Podcasts about executive power

Unity is acting together even when we don't think alike. And one of the primary aims of the American Constitution is to support a democracy of those unified in diversity. Yuval Levin joins Mark Labberton to explore the precarious state of American constitutional life and the imbalance of power between the branches of the U.S. government. Drawing from his book America's Covenant, Levin argues that the Founders designed the Constitution above all to preserve unity in a divided society. Yet today, he warns, the imbalance of power—particularly the weakness of Congress and the rise of presidential authority—threatens democratic legitimacy. In this conversation, Levin reflects on originalism, the courts, Donald Trump's expanding influence, and the dangers of both passivity and autocracy. With clarity and urgency, he calls for renewed civic engagement and for Congress to reclaim its central role. Episode Highlights “Unity doesn't mean thinking alike. Unity means acting together. And the question for a modern political society is how do we act together when we don't think alike?” “The biggest problem we have is that Congress is under-active, radically under-active and has turned itself into a spectator.” “The president is in charge of the executive branch, but the executive branch is not in charge of the American government.” “I am very concerned about this kind of Caesar-ism. I think it is very dangerous.” “What we're seeing is constitutional creep, where the president is pushing and nobody's pushing back, and only Congress can do it.” “I worry a lot about Donald Trump. But the reason I worry is because Congress isn't doing its job.” “The politics of an autocratic state is a politics of spectators, and we just cannot become spectators.” “All of us will find ourselves in the minority sooner or later.” Helpful Links and Resources America's Covenant: The Constitution and the Path to National Unity, by Yuval Levin American Enterprise Institute (Find Yuval Levin's current research and publications) *New York Times Opinion* – Yuval Levin's columns at the New York Times About Yuval Levin Yuval Levin is director of Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he also holds the Beth and Ravenel Curry Chair in Public Policy. He is the founder and editor of National Affairs, senior editor of The New Atlantis, a contributing editor at National Review, and a contributing opinion writer at The New York Times. He is the author of several books on political theory and public policy, most recently American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation—and Could Again (Basic Books, 2024), which examines the U.S. Constitution through the lens of national unity in a divided society. Show Notes Constitutional unity and division Yuval Levin summarizes America's Covenant as a reintroduction to the Constitution framed around the challenge of unity in diversity. “Unity doesn't mean thinking alike. Unity means acting together.” The Constitution prioritizes bargaining, negotiation, and legitimacy over efficiency. Congress was designed as the “first branch” of government to embody pluralism and force compromise. The decline of Congress and rise of the presidency Levin argues Congress is radically under-active, ceding ground to presidents and courts. “The biggest problem we have is that Congress is under-active, radically under-active and has turned itself into a spectator.” Excessive focus on the presidency erodes democratic legitimacy. Current frustrations stem from misunderstanding the system's design: it resists narrow majorities and forces broad coalitions. Courts, originalism, and the unitary executive Levin affirms he is an originalist: “a philosophy of judicial interpretation … a mode of self-restraint for judges.” Supreme Court decisions in recent years repeatedly signal: “Congress, do your job.” He outlines the unitary executive theory: the president controls the executive branch, but not the government as a whole. “The president is in charge of the executive branch, but the executive branch is not in charge of the American government.” Trump's expanding power Levin warns of the growing push to centralize authority in the presidency. “I am very concerned about this kind of Caesar-ism. I think it is very dangerous.” Trump's second term differs because restraints have vanished; his circle now encourages unrestrained executive action. Disruption of long-held norms has weakened trust in American institutions globally and domestically. Constitutional crisis vs. constitutional creep Levin distinguishes between “creep,” “conflict,” and “crisis.” He argues the U.S. is experiencing constitutional creep: unchecked executive power without Congress pushing back. True crisis would involve direct defiance of the courts—something still possible but not yet realized. The role of citizens and civic responsibility Levin stresses the danger of passivity: “The politics of an autocratic state is a politics of spectators, and we just cannot become spectators.” Citizens should keep writing to Congress, vote with clear expectations, and engage in local governance. State legislatures, though less visible, often function better than Congress today. Clear thinking itself, Levin suggests, is a moral act for a healthy republic. Production Credits Conversing is produced and distributed in partnership with Comment Magazine and Fuller Seminary.  

Richard Epstein discusses federal district court judges defying presidential orders, attributing it to a breakdown of trust and the president's "robust view of executive power" that disregards established procedures and precedents. He explains that judges may engage in "passive resistance" or "cheating in self-defense" when they perceive the president acting for political reasons or abusing power, such as in budget cuts or dismissals. Epstein also links this distrust to gerrymandering and increasing political polarization 1932 FDR IN ALBANY

CONTINUED Richard Epstein discusses federal district court judges defying presidential orders, attributing it to a breakdown of trust and the president's "robust view of executive power" that disregards established procedures and precedents. He explains that judges may engage in "passive resistance" or "cheating in self-defense" when they perceive the president acting for political reasons or abusing power, such as in budget cuts or dismissals. Epstein also links this distrust to gerrymandering and increasing political polarization. 1936

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we delve into the high-stakes legal battle over the attempted removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Jessica explains the Trump administration's push to fire Cook, the court's decision to reinstate her, and the looming emergency appeal. Tune in as we explore the legal protections for Fed governors, the fight over presidential power, and why this showdown could impact both the central bank's independence and the broader economy.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Legal Battle Over Federal Reserve Independence: Jessica discusses the attempt by the Trump administration to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. She explains this centers on whether a president can remove a sitting Fed governor and under what circumstances, which is a pivotal question about the independence of the central bank.The Law and Statutory Interpretation: The conversation delves into the Federal Reserve Act, which only allows removal of board members “for cause.” There's debate on what “for cause” means—whether it should be restricted to on-the-job misconduct or include actions before taking office. The district court judge sided with the narrower reading, that it should only pertain to conduct while in office.Due Process and Rights of the Removed Official: A significant part of the discussion is about whether Lisa Cook was given due process. The judge found she likely wasn't given adequate notice or opportunity to respond to the allegations, which could be a violation of her rights.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

You've got the seat—now what?This premiere episode of Stepping Into the Arena is not just a rebrand—it's a bold invitation to own your executive presence and expand your influence. Karen Gombault shares why this evolution matters and what it means for ambitious leaders facing high-stakes transitions.Whether you're stepping into a new executive role, inheriting a larger team, or navigating a merger, this episode is your strategic reset. Karen walks you through the four essential lessons she's seen time and again in leaders who rise to the challenge with confidence, clarity, and credibility.If you're ready to stop playing small and start leading at the level your role demands, this is your moment.5 KEY TAKEAWAYS:1. Your new title is just the beginning. What matters most is how you lead from day one—not the title itself.2. Self-identity has to catch up with the responsibility. Success depends on intentionally stepping into who the role requires you to become.3. Authority is earned by behavior, not by title. Your credibility is built daily through how you show up and how you carry yourself.4. Influence is your leadership multiplier. It's less about what you do and more about how you guide decisions, conversations, and outcomes.5. This podcast is for high-stakes transitions. It's no longer just about your first promotion—it's about navigating leadership at the highest levels with confidence and strategic depth.“Your value is measured by how you shape conversations, guide stakeholders and move decisions forward. It's about influence.” —Karen GombaultThis is your next chapter.Stepping Into the Arena is for experienced executives stepping into bigger scopes, more visibility, and more pressure. Each week, Karen shares the real strategies, mindset shifts, and lessons from decades of executive leadership and VIP coaching clients. Get ready for actionable insights grounded in real-world experience—and learn how to lead with power and purpose.The arena is yours. Step in and make it count.RESOURCES & NEXT STEPS:Schedule a call to discuss potentially working together: 50 Minute Connection Meeting - zcalFree Resource: Build Your Visibility At Work → https://www.karengombault.com/getnoticedStart with Catalyst – A focused 6-week coaching sprint to solve one real leadership challenge with strategy, momentum, and results. Learn more: https://www.karengombault.com/catalystGo deeper with 1:1 Executive Coaching – A high-level, science-backed coaching partnership to lead with unshakeable confidence and protect your energy while delivering at the top. https://www.karengombault.com/privatecoachingConnect with Karen on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/karengombault/

