Podcasts about Federalism

Is the release of files on Project Artichoke a joke, mockery, or part of a plan to deconstruct the state? While parroting patriots brag about Olympic gold medals, the White House is at work gutting the tenth amendment, first over artificial intelligence, and now over glyphosate and agricultural chemicals.The release of files on 9/11, JFK, RFK, MLK, Epstein, etc., have vindicated as many conspiracy theories. But much of what was learned by some had already been known by others. Other files have not been released, or conspiracies exposed, like Project Artichoke or Northwoods. A new document pertaining to Artichoke was added to a CIA archive recently but the program has been known about since the 1970s. Nothing new has been released on Northwoods, yet the paper circulated as if it had been in 2025. DOGE exposed waste, but this was not the first time that has happened. Former FBI officials saying phones can be used to spy or influencers pointing out that many foods are food-like substances are both old news. The public is being fed already available information laced with poison. The goal appears to be the undermining of what little faith remains in all foundational, legacy systems. People then demand new parties and system of government. This is where Curtis Yarvin, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and JD Vance, among others, come into play. Their neoreactionary movement advocates for exposing flaws in the current system - failed democracy and bloated bureaucracies - to replace them with technological-monarchy and autocracy. A great example of how this is being done can be found in the issue of glyphosate. In Dec 2025: USDA announces $12 Billion to help farmers pay for chemicals/fertilizer. On Jan 2026: USDA releases the Pesticide Data Program report declaring 99% of food "safe” based on a USDA benchmark. On Feb 2026: Trump uses the Defense Production Act to label weedkiller a "national security asset." As with the Big Beautiful Bill, which was a massive and wasteful bill that stripped state-rights over Artificial Intelligence, HR 7567 is attempting to do the same with pesticide labeling. It calls for “uniformity in pesticide labeling nationally” and will “prohibit any State... or a court from directly or indirectly... hold[ing] liable any entity.” The bill effectively destroys the 10th amendment and state rights, setting an additional precedent for federal control. It's not just business as usual, it's worse business and it's worse than usual. The long declassified Project Artichoke, or the exploration of mind control, supposedly being to classified at the same time appears to be nothing more than a mockery and a joke.https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr7567/BILLS-119hr7567ih.pdfhttps://www.usda.gov/farmers-first https://www.ams.usda.gov/press-release/usda-publishes-2024-pesticide-data-program-annual-summaryhttps://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/02/promoting-the-national-defense-by-ensuring-an-adequate-supply-of-elemental-phosphorus-and-glyphosate-based-herbicides/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email*The is the FREE archive, which includes advertisements. If you want an ad-free experience, you can subscribe below underneath the show description.

Is the Electoral College under threat? The growing push for the National Popular Vote could fundamentally reshape American federalism and state power. In this episode of The P.A.S. Report Podcast, Professor Nicholas Giordano sits down with Trent England to break down the historical purpose of the Electoral College, the Founding Fathers' constitutional design, and the serious implications of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This conversation explores why federalism matters, how democracy can conflict with individual rights, and what happens when civic education fails to explain the structure of the Constitution. What You'll Learn: Why the Electoral College was a deliberate constitutional compromise, not an accident How the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could weaken state sovereignty The difference between pure democracy and constitutional republicanism Why federalism protects minority rights and prevents centralized power How civic education shapes the future of constitutional self-government The debate over the Electoral College is not just political. It is a question about the survival of federalism, the limits of democracy, and whether Americans still understand the Constitution that governs them.

