cases– Racial Profiling: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/supreme-court-allows-federal-officers-to-more-freely-make-immigration-stops-in-los-angeles/ Birthright Citizenship: https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/trump-v-barbara/ Campaign Finance: https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/national-republican-senatorial-committee-v-federal-election-commission/ Federal Agency Independence (Executive Power): https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/trump-v-slaughter-2/ Check out the Council of Negro Women: https://ncnw.org/ And congratulations to A’Ja Wilson for winning TIME’s Athlete of the Year! If you’d like to submit a question, check out our tutorial video: http://www.instagram.com/reel/C5j_oBXLIg0/ and send to @nativelandpod. We are 329 days away from the midterm elections. Welcome home y’all! —--------- We want to hear from you! Send us a video @nativelandpod and we may feature you on the podcast. Instagram X/Twitter Facebook NativeLandPod.com Watch full episodes of Native Land Pod here on YouTube. Native Land Pod is brought to you by Reasoned Choice Media. Thank you to the Native Land Pod team: Angela Rye as host, executive producer, and cofounder of Reasoned Choice Media; Tiffany Cross as host and producer, Andrew Gillum as host and producer, Bakari Sellers as host and producer, and Lauren Hansen as executive producer; LoLo Mychael is our research producer, and Nikolas Harter is our editor and producer. Special thanks to Chris Morrow and Lenard McKelvey, co-founders of Reasoned Choice Media. Theme music created by Daniel Laurent.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The conservative Supreme Court majority seems poised to allow President Trump to fire the top official on the Federal Trade Commission, expanding presidential power. Elie Mystal, justice correspondent and columnist for The Nation magazine and bestselling author of Bad Law: Ten Popular Laws That Are Ruining America (The New Press, 2025), discusses this and other legal news.

This is the fourth episode of our ongoing series breaking down the U.S. Constitution.This month, Roman and Elizabeth turn to Article Two, which establishes the executive branch, alongside former Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. Elizabeth also explains why Trump administration's attacks on Venezuelan boats defy even the broadest interpretation of the president's war powers. Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of 99% Invisible ad-free and a whole week early. Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.