Economists are united in pointing out that tariffs on foreign goods are really nothing more than a tax on American consumers, but what fewer people understand is that Trump's policy on trade is not really about revenue or even about economic protectionism. Matt Kibbe is joined by Phil Magness, senior fellow at the Independent Institute, to explain how the tariffs represent a unilateral expansion of executive power that is now being challenged by the courts. It's important to remember that Trump will not be president forever, and sooner or later, a Democrat is going to occupy the White House again. At that point, Democrats will be more than happy to use these expanded executive powers in ways that will horrify Trump's base.

You wouldn't believe the whirlwind the courts have become with Donald Trump at the center stage these past few days. Just as September started, a major moment landed when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a 7-4 decision, struck down Trump's broad use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs on nearly all imported goods. The judges ruled that Trump simply didn't have Congressional authority for such sweeping actions, but interestingly enough, the government has until October 14 to ask the Supreme Court to weigh in. On September 4, Trump's team went ahead and petitioned for that expedited Supreme Court review, and now the cases are set for arguments in the Supreme Court's early November session, starting November 3, putting Trump's trade legacy directly on the line.But tariffs aren't even the hottest legal fire Trump's grappling with. On Monday, September 8, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals out of New York cemented a staggering $83.3 million judgment against Trump for defaming E. Jean Carroll. Carroll, the former magazine columnist, accused Trump of sexual assault dating back to the 1990s, and his public denials—combined with reckless disregard for the truth—landed him in legal jeopardy. The appeals panel wasn't swayed by Trump's efforts to invoke presidential immunity or claim excessive damages. Instead, they declared the jury's awards both fair and reasonable, highlighting how Trump's statements about Carroll, calling her a liar and denying her allegations, were made with, at the very least, reckless disregard. And this follows a separate $5 million jury award Carroll won after Trump was found liable for sexual abuse. Trump's legal team has vowed to push that appeal to the Supreme Court, but for now, the massive judgment stands.Outside the courtroom, the Supreme Court itself is preparing for more Trump-centered drama. Not only are his tariffs and broader powers as the executive on the chopping block—his capacity to ramp up deportations and even send military troops into U.S. cities is now being tested in front of the highest bench. There's real tension over just how much power the President can wield, especially with a Supreme Court super majority that often leans toward a very expansive view of executive authority.Listeners, the wheels of justice are cranking at a furious pace. Court calendars have become minefields, filled with dates, stays, appeals, and new developments erupting almost daily. For Donald Trump, each week seems to bring a fresh legal cliffhanger, with the nation watching every twist and turn. That's it for this wild week in Trump's legal saga. Thank you so much for tuning in. Don't forget to come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

David French and Sarah Isgur speak with Nico Perrino to discuss the origin story of Advisory Opinions and the few free speech issues where they disagree with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). Show Notes:—Origin story of Advisory Opinions—Disagreements between FIRE and AO—Why FIRE doesn't editorialize on the content of speech—Limits of presidential power—Free speech, the dread of tyrants—The prosecution of political figures—Cracker Barrel—State of the conservative legal movement Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How did American democracy reach such a precarious moment — and what can we do to fix things? Host Simone Leeper examines the fundamental threats to our democracy today, from gerrymandering and corruption to abuses of executive power and the outsized role of money in politics.Through real stories from everyday Americans and insights from the experts at Campaign Legal Center and other distinguished guests, this season of Democracy Decoded explores how we can use the tools we still have to repair the cracks in the system — and how, together, we can change things for the better.Learn what's at stake — and what can be done to solve the challenges facing American democracy. Follow Democracy Decoded on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.About CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy. Campaign Legal Center fights for every American's freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process. Learn more about us.Democracy Decoded is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it.

What are the limits of presidential power? How many days has it been since President Trump's TikTok ban moratorium went into place? What is the state of the conservative legal movement? And where did former FIRE president David French go on his first date? French and Sarah Isgur of the popular legal podcast “Advisory Opinions” join the show to answer these questions and discuss the few free speech issues where they disagree with FIRE. Timestamps:  00:00 Intro 02:18 Origin story of “Advisory Opinions” 08:15 Disagreements between FIRE and AO 15:04 Why FIRE doesn't editorialize on the content of speech 24:27 Limits of presidential power 43:30 Free speech, the dread of tyrants 51:01 The prosecution of political figures 58:01 Cracker Barrel 01:00:09 State of the conservative legal movement 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.

This segment explores the escalating conflict between the Trump administration and the Democratic Party over the handling of the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua. The discussion centers on a federal appeals court ruling that blocks the administration from using an 18th-century law to deport alleged gang members. The host argues that the Democrats' consistent protection of the gang, from local law enforcement to federal courts, suggests a deliberate strategy to allow the group to establish itself in the U.S. The transcript frames this as a "political civil war," with the Trump administration's use of military and federal resources to target these gangs being actively resisted by Democrats who, according to the speaker, are enabling the criminal enterprises for political gain.

I'm tuning in just after one of the most dramatic stretches in recent American political history, as the legal storm surrounding former President Donald Trump's court trials hits new highs. Let's jump right in—the courtroom battles featuring Trump have been exploding across national headlines, from Washington D.C. to California and beyond.Over the past few days, the nation's attention has been gripped by a federal judge's ruling out in California. California Attorney General Rob Bonta confirmed that President Trump's deployment of federalized California National Guard troops and Marines for civilian law enforcement in Los Angeles was in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, that foundational law limiting the military's role on our soil. According to Bonta, the District Court not only found Trump's actions unlawful, but also permanently blocked the administration from engaging in similar behavior in future, whether for arrests, riot control, or evidence gathering. The judge's order is stayed only until September 12th, making this a pivotal moment for executive reach and civil liberties.Meanwhile, the legal calendars covering Trump's trials have become almost as tangled as the cases themselves. After the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on Trump's presidential immunity claims in early August, the D.C. Circuit Court handed jurisdiction back to Judge Tanya Chutkan. However, the most recent scheduling order—coming just this week—has paused all pretrial deadlines until late October, essentially putting everything on hold in the Washington election subversion case. With time ticking away under the Speedy Trial Act, legal experts say this delay throws uncertainty over the proceedings, especially as appeals and procedural wrangling continue.It's not just criminal matters. On the civil side, Trump's legal team is still grappling with the fallout from previous verdicts, notably those involving E. Jean Carroll's defamation suits. The appeals are underway at the Second Circuit, but movement has slowed as defense attorneys look for openings in the appeals process. These cases, filed back in 2020 and 2022, have been persistent thorns in Trump's side, flaring up anew with each ruling.Also in the mix is the Democratic National Committee's lawsuit, challenging Trump's use of Executive Order 14215 to sway the Federal Election Commission. The U.S. District Court in D.C. dismissed the challenge earlier this summer, citing a lack of concrete injury. Still, with the FEC's independence on the line, insiders expect the issue to resurface as the end of election season nears.With Trump back in office, there's no shortage of Supreme Court petitions—over four dozen right now—ranging from immigration to telemarketing, tax laws, and challenges to federal policy moves dating back years. The administration is wielding the emergency docket as a powerful tool, regularly pressing to overturn lower court decisions and keep executive power front and center.So, as the clock moves forward, these cases are more than just legal drama—they're signposts of where America's institutions stand and how the rule of law will look in a rapidly shifting political landscape. Thanks for tuning in. Join me again next week for another Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Thank you so much for listening to the Bob Harden Show, celebrating over 14 years broadcasting on the internet. On Wednesday's show, we discuss Trump's expansion of executive authority with Cato Institute Chairman Emeritus Bob Levy. Professor and author Andrew Joppa and I discuss a variety of topics including thoughts on Labor Day, the significance … The post Trump’s Expansion of Executive Power appeared first on Bob Harden Show.