Each year, as many as 250 million Americans face civil legal problems like eviction, debt collection, and substandard housing. These problems are disproportionately shouldered by racially and economically marginalized people, particularly women of color. Civil courts and legal aid organizations are supposed to protect their rights, yet more than 90 percent of low-income people receive inadequate or no legal assistance. Instead, access to justice is reserved for those who can afford its high price. For those who can't, the repercussions can be devastating, from homelessness and loss of public benefits to broken families and diminished health. Uncivil Democracy: How Access to Justice Shapes Political Power (Princeton UP, 2026) looks at the US civil justice system through the eyes of the people whose very citizenship is indelibly shaped by it. Jamila Michener and Mallory SoRelle show how civil legal problems, and the institutions meant to address them, greatly erode trust in the legal system among marginalized communities, undermining their broader sense of democratic citizenship and political standing. While legal representation offers vital protections, increased access to justice through an ever-growing supply of lawyers does not address the structural problems that generate demand for lawyers in the first place. Looking at cases involving unfair evictions and substandard housing, Michener and SoRelle demonstrate how community groups such as tenants' unions can fill this justice gap and provide the means to build political power that transforms the conditions that create precarity. Drawing on eye-opening qualitative evidence and a wealth of historical and survey data, Uncivil Democracy explains why collective organizing holds the greatest promise for altering the systems that create civil legal problems and exercising the political power necessary for meaningful change. Host Ursula Hackett is Reader in Politics at Royal Holloway, University of London, where she specialises in the study of public policymaking and litigation in the US. A former British Academy Mid-Career Fellow, she is the author of the award-winning book,America's Voucher Politics: How Elites Learned to Hide the State (Cambridge University Press, 2020). Jamila Michener is Professor of Government and Public Policy at Cornell University and inaugural director of the Center for Racial Justice and Equitable Futures. She is the author of the award-winning book,  Fragmented Democracy: Medicaid, Federalism, and Unequal Politics (Cambridge University Press, 2018). Mallory SoRelle is the Tony and Teddie Brown Associate Professor of Public Policy at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. She is the author of Democracy Declined: The Failed Politics of Consumer Financial Protection (University of Chicago Press, 2020), based on her award-winning doctoral dissertation.

Each year, as many as 250 million Americans face civil legal problems like eviction, debt collection, and substandard housing. These problems are disproportionately shouldered by racially and economically marginalized people, particularly women of color. Civil courts and legal aid organizations are supposed to protect their rights, yet more than 90 percent of low-income people receive inadequate or no legal assistance. Instead, access to justice is reserved for those who can afford its high price. For those who can't, the repercussions can be devastating, from homelessness and loss of public benefits to broken families and diminished health. Uncivil Democracy: How Access to Justice Shapes Political Power (Princeton UP, 2026) looks at the US civil justice system through the eyes of the people whose very citizenship is indelibly shaped by it. Jamila Michener and Mallory SoRelle show how civil legal problems, and the institutions meant to address them, greatly erode trust in the legal system among marginalized communities, undermining their broader sense of democratic citizenship and political standing. While legal representation offers vital protections, increased access to justice through an ever-growing supply of lawyers does not address the structural problems that generate demand for lawyers in the first place. Looking at cases involving unfair evictions and substandard housing, Michener and SoRelle demonstrate how community groups such as tenants' unions can fill this justice gap and provide the means to build political power that transforms the conditions that create precarity. Drawing on eye-opening qualitative evidence and a wealth of historical and survey data, Uncivil Democracy explains why collective organizing holds the greatest promise for altering the systems that create civil legal problems and exercising the political power necessary for meaningful change. Host Ursula Hackett is Reader in Politics at Royal Holloway, University of London, where she specialises in the study of public policymaking and litigation in the US. A former British Academy Mid-Career Fellow, she is the author of the award-winning book,America's Voucher Politics: How Elites Learned to Hide the State (Cambridge University Press, 2020). Jamila Michener is Professor of Government and Public Policy at Cornell University and inaugural director of the Center for Racial Justice and Equitable Futures. She is the author of the award-winning book,  Fragmented Democracy: Medicaid, Federalism, and Unequal Politics (Cambridge University Press, 2018). Mallory SoRelle is the Tony and Teddie Brown Associate Professor of Public Policy at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. She is the author of Democracy Declined: The Failed Politics of Consumer Financial Protection (University of Chicago Press, 2020), based on her award-winning doctoral dissertation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