Trump health rumors, media scrutiny, and what counts as news kick off the show before a wide-ranging interview with Miles Taylor—former DHS Chief of Staff and author of Blowback—about the April 2025 White House memo labeling him “treasonous,” the threats that followed, alleged blacklisting, and how executive power can be bent to punish speech. We discuss investigations vs. “fishing expeditions,” loyalty scorecards for companies, and why institutions cave—or don't. In the spiel, Mike reframes the immigration fight: policy trade-offs, public opinion, and what data actually say about enforcement. Plus, a critique of a viral CNN segment on a deportation case and how storytelling choices shape perceptions.  *Please Note that Mike is on assignment, which is why his audio is not ideal* Come See Mike Pesca at Open Debate Produced by Corey Wara Production Coordinator Ashley Khan Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠ad-sales@libsyn.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ or visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://advertising.libsyn.com/TheGist⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist Youtube Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist Instagram Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠GIST INSTAGRAM⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow The Gist List at: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Pesca⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠Profundities | Mike Pesca | Substack

Trump is behaving like “an emperor”, enabled by insufficient checks and balances on the power of the Oval Office. On this episode of After America, Professor Elizabeth Saunders from Columbia University joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss the extreme volatility of this administration’s foreign policy and how Trump is breaking down the guardrails of American democracy. This episode was recorded on Thursday 28 August. You can sign our petition calling on the Australian Government to launch a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS. Dead Centre: How political pragmatism is killing us by Richard Denniss is available now via the Australia Institute website. Guest: Elizabeth N Saunders, Professor of Political Science, Columbia University // @profsaunders Host: Emma Shortis, Director, International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @emmashortis Show notes: ‘Imperial President at Home, Emperor Abroad’ by Elizabeth Saunders, Foreign Affairs (June 2025) Theme music: Blue Dot Sessions We’d love to hear your feedback on this series, so send in your questions, comments or suggestions for future episodes to podcasts@australiainstitute.org.au.Support After America: https://nb.australiainstitute.org.au/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's been a whirlwind few days in courtrooms across Washington and beyond, as legal battles tied to former President Donald Trump have dominated headlines. I'll jump right into it. The most closely watched case right now is Taylor v. Trump, which is being heard in the District Court. This one centers on Trump's executive order restoring the death penalty and toughening conditions of imprisonment, a direct move under Executive Order 14164. The trial kicked off on August 11, lasted three days, and legal experts have been watching for how the judge will interpret civil liberties claims versus federal power.At the same time, the National Association of the Deaf is suing Donald Trump along with White House officials like Susan Wiles and Karoline Leavitt. Their core argument? By ending ASL interpretation at federal press briefings and events, Trump is violating not only the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which protects disability rights, but also key First and Fifth Amendment protections. Plaintiffs have asked the court to order the administration to restore these services, arguing it's essential for equal protection and free speech.Meanwhile, legal teams on both sides have been busy in appellate courts and even the Supreme Court. Just a few nights ago, Judge Florence Pan on the D.C. Circuit wrote a pivotal opinion that reshaped how grantees could challenge Trump's actions on foreign aid payments. The panel's revision sent the case back to district court, offering a pathway for the groups involved to seek relief under the Administrative Procedure Act. In the wake of these moves, counsel for the government officially withdrew the request for emergency Supreme Court intervention, meaning Congress will now weigh in on Trump's proposed rescissions for a $15 billion foreign aid package.Immigration issues also remain front and center. A federal court has blocked Trump's fast-track deportation policy after a lawsuit led by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ruling states this expansion denied immigrants their due process, and the court made clear: during litigation, the policy is halted.And one more headline out of the Court of Appeals—V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump is on hold pending a possible Supreme Court review. The appellate court ordered the mandate withheld until October 14, giving either side time to seek a writ of certiorari from the highest court.Each one of these cases underscores the ongoing tension between presidential authority and individual rights, as well as the ability—and the limits—of the courts to check executive orders. Thanks for tuning in to this special update. Be sure to come back next week for the latest developments. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Project 2025 is reshaping the conversation about the role and reach of the federal government in ways that feel both sweeping and personal. Born from the Heritage Foundation's “Mandate for Leadership,” this 900-plus-page policy blueprint divides nearly every federal agency and department into zones of targeted reform, all aimed at what its architects call “destroying the administrative state.” Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts summed up the mood behind it simply, declaring that “every federal employee should answer to the president.” That principle, experts say, guides the project's plans to consolidate power at the top and move swiftly on a series of executive moves from day one.The scale of intended change is hard to overstate. Project 2025 outlines an operational playbook for the first 180 days of a new Republican administration. Its centerpiece is Schedule F—a government job classification that would allow the new president to reclassify tens of thousands of career civil servants as at-will political appointees. That means federal workers, who traditionally hold their positions regardless of party, could be replaced without cause by loyalists. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter, suggested clearing out senior career officials before January 20 and quickly installing appointees who share the president's views, bypassing regular Senate confirmation requirements. Skinner argues such moves are necessary to ensure ideological alignment, though when pressed by CNN's Peter Bergen, she couldn't cite a specific past obstruction by career diplomats.Concrete actions have followed rhetoric. When President Trump took office on January 20, he and Elon Musk's newly minted Department of Government Efficiency hit the ground running. According to Government Executive and other outlets, entire agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and USAID were targeted for elimination through “legally questionable means,” with the stated goal of cutting $1 trillion in spending. Executive orders soon followed, including one mandating that federal agencies may only hire one worker for every four who leave, and requiring return-to-office mandates for a federal workforce that had grown accustomed to remote work during the pandemic.Faced with the threat of losing job protections, over a quarter-million federal workers and contractors were facing layoffs by spring 2025, with forty-seven years of collective bargaining law challenged as unions raced to court. NTEU President Doreen Greenwald put it bluntly, calling it “an attack on the law, and on public service.” Opposition isn't limited to labor groups. The ACLU has charged that Project 2025 is a “roadmap to replace the rule of law with right-wing ideals,” warning that the proposals could undermine legal norms, civil rights, and protections for marginalized groups. Legal scholars from both political parties have raised flags about weakening the separation of powers, endangering environmental and public health safeguards, and risking consolidated, unchecked executive authority.Proponents are equally resolute. They argue that Project 2025 is a necessary corrective to what they view as a bloated, left-leaning bureaucracy unaccountable to the people. Heritage Foundation materials frame the federal government as too large, too costly, and resistant to the priorities of conservative Americans. They cite the sheer scale—over 2.4 million civilian federal employees—and the proliferation of agencies as drivers for dramatic consolidation and workforce reductions.Specific policy proposals go beyond personnel. The project seeks to reset environmental rules, roll back climate policies, and overhaul protections related to health, education, and civil rights. Critics, including groups like the Center for Progressive Reform, warn that these policies will lead to significant negative effects for ordinary Americans—from loss of workplace and environmental protections to sharp changes in immigration enforcement and reproductive rights.As the summer of 2025 progresses, listeners should watch several key milestones. Court cases brought by federal employee unions and advocacy groups could set vital precedents for the separation of powers. Agency heads are evaluating which departments could be merged or eliminated entirely in accordance with new directives. Congress, too, will play an uncertain but pivotal role as many Project 2025 reforms require new legislation or appropriations. Meanwhile, a country already polarized by election-year tensions is bracing for the long-term consequences of this radical experiment in federal power.Thank you for tuning in to this week's deep dive into Project 2025's ambitions and realities. Be sure to come back next week for more crucial stories shaping the nation.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Project 2025 began quietly in conservative circles, with its origins traced to a Spring 2022 gathering of strategists and operatives in Washington. By April 2023, the Heritage Foundation had unveiled the nine-hundred-plus page blueprint, branding it “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise.” The document reads less like a policy wish list and more like a regime change manual, spelling out a dramatic vision for American governance under a future conservative administration.Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, captured the mood in a statement: “All federal employees should answer to the president.” This encapsulates the project's signature ambition—greater centralization of executive power—rooted in what conservative legal theorists call “unitary executive theory.” According to analysis in The New York Times, this vision would go farther than any post-Nixon Republican platform by making the entire federal bureaucracy directly accountable to the president, erasing agency independence and civil service barriers that have existed for decades.The Project's approach is methodical. Its 180-day playbook details how agency heads should be replaced immediately after inauguration, with thousands of ideologically vetted appointees stepping into critical roles. The controversial Schedule F personnel policy is central: it seeks to reclassify existing civil servants, strip them of job protections, and replace large swathes with loyalists, allowing the new administration essentially unlimited power to hire and fire across government. According to the National Federation of Federal Employees, this would have unprecedented ramifications—apolitical employees, many with deep expertise, would lose their shields from political interference and could be replaced at will, upending regulatory stability.Examples of proposed reforms are as concrete as they are sweeping. The plan advocates abolishing entire agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the U.S. Agency for International Development. According to reporting on the current administration's implementation efforts, the Department of Government Efficiency led by Elon Musk has already moved to shut down both of those agencies, simultaneously laying off over a quarter million federal workers and contractors—27 agencies impacted in total. The chaos of rapid layoffs has led to lawsuits: NTEU President Tony Reardon stated, “For over 47 years, the law has made clear that collective bargaining in the federal sector is in the public interest. We have taken the necessary action to file a lawsuit to uphold the law and stop this attack.”On the policy side, criminal justice stands as a stark example. Project 2025 recommends that the Department of Justice intervene in local cases where it believes “rule of law deficiencies” exist, targeting prosecutors who prefer diversion programs or refuse to prosecute low-level offenses. The Brennan Center underscores that this would politicize local law enforcement and undermine prosecutorial discretion, with potentially chilling effects on criminal justice reform.Economic policy proposals include consolidating the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Census Bureau, and Bureau of Labor Statistics into a single agency—a move that critics, like Democracy Forward, warn would “kneecap the data-collection capacities” essential for planning and transparency. Project 2025 also seeks to dismantle the Economic Development Administration, which recently overseen billions in infrastructure investment and the creation of over 200,000 jobs, threatening significant disruption to federal investment in communities.Supporters argue these measures will “destroy the administrative state,” clearing away what they view as unaccountable power. Critics, from the ACLU to the Center for Progressive Reform, counter that the blueprint's methods—centralized appointment, aggressive deregulation, and sweeping personnel changes—threaten democratic checks and balances, civil rights, and the rule of law.As the country approaches pivotal elections, Project 2025 stands at a crossroads between aspiration and action. The next major milestone will arrive with the inauguration—should the conservative movement prevail, all eyes will be on the new administration's first hundred days, as the fate of agencies, public servants, and the structure of American governance hang in the balance.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for moreSome great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

【聊了什么】 在特朗普2.0时代，高院6比3的保守派多数已成定局。面对特朗普政府在行政权上的不断扩张和对司法独立底线的不断试探，高院是如何回应的？最高法院是美国民主的最后一道防线，还是行政权力的橡皮图章？ 本期节目中，我们与两位嘉宾复盘最高法院近期的关键判决，剖析其对美国政治与社会的深远影响。 播客文字稿（付费会员专享）：https://theamericanroulette.com/scotus-rulings-2025-transcript 【支持我们】 如果喜欢这期节目并希望支持我们将节目继续做下去： 也欢迎加入我们的会员计划： https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ 会员可以收到每周2-5封newsletter，可以加入会员社群，参加会员活动，并享受更多福利。 合作投稿邮箱：american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【时间轴】 03:05 高院年度盘点背景介绍：特朗普第二任期与6比3的保守派多数 05:26 批判“3-3-3”法院的说法 11:10 首席大法官罗伯茨的个人议程与困境 15:05 宪法、政策与司法审查：法院角色的理论探讨 21:27 Trump v. CASA 与出生公民权 41:01 “影子卷宗”(Shadow Docket)的兴起及其影响 46:41 影子卷宗案例：移民与行政权力案件 53:01 从高院判决看总统制与议会制的差异 64:43 LGBTQ权益与父母权利的冲突 72:48 阿里托的愤怒与杰克逊的“末日预言” 83:24 高院的未来：合法性危机与下任期展望 95:34 重新审视法院角色 【我们是谁】 美轮美换是一档深入探讨当今美国政治的中文播客。 我们的主播和嘉宾： Lokin：美国法学院毕业生，即将成为一名纽约诉讼律师 王浩岚：美国政治爱好者，岚目公众号主笔兼消息二道贩子 Nancy：普林斯顿大学政治学博士生，耶鲁法学院法律博士 品达：美国政治观察人士 【 What We Talked About】 In the era of Trump 2.0, a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court is a settled reality. How has the Court responded to the Trump administration's continuous expansion of executive power and its constant testing of the boundaries of judicial independence? Is the Supreme Court the last line of defense for American democracy, or a mere rubber stamp for executive authority? In this episode, we are joined by two guests to review the Supreme Court's recent key decisions and analyze their profound impact on American politics and society. Podcast Transcript (Paid Subscribers Only): https://theamericanroulette.com/scotus-rulings-2025-transcript 【Support Us】 If you like our show and want to support us, please consider the following: Join our membership program: https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/americanroulette Business Inquiries and fan mail: american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【Timeline】 03:05 Background for the Supreme Court's Year in Review: Trump's Second Term and the 6-3 Conservative Majority 05:26 Critiquing the "3-3-3" Court Theory 11:10 Chief Justice Roberts's Personal Agenda and Dilemmas 15:05 Constitution, Policy, and Judicial Review: A Theoretical Exploration of the Court's Role 21:27 Trump v. CASA and Birthright Citizenship 41:01 The Rise of the "Shadow Docket" and Its Impact 46:41 Shadow Docket Cases: Immigration and Executive Power 53:01 Presidential vs. Parliamentary Systems as Seen Through Supreme Court Rulings 64:43 The Conflict Between LGBTQ Rights and Parental Rights 72:48 Justice Alito's Anger and Justice Jackson's "Doomsday Prophecy" 83:24 The Future of the Supreme Court: Legitimacy Crisis and a Look Ahead to the Next Term 95:34 Reexamining the Role of the Court 【Who We Are】 The American Roulette is a podcast dedicated to helping the Chinese-speaking community understand fast-changing U.S. politics. Our Hosts and Guests: Lokin: U.S. law school student, incoming NY litigation lawyer 王浩岚 (Haolan Wang): American political enthusiast, chief writer at Lán Mù WeChat Official Account, and peddler of information Nancy：Princeton Politics PhD student, Yale Law School graduate Pinda：American political enthusiast 【The Links】 Trump v. CASA, Inc. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_2co3.pdf Mahmoud v. Taylor https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf A. A. R. P. v. Trump https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_g2bh.pdf Skrmetti v. United States https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf Trump v. Wilcox https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a966_1b8e.pdf KBJ's footnote 12 in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida https://abovethelaw.com/2025/06/neil-gorsuch-starts-some-supreme-court-drama-ketanji-brown-jackson-ends-it/ How the Transgender Rights Movement Bet on the Supreme Court and Lost https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/19/magazine/scotus-transgender-care-tennessee-skrmetti.html Sarah McBride on Why the Left Lost on Trans Rights https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-sarah-mcbride.html Lawless https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Lawless/Leah-Litman/9781668054628