Each year, as many as 250 million Americans face civil legal problems like eviction, debt collection, and substandard housing. These problems are disproportionately shouldered by racially and economically marginalized people, particularly women of color. Civil courts and legal aid organizations are supposed to protect their rights, yet more than 90 percent of low-income people receive inadequate or no legal assistance. Instead, access to justice is reserved for those who can afford its high price. For those who can't, the repercussions can be devastating, from homelessness and loss of public benefits to broken families and diminished health. Uncivil Democracy: How Access to Justice Shapes Political Power (Princeton UP, 2026) looks at the US civil justice system through the eyes of the people whose very citizenship is indelibly shaped by it. Jamila Michener and Mallory SoRelle show how civil legal problems, and the institutions meant to address them, greatly erode trust in the legal system among marginalized communities, undermining their broader sense of democratic citizenship and political standing. While legal representation offers vital protections, increased access to justice through an ever-growing supply of lawyers does not address the structural problems that generate demand for lawyers in the first place. Looking at cases involving unfair evictions and substandard housing, Michener and SoRelle demonstrate how community groups such as tenants' unions can fill this justice gap and provide the means to build political power that transforms the conditions that create precarity. Drawing on eye-opening qualitative evidence and a wealth of historical and survey data, Uncivil Democracy explains why collective organizing holds the greatest promise for altering the systems that create civil legal problems and exercising the political power necessary for meaningful change. Host Ursula Hackett is Reader in Politics at Royal Holloway, University of London, where she specialises in the study of public policymaking and litigation in the US. A former British Academy Mid-Career Fellow, she is the author of the award-winning book,America's Voucher Politics: How Elites Learned to Hide the State (Cambridge University Press, 2020). Jamila Michener is Professor of Government and Public Policy at Cornell University and inaugural director of the Center for Racial Justice and Equitable Futures. She is the author of the award-winning book,  Fragmented Democracy: Medicaid, Federalism, and Unequal Politics (Cambridge University Press, 2018). Mallory SoRelle is the Tony and Teddie Brown Associate Professor of Public Policy at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. She is the author of Democracy Declined: The Failed Politics of Consumer Financial Protection (University of Chicago Press, 2020), based on her award-winning doctoral dissertation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Each year, as many as 250 million Americans face civil legal problems like eviction, debt collection, and substandard housing. These problems are disproportionately shouldered by racially and economically marginalized people, particularly women of color. Civil courts and legal aid organizations are supposed to protect their rights, yet more than 90 percent of low-income people receive inadequate or no legal assistance. Instead, access to justice is reserved for those who can afford its high price. For those who can't, the repercussions can be devastating, from homelessness and loss of public benefits to broken families and diminished health. Uncivil Democracy: How Access to Justice Shapes Political Power (Princeton UP, 2026) looks at the US civil justice system through the eyes of the people whose very citizenship is indelibly shaped by it. Jamila Michener and Mallory SoRelle show how civil legal problems, and the institutions meant to address them, greatly erode trust in the legal system among marginalized communities, undermining their broader sense of democratic citizenship and political standing. While legal representation offers vital protections, increased access to justice through an ever-growing supply of lawyers does not address the structural problems that generate demand for lawyers in the first place. Looking at cases involving unfair evictions and substandard housing, Michener and SoRelle demonstrate how community groups such as tenants' unions can fill this justice gap and provide the means to build political power that transforms the conditions that create precarity. Drawing on eye-opening qualitative evidence and a wealth of historical and survey data, Uncivil Democracy explains why collective organizing holds the greatest promise for altering the systems that create civil legal problems and exercising the political power necessary for meaningful change. Host Ursula Hackett is Reader in Politics at Royal Holloway, University of London, where she specialises in the study of public policymaking and litigation in the US. A former British Academy Mid-Career Fellow, she is the author of the award-winning book,America's Voucher Politics: How Elites Learned to Hide the State (Cambridge University Press, 2020). Jamila Michener is Professor of Government and Public Policy at Cornell University and inaugural director of the Center for Racial Justice and Equitable Futures. She is the author of the award-winning book,  Fragmented Democracy: Medicaid, Federalism, and Unequal Politics (Cambridge University Press, 2018). Mallory SoRelle is the Tony and Teddie Brown Associate Professor of Public Policy at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. She is the author of Democracy Declined: The Failed Politics of Consumer Financial Protection (University of Chicago Press, 2020), based on her award-winning doctoral dissertation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Each year, as many as 250 million Americans face civil legal problems like eviction, debt collection, and substandard housing. These problems are disproportionately shouldered by racially and economically marginalized people, particularly women of color. Civil courts and legal aid organizations are supposed to protect their rights, yet more than 90 percent of low-income people receive inadequate or no legal assistance. Instead, access to justice is reserved for those who can afford its high price. For those who can't, the repercussions can be devastating, from homelessness and loss of public benefits to broken families and diminished health. Uncivil Democracy: How Access to Justice Shapes Political Power (Princeton UP, 2026) looks at the US civil justice system through the eyes of the people whose very citizenship is indelibly shaped by it. Jamila Michener and Mallory SoRelle show how civil legal problems, and the institutions meant to address them, greatly erode trust in the legal system among marginalized communities, undermining their broader sense of democratic citizenship and political standing. While legal representation offers vital protections, increased access to justice through an ever-growing supply of lawyers does not address the structural problems that generate demand for lawyers in the first place. Looking at cases involving unfair evictions and substandard housing, Michener and SoRelle demonstrate how community groups such as tenants' unions can fill this justice gap and provide the means to build political power that transforms the conditions that create precarity. Drawing on eye-opening qualitative evidence and a wealth of historical and survey data, Uncivil Democracy explains why collective organizing holds the greatest promise for altering the systems that create civil legal problems and exercising the political power necessary for meaningful change. Host Ursula Hackett is Reader in Politics at Royal Holloway, University of London, where she specialises in the study of public policymaking and litigation in the US. A former British Academy Mid-Career Fellow, she is the author of the award-winning book,America's Voucher Politics: How Elites Learned to Hide the State (Cambridge University Press, 2020). Jamila Michener is Professor of Government and Public Policy at Cornell University and inaugural director of the Center for Racial Justice and Equitable Futures. She is the author of the award-winning book,  Fragmented Democracy: Medicaid, Federalism, and Unequal Politics (Cambridge University Press, 2018). Mallory SoRelle is the Tony and Teddie Brown Associate Professor of Public Policy at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. She is the author of Democracy Declined: The Failed Politics of Consumer Financial Protection (University of Chicago Press, 2020), based on her award-winning doctoral dissertation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Each year, as many as 250 million Americans face civil legal problems like eviction, debt collection, and substandard housing. These problems are disproportionately shouldered by racially and economically marginalized people, particularly women of color. Civil courts and legal aid organizations are supposed to protect their rights, yet more than 90 percent of low-income people receive inadequate or no legal assistance. Instead, access to justice is reserved for those who can afford its high price. For those who can't, the repercussions can be devastating, from homelessness and loss of public benefits to broken families and diminished health. Uncivil Democracy: How Access to Justice Shapes Political Power (Princeton UP, 2026) looks at the US civil justice system through the eyes of the people whose very citizenship is indelibly shaped by it. Jamila Michener and Mallory SoRelle show how civil legal problems, and the institutions meant to address them, greatly erode trust in the legal system among marginalized communities, undermining their broader sense of democratic citizenship and political standing. While legal representation offers vital protections, increased access to justice through an ever-growing supply of lawyers does not address the structural problems that generate demand for lawyers in the first place. Looking at cases involving unfair evictions and substandard housing, Michener and SoRelle demonstrate how community groups such as tenants' unions can fill this justice gap and provide the means to build political power that transforms the conditions that create precarity. Drawing on eye-opening qualitative evidence and a wealth of historical and survey data, Uncivil Democracy explains why collective organizing holds the greatest promise for altering the systems that create civil legal problems and exercising the political power necessary for meaningful change. Host Ursula Hackett is Reader in Politics at Royal Holloway, University of London, where she specialises in the study of public policymaking and litigation in the US. A former British Academy Mid-Career Fellow, she is the author of the award-winning book,America's Voucher Politics: How Elites Learned to Hide the State (Cambridge University Press, 2020). Jamila Michener is Professor of Government and Public Policy at Cornell University and inaugural director of the Center for Racial Justice and Equitable Futures. She is the author of the award-winning book,  Fragmented Democracy: Medicaid, Federalism, and Unequal Politics (Cambridge University Press, 2018). Mallory SoRelle is the Tony and Teddie Brown Associate Professor of Public Policy at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. She is the author of Democracy Declined: The Failed Politics of Consumer Financial Protection (University of Chicago Press, 2020), based on her award-winning doctoral dissertation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