01:00 Video: CNN Host Abby Phillip Keeps Shedding Viewers & Attacking Her Guests, w/ Halperin, Spicer, Turrentine 12:00 The Death of Mainstream Media, & Why Gavin Newsom Won't Run | Mark Halperin, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6ZGcvtsqiM 20:00 COVID Revisionism Has Gone Too Far, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/08/covid-pandemic-revisionism-books/683954/ 27:45 Why Is The Elite Media Singing From The Same Hymnal About The Trump-Putin Summit? (8-17-25), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQF5QIYKQEM 34:00 Mark Halperin & Bruce Mehlman discuss Trump 2.0 & Politics in 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQF5QIYKQEM 45:00 Restoring Quality Of Life, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=163123 1:33:30 John Bolton raid is first of many: Matt Taibbi , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkaYpK01hvY 1:42:00 Why must foreign policy be a didactic lesson?, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=163095 2:55:40 Video: New Data Shows Dem Party is Seeing Voter Declines in EVERY STATE 3:32:00 The Half Life Of Limerence, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=163117 3:40:00 If you can't trust central bankers, then who can you trust?, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=163047 4:00:00 Executive Power & The Common Good | Rufo, Deneen, Caldwell, Yarvin & Burtka | Project Cosmos EP:01, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1uSsqe0GuA 4:23:00 DC cooks police stats

It's August 13th, 2025, and once again, the spotlight is trained on former President Donald Trump—this time not for a campaign rally or a press conference, but for a series of high-stakes courtroom dramas that have played out across the country over the last several days. The legal turbulence circling Trump feels relentless, but the energy in and around courthouses from San Francisco to Washington, D.C. is unmistakable—these aren't just headline-grabbing disputes, they're shaping the future boundaries of presidential power, military deployment, and civil liberties.Right now, all eyes are on San Francisco where a landmark civil trial is underway, scrutinizing Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles during massive protests earlier this summer. The State of California, led by Deputy Attorney General Meghan Strong, is making its case that Trump's administration illegally used the military for domestic law enforcement—essentially, arguing that the lines between troop and police vanished somewhere on the streets of LA. Yesterday's courtroom scene was tense, with a senior military officer—testifying just after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted about plans to “flood” D.C. with National Guard—insisting that every move was above board. But Judge Charles R. Breyer suggested to all present that Hegseth's words may very well sway the decision, especially as the state warns this was only “the beginning,” with cities like Baltimore and Oakland on Trump's own shortlist for future troop deployments, and California demanding immediate, enforceable boundaries on the use of federal force in civilian cities.Meanwhile, these California proceedings are just the latest in an avalanche of legal challenges enveloping Trump. In fact, the Lawfare Litigation Tracker reports nearly 300 active cases challenging Trump administration executive actions—many dealing with national security or broad assertions of federal authority. Several judges over the summer ruled both for and against the federal government, and 14 Supreme Court orders have granted stays or vacated lower court decisions, underscoring that the legal battles are playing out at every judicial level.Speaking of the Supreme Court, just days ago, in Trump v. CASA, Inc., the justices weighed in on Trump's controversial executive order ending birthright citizenship. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, granted a partial stay on nationwide injunctions, sharply limiting lower courts' reach and only preventing enforcement in cases where plaintiffs had standing. While the government won an important tactical victory, three justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan—vocally dissented, warning that narrowing such injunctions left many at risk.Through it all, Trump and his officials mostly shrug off the court orders, pressing ahead with their agenda across the country. For the next two weeks, with more hearings set—like the August 26th showdown in the Thakur et al v. Trump case—Americans remain riveted, waiting to see not just how the courts will judge Trump's actions, but how those judgments might redefine the balance between executive authority and states' rights.Thanks for tuning in. Come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease.AI.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

It's been a wild week on the legal front for former President Donald Trump and his administration, bringing a cascade of courtroom drama that's anything but routine. Right now, no case seems more pivotal than the hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where all eleven judges—an extraordinary en banc session—are sizing up whether Trump actually had the authority to impose tariffs on foreign imports without Congress signing off. This stems from the consolidated lawsuits led by V.O.S. Selections and a coalition of twelve states, who claim the tariffs drowned their businesses in costs and snuffed out competition. Lawyers for both sides have traded blows, and judges appear skeptical of the administration's broad assertion of executive power. A permanent injunction has already blocked future tariffs, but Trump's team is fighting hard to overturn it, hoping the appeals court will side with the White House. The stakes here are sky-high, not just for trade policy but potentially for the limits of presidential power.Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, a lawsuit filed last Friday by a battalion of states accuses President Trump of unlawfully targeting gender-affirming care for minors, citing executive actions that closed clinics across California, New York, and Illinois. Hospitals are reportedly halting services in response to Trump's executive order. The coalition is challenging both the lawfulness and constitutionality of these actions, and the case has swept up top federal officials, including Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi.The legal frenzy doesn't stop there. The National Association of the Deaf is suing Trump for axing American Sign Language services during federal briefings. Their case in Washington, D.C. is making waves, demanding interpreters be restored and arguing that removing them violates disability rights and foundational First Amendment protections.Immigration has also burst onto center stage in California, with the Trump administration urgently petitioning the Supreme Court to overturn a federal judge's ban on immigration stops. The judge's order, handed down in Los Angeles, said agents can't detain people solely based on their race or the language they speak. At the core of the dispute is a massive sweep of undocumented immigrants from June, now dubbed the “largest Mass Deportation Operation” in history. Pro-immigrant groups rushed to court, arguing the raids trampled on Fourth Amendment protections. The government, for its part, insists these restrictions threaten immigration enforcement and is hoping the Supreme Court lifts the ban on these operations soon.And for those tracking every legal twist, the Trump Administration Litigation Tracker is following nearly 300 active cases across the nation, from executive orders on birthright citizenship to bans on DEIA initiatives. As rulings drop and appeals climb toward the highest courts, the next few weeks will be decisive.Thanks for tuning in. Join us again next week for more updates—this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

0:00 - DOGE staffer known as ‘Big Balls’ attacked in DC 6:28 - Ex-CNN correspondent Jim Acosta interviews AI avatar of deceased Parkland shooting victim 27:03 - Texas governor asks court to remove House Democratic leader from office over walkout 52:19 - FAFO parenting: is 'F*** Around and Find Out' the antidote to gentle parenting? 01:06:17 - Thomas Weitzel is the retired Chief of Police of Riverside. He joined Dan Proft with reaction to recent acts of violence against police officers. 01:26:40 - Stephen Moore is a Noted Economist and author of The Trump Economic Miracle: And the Plan to Unleash Prosperity Again – co authored with Art Laffer 01:45:56 - Richard Epstein is the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Law, Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago. He joined Dan Proft to talk about Tariffs and Executive Power. 02:05:30 - Susan Crabtree is RealClearPolitics’ national political correspondent and co-author of Fool’s Gold: The Radicals, Con Artists, and Traitors Who Killed the California Dream and Now Threaten Us AllSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In just the past week, the legal battles swirling around Donald Trump have reached a new level of intensity, drawing the nation's attention back to a courthouse drama that seems never-ending. On July 23, the Supreme Court stepped in yet again—this time granting the Trump administration's emergency request for a stay in Trump v. Boyle. The decision, delivered without a full briefing or oral argument, reflected a split on the bench, with Justice Kagan writing in dissent. The outcome means the administration can press ahead with removing federal officials—part of a broader campaign by Trump's White House to reshape the executive branch and its agencies. This is happening as the judiciary weighs a surge of legal challenges, not just to Trump personally, but to the policies he's enacted since returning to office.Just before that, the Supreme Court handed down a blockbuster decision on July 9, clearing the way for President Trump to push forward with plans for dramatic reductions in the federal workforce. According to SCOTUSblog, this order lets agencies initiate what Trump described as “large-scale reductions in force”—RIFs—across government. The move came even as lower courts had temporarily blocked it, citing the risk of irreversible damage. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stood alone in her dissent, warning of “an apparently unprecedented and congressionally unsanctioned dismantling of the Federal Government.” Labor unions and advocacy groups vow to keep fighting the order in court, but for now, the Trump administration has the green light.Meanwhile, in New York, the repercussions of Trump's criminal conviction are still rippling outward. The New York Unified Court System's January 2025 audio and filings document the intensity of those final courtroom moments. There's an active appeals process challenging both the verdict and orders in the high-profile Manhattan case overseen by Judge Juan Merchan, as well as appeals stemming from the related Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg prosecution. Despite Trump's attempts to move proceedings to federal court and to dismiss charges on procedural grounds, those efforts have been repeatedly denied. The appeals now move forward on a consolidated docket, setting up a pivotal next chapter.On multiple fronts, Trump's team is locked in appellate battles not only over the handling of state cases but also the fallout from the civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. After Justice Engoron's major summary judgment and subsequent damages order, both sides are set for a protracted fight in the Appellate Division, which could bring new revelations and risks for Trump's business empire.Layered atop all this is the stream of litigation documented by the Lawfare Litigation Tracker, which notes nearly 300 cases still winding their way through the courts—many challenging executive actions and personnel moves made in Trump's second term. Judges across the country are being asked to rule on the bounds of presidential discretion, the reach of federal courts, and the meaning of separation of powers, as the nation watches with no clear sense of when it all will settle.Thank you for tuning in and staying informed on these unprecedented court battles. Come back next week for more updates—this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease dot AI.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

On episode two of the new The Libertarian podcast, Richard Epstein talks to Charles C. W. Cooke about executive power. What does the Constitution say about it? How has it evolved? What space is there for executive discretion? Can the president fire everyone in his branch for whatever reason? Has Congress abdicated its responsibility?

On episode two of the new The Libertarian podcast, Richard Epstein talks to Charles C. W. Cooke about executive power. What does the Constitution say about it? How has it evolved? What space is there for executive discretion? Can the president fire everyone in his branch for whatever reason? Has Congress abdicated its responsibility?

The Federalist Papers, The Constitution and Supreme Court Wrap-Up 2024-2025 w/ Dorollo Nixon, Esq & Jesan Sorrells---00:00 Supreme Court's Role as Congressional Check09:44 "Executive Power and Accountability Debate"14:12 "U.S. Military Engagements: Then vs. Now"18:14 "Expanding Presidential Power Debate"24:47 Power Shifts in Digital Politics32:37 Judiciary's Role and Challenges34:01 Court Review: Judges Halting Exec Orders41:12 Hamilton's Dictator: Federalist 70 Insights49:52 Limits of Executive Action51:26 Judicial Rulings' Geographic Limits56:27 Originalism vs. Digital Future01:02:48 Youth Vote Shift Towards Socialism01:11:37 Supreme Court Law Limitations01:12:59 Constitutional Interpretation & 14th Amendment01:22:52 Critique of Unaccountable Governance01:23:50 "Dorollo Nixon Live Broadcast"---Opening and closing themes composed by Brian Sanyshyn of Brian Sanyshyn Music.---Pick up your copy of 12 Rules for Leaders: The Foundation of Intentional Leadership NOW on AMAZON!Check out the 2022 Leadership Lessons From the Great Books podcast reading list!--- ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ Subscribe to the Leadership Lessons From The Great Books Podcast: https://bit.ly/LLFTGBSubscribeCheck out HSCT Publishing at: https://www.hsctpublishing.com/.Check out LeadingKeys at: https://www.leadingkeys.com/Check out Leadership ToolBox at: https://leadershiptoolbox.us/Contact HSCT for more information at 1-833-216-8296 to schedule a full DEMO of LeadingKeys with one of our team members.---Leadership ToolBox website: https://leadershiptoolbox.us/.Leadership ToolBox LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ldrshptlbx/.Leadership ToolBox YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@leadershiptoolbox/videosLeadership ToolBox Twitter: https://twitter.com/ldrshptlbx.Leadership ToolBox IG: https://www.instagram.com/leadershiptoolboxus/.Leadership ToolBox FB: https://www.facebook.com/LdrshpTl

In this episode of Management Matters, host James-Christian Blockwood explores the evolving dynamics between the executive branch, Congress, and the judiciary with guests Yuval Levin of American Enterprise Institute and Academy Fellow Robert Shea of GovNavigators. The discussion delves into the (self-imposed) weakening role of Congress, the impact of expanding populism on public administration and the federal workforce, and the current and future roles of the judiciary in maintaining constitutional balance. 01:22 The Role of Congress in the Balance of Power06:16 Judicial Oversight and the Courts10:25 Federal Workforce and Accountability14:51 Populism and Government Criticism17:35 Opportunities for Government Reform21:25 Final Thoughts on Democratic Institutions