In this episode of History 102, 'WhatIfAltHist' creator Rudyard Lynch and co-host Austin Padgett explore American history's "Corporate Era," dissecting the rise of managerial elites , cultural shifts toward nihilism , and the recurring structural patterns shaping modern society's evolution. -- FOLLOW ON X: @whatifalthist (Rudyard) @LudwigNverMises (Austin) @TurpentineMedia -- TIMESTAMPS: (00:00) Intro (01:42) Internal Colonization and the Pax Americana (05:19) Houston Smith's Forgotten Truth and Disbelief in Progress (08:08) The Transition from Small Business to National Corporations (10:30) The Double Helix: Cycles of Constant vs. Change (13:11) Comparisons to the Roman Republic's Decadence (16:59) Sam Francis' Leviathan and Its Enemies (21:09) The Old Industrial WASP Elite vs. New Bureaucracy (25:32) Frederick Jackson Turner and Frontier Individualism (28:55) The Gilded Age and the Rise of Populism (33:00) FDR and the Democratic Coalition (36:02) Cultural Origins: North vs. South English Settlement Patterns (40:24) Staggered Industrialization and Geographic History (43:38) Internal Colonization of Appalachia (51:00) Post-War Prosperity and the Decision to Lower Inequality (56:40) The Great Forgetting: Loss of Tradition and Social Technology (01:01:17) Anti-Fragility and the Advantage of Federalism (01:07:41) The Managerial Revenge Against Founder Families (01:13:30) Imperial America and the Northeastern Core (01:19:11) The Lonely Crowd: Anxiety-Based City Culture (01:23:01) The Destabilization of Black Communities under Progressivism (01:36:24) Neoliberalism and the Age of the Last Men (01:46:46) The State of Denial and the Wealth of Old America (02:04:39) The Mutation of Marxism in Institutions (02:10:10) The 120-Year Cycle and Decay of Hollywood (02:19:02) American Beauty as a Reflection of Modern Nihilism (02:23:59) Wrap Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Immigration policy and law enforcement sit at the center of today's most contentious national debates—often generating more heat than clarity. Steven Pomerantz, Assistant Director of the FBI (ret.), a veteran of federal counterterrorism and criminal investigations, joins us to provide a structured look at the issue: How we got here – the statutory foundation of U.S. immigration law Where we stand now – enforcement challenges, federal–state dynamics, and judicial bottlenecks What comes next – practical approaches that uphold civil rights and public safety.