In this episode, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer discusses ongoing Republican-led investigations into Joe Biden’s mental fitness and the legitimacy of executive actions taken during his administration. Comer criticizes the partisan atmosphere in Congress, accuses Democrats of prioritizing opposition to Trump over substantive policy, and raises concerns about the use of autopen signatures on executive orders and pardons. He also highlights media bias in protecting Biden and expresses skepticism about Democratic cooperation in oversight efforts. The Truth with Lisa Boothe is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Tuesday & Thursday. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Shannon Bream joins the Marc Cox Morning Show to discuss the ongoing House Oversight investigation into President Joe Biden and his inner circle, including Anthony Bernal's repeated Fifth Amendment refusals amid questions about Hunter Biden pardons and the controversial “auto pen.” Despite limited cooperation, the probe continues to dig for proof of unauthorized presidential actions. Bream also weighs in on the recent Supreme Court ruling affirming the president's broad authority to restructure federal jobs, emphasizing the legal nuance behind the decision. The conversation touches on the Epstein fallout and calls from GOP senators for greater transparency, as well as ongoing political battles over sanctuary cities. The segment captures the growing frustration over stalled investigations and questions about presidential fitness.

The National Constitution Center and the Center on the Structural Constitution at Texas A&M University School of Law present a U.S. Supreme Court review symposium featuring leading constitutional law scholars and commentators analyzing the Court's most significant rulings of the term. Panel 2: The Roberts Court and Executive PowerStephen Vladeck, Agnes Williams Sesquicentennial Professor of Federal Courts, Georgetown University Law CenterDaniel Walters, associate professor of law, Texas A&M University School of LawKeith Whittington, David Boies Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolModerator: Neil Siegel, David W. Ichel Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science, Duke Law School 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

Roger welcomes Lord Daniel Hannan, a British writer, historian and member of the UK House of Lords, for a wide-ranging conversation on executive overreach, constitutional principles and the ideas that preserve liberty.They explore how power has steadily concentrated in the hands of presidents and prime ministers, weakening the roles of legislatures and citizens alike. They also reflect on what America borrowed and improved on from British political traditions through its written Constitution, and consider how both nations risk forgetting the foundations of their freedom. Other topics include the aftermath of Brexit, the future of free trade and why humility and historical awareness are essential for effective governance in the 21st century.Lord Daniel Hannan serves as international secretary of the Conservative Party, is the founding president of the Institute for Free Trade, a New York Times bestselling author and a former Conservative member of the European Parliament. He was also the keynote speaker this year at TFAS's annual Neal B. Freeman Lecture, which discusses the principles of a free society, free markets, personal responsibility and virtue.The Liberty + Leadership Podcast is hosted by TFAS president Roger Ream and produced by Podville Media. If you have a comment or question for the show, please email us at podcast@TFAS.org. To support TFAS and its mission, please visit TFAS.org/support.Support the show

In this episode, Dr. Nicole Bryan challenges the narrative that Black female introverts staying out of power is noble and emphasizes the importance of redefining success, embracing responsibility, and using power strategically to create meaningful change within corporate environments. The conversation highlights the psychological barriers that prevent women from stepping into leadership roles and encourages listeners to recognize their potential to transform the establishment from within._______LET'S CONNECT!*Reserve your seat today for the free session July 26th: “From Invisible to Invincible: Strategies for Black Introvert Women to Get Executive Promotions in Five Months or Less.” 

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

Indira Gandhi did not need to introduce new laws to give the Emergency teeth; such provisions already existed.  

UNLOCKED episode: Glenn answers questions from our Locals community on war with Iran, executive power, the Trump administration, and more.  Join our Locals community to submit questions to this weekly segment here! ------------- Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update:  Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook  

In this thought-provoking episode of The Andrew Parker Show, Andrew sits down with Justice Barry Anderson, a recently retired Minnesota Supreme Court justice with over 20 years of service on the bench. Justice Anderson, a distinguished legal mind, reflects on the rule of law, its evolution, and the role it plays in shaping American society.They dive deep into the American legal tradition, contrasting it with ancient legal systems, and explore how the rule of law in the U.S. is rooted in a bottom-up approach rather than top-down governance. Justice Anderson shares insights from his time on the Minnesota Supreme Court, offering listeners a rare glimpse behind the scenes of the highest court in the state.From discussions on the First Amendment and religious liberty to the intersection of executive and judicial powers, this episode is packed with valuable lessons on constitutional principles and their real-world implications. Tune in as Andrew and Justice Anderson discuss the importance of historical context in understanding today's legal battles, including issues surrounding immigration, government overreach, and the evolving role of the administrative state.This conversation is a must-listen for those passionate about understanding the rule of law, its challenges, and its significance in our democracy.Support the showThe Andrew Parker Show - Politics, Israel & The Law. Follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube and X. Subscribe to our email list at www.theandrewparkershow.com Copyright © 2025 The Andrew Parker Show - All Rights Reserved.

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson unpacks the legal battle between California and the Trump administration over the federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles. She explains the statutes at play, including the limits of the Posse Comitatus Act and the potential use of the Insurrection Act. Jessica details Judge Breyer's ruling in favor of California, outlines the key legal questions for the upcoming Ninth Circuit hearing, and gives insight into the judges involved in this high-profile case.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss: Presidential Power to Federalize the National Guard: Jessica Levinson opens by explaining the legal mechanisms the president attempted to use to federalize the National Guard and send them, along with Marines, into Los Angeles. She breaks down the relevant federal statute (Title 10, Section 12406), which gives the president limited power to federalize the National Guard under specific conditions, such as responding to rebellion or when federal law can't be enforced with regular forces.The Scope and Limits of Military Involvement – The Posse Comitatus Act: Jessica addresses the significance of the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. Even if the National Guard is federalized, their direct involvement in law enforcement (like making arrests) is limited unless a separate statute (the Insurrection Act) is invoked.The Insurrection Act as an Exception: She describes how the Insurrection Act is an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, allowing the military to more directly handle law enforcement under certain conditions (such as widespread unlawful conduct or when state authorities can't protect federal rights). She provides historical examples, such as federal intervention during desegregation in the 1950s and 1960s, and the Rodney King riots in 1992.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we examine the legal showdown in Los Angeles as President Trump sends the National Guard against California's wishes. Host Jessica Levinson analyzes the president's broad—though not unlimited—authority under Title 10 and California's legal case challenging the move on grounds of state sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment. Jessica explains how federal law and the Posse Comitatus Act restrict the National Guard's role, and why courts are usually hesitant to overrule presidential decisions on national security. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Presidential Authority to Federalize the National Guard Jessica Levinson breaks down the Trump administration's decision to send the National Guard into Los Angeles, despite objections from California officials. She explains that under federal law (Title 10), presidents have broad—though not unlimited—powers to federalize state National Guard troops. This authority can be exercised when there is a “rebellion or danger of rebellion” against federal authority, even if the state's governor disagrees.State Sovereignty vs. Federal Power California, led by Governor Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, challenges Trump's move, arguing it infringes on state sovereignty. Levinson examines the legal conflict between state autonomy (protected by the Tenth Amendment) and federal authority as outlined in Title 10. However, she concludes that the statute grants the president clear authority in these situations, making California's legal challenge an uphill battle.The Limitations of National Guard Powers (Posse Comitatus Act) Another key theme is what the National Guard can—and cannot—do once federalized. The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits the military from acting as domestic law enforcement. Levinson clarifies that under Title 10, the National Guard cannot directly enforce domestic law (like making arrests or searches), unless additional powers are invoked (e.g., via the Insurrection Act).Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

Thank you so much for listening to the Bob Harden Show, celebrating nearly 14 years broadcasting on the internet. On Wednesday's show, we discuss President Trump, executive powers, and the Constitution with Cato Institute Chairman Emeritus Bob Levy. Professor and author Andrew Joppa and I discuss a variety of topics including the insurrection in Los Angeles, the Democrat party, and the profile of young women in the United States. Please join us on Thursday's show. We'll visit with Keith Flaugh Co-Founder and CEO of the Florida Citizens Alliance, Cato Institute's Michael Cannon, Ambassador Francis Rooney, and former Mayor of Naples Bill Barnett. Access this or past shows at your convenience on my web site, social media platforms or podcast platforms.

On this week's episode of Unclear and Present Danger, Jamelle and John watched Executive Power, an obscure made-for-TV movie directed by David Corley and starring Craig Sheffer as Nick Seger, a Secret Service agent who gets entangled in a web of political intrigue and moral compromise after he assists the president in a deadly cover-up.There is not much more to the movie, but Jamelle and John try very hard to extract something like political insight from the proceedings! You can watch Executive Power for free on YouTube (although I would not recommend it).Our next episode is on The Assignment, a 1997 thriller directed by Christian Duguay and starring Aidan Quinn, Donald Sutherland, Ben Kinglsey and Claudia Ferri. Here is a brief plot synopsis:Jack Shaw has experienced the terror first-hand. He's a top CIA agent who's tracked international killer-for-hire Carlos “The Jackal” Sanchez for over twenty years and barely survived Carlos' devastating bombing of a Parisian cafe. Now, he finally gets a break when he discovers Carlos' dead ringer: American naval officer and dedicated family man Annibal Ramirez.And sign up for our Patreon, where we cover the films of the Cold War. Our next episode will be on Arthur Penn's Night Moves. You can sign up at patreon.com/unclearpod.Our producer is Connor Lynch and our artwork is by Rachel Eck. You can reach out to us over email at unclearandpresentfeedback@fastmail.com

Constitutional scholars Ilya Shapiro, Stephen Vladeck, and Adam White join NCC President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to debate whether the Trump administration has overreached on executive power, analyze the relationship between the federal courts and the president, and put the present moment in historical context. This conversation was originally recorded on May 21, 2025, at George Washington's Mount Vernon.  Resources J. Michael Luttig, “The End of Rule of Law in America,” The Atlantic (May 14, 2025)  Stephen Vladeck, “What the Courts Can Still Do to Constrain Trump,” The Atlantic (April 15, 2025)  Ilya Shapiro, “Don't Throw My Executive Power in That Briar Patch!,” Shapiro's Gavel Substack (April 24, 2025)  Adam White, “WTH Is Going On with Birthright Citizenship? Adam White Explains” WTH Is Going On podcast (Jan. 30, 2025)  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

In this episode of Madison's Notes, Michael McConnell examines the gap between the Founders' vision of a limited presidency and today's expansive executive power. Drawing on his book The President Who Would Not Be King (Princeton University Press, 2022), we discuss how the Constitution's safeguards against monarchical authority have eroded over the past century—and what steps might restore […]

Constitutionally, North Carolina's governor has little power compared to other states. Recently, the Republican-controlled General Assembly has made moves to take away even more power. While legal questions about these moves remain, we look at what these attempts mean for the future of how our state government operates.

In this conversation, the guys discuss the evolving landscape of journalism, emphasizing the critical role of copy editors and the decline of factual reporting. They delve into the implications of misinformation in political discourse, particularly in the context of recent statements made by political figures. The discussion also covers legal challenges against executive orders, the future of executive power, and the necessity of civic education to foster informed citizenship. Additionally, they address the importance of media accountability in the face of government propaganda.Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/JATQPodcastFollow us on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/jatqpodcast.bsky.socialIntragram: https://www.instagram.com/jatqpodcastYoutube:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCET7k2_Y9P9Fz0MZRARGqVwThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon supporters here:https://www.patreon.com/justaskthequestionpodcastPurchase Brian's book "Free The Press" 

In this Best Of The A.M. Update, Aaron McIntire discusses JD Vance's impactful speech at the Munich Security Conference, addressing the decline of free speech in Europe, the importance of understanding executive power, and the unapologetic approach of the Trump administration. He reflects on Trump's recent address to Congress, highlighting the themes of American values and the political landscape.  

On this week's episode of Unclear and Present Danger, Jamelle and John watched The Peacemaker, a 1997 political action thriller directed by Mimi Leder and staring George Clooney and Nicole Kidman.When a train carrying nuclear warheads crashes in rural Russia, nuclear specialist Dr. Julia Kelly is brought in by the U.S. government to investigate. She quickly discovers the incident was no accident, but part of a larger conspiracy to steal the warheads. Assigned to work with her is Lt. Col. Thomas Devoe, a brash U.S. Army intelligence officer who specializes in field operations.Together, Kelly and Devoe uncover a plot involving a rogue Russian general and a vengeful Yugoslav diplomat named Dusan Gavrić. Gavrić plans to detonate a nuclear bomb in New York City as a twisted act of personal vengeance and a misguided attempt at political "peace."As they chase the warheads across Europe, facing betrayals and dangerous obstacles, Kelly's strategic thinking and Devoe's action-driven instincts clash but ultimately complement each other. Their pursuit culminates in a high-stakes showdown in Manhattan, where they must stop Gavrić before he detonates the bomb in a crowded area. Risking everything, they race against the clock to prevent a catastrophic attack and avert a global crisis.The tagline for The Peacemaker was "Every nuclear device in the world has been accounted for...accept for one."You can find The Peacemaker to rent or purchase on Apple TV or Amazon Prime.Our next episode will be on Executive Power, a little-known political thriller directed by David L. Corley. Here is a brief plot synopsis.While protecting the U.S. President, Secret Service agent Nick Sager helps him to dispose of the body of a young girl, who accidentally died during an adulterous encounter. Some time later, a few weeks before the elections, the disillusioned ex-agent is approached by his former partner. The President's former aide, and one of few people who knew about the cover-up, is found dead in mysterious circumstances.You can find Executive Power to rent on Amazon Prime.Our producer is Connor Lynch and our artwork is by Rachel Eck. You can reach out to us over email at unclearandpresentfeedback@fastmail.com

When running for office, Donald Trump suggested that he "alone could fix" the ills befalling the United States. In his administration's first 100 days, he and his allies have moved quickly to expand the powers of the presidency accordingly.This episode: senior White House correspondent Tamara Keith, political correspondent Sarah McCammon, and senior political editor & correspondent Domenico Montanaro.The podcast is produced by Bria Suggs & Kelli Wessinger and edited by Casey Morell. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

This Nightcap roundtable discusses the pressure campaign and attacks President Trump is waging from universities, to the courts to news organizations. Plus, the White House continues its defiance against making any effort to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia from a prison in El Salvador. And, Trump is meeting with world leaders as he continues to promise trade deals. Then, see who made this week's MVP list. Judy Gold, Tom Rogers, Sean Patrick Maloney, and Marc Dunkelman join The 11th Hour this Friday.