Cory talks about how the impression that Nenshi's NDP won't stand up to Ottawa is keeping Albertans from supporting his party.

Send us a textWho actually has the power over elections in the United States — the federal government, the states, or the president?Alexis takes you go back to the Constitution itself. Because here's the truth: many adults have never been taught (or have near forgotten) how the Constitution is structured, where power is assigned, or why federalism exists in the first place. (This is a super basic/quick overview). When we don't understand that structure, modern debates about elections can feel confusing, emotional, and disconnected from reality.Alexis walks through the basics most people missed:how the Constitution is organizedwhat the Articles actually assign to Congress, the President, and the courtswhere federalism lives in the texthow the Bill of Rights — especially the 10th Amendment — draws a clear line between federal and state powerFrom there, she gets concrete about elections: who runs them, who sets guardrails, and why the president has no constitutional authority to administer or centralize elections.To help frame today's tensions, she puts two books into conversation — The Divided States of America by Donald F. Kettl and American Covenant by Yuval Levin — exploring whether federalism is a system that's breaking down… or one that's doing exactly what it was designed to do.This episode isn't about personalities or partisan talking points. It's about structure, limits, and why understanding the Constitution changes how we see current events.Because policy isn't abstract. It's personal. And federalism is where our disagreements are meant to live.Find Alexis on Instagram and JOIN in the conversation: https://www.instagram.com/the_idaho_lady/ JOIN the convo on Substack & STAY up-to-date with emails and posts https://substack.com/@theidaholady?r=5katbx&utm_campaign=profile&utm_medium=profile-page Send Alexis an email with guest requests, ideas, or potential collaboration.email@thealexismorgan.comFind great resources, info on school communities, and other current projects regarding public policy:https://www.thealexismorgan.com

Thursday, January 29th, 2026Today, the Trump agents who murdered VA nurse Alex Pretti have been put on administrative leave; a DHS review of the murder contradicts Kristi Noem's claim that Pretti was brandishing a gun; the FBI has executed a search warrant on the Fulton County Georgia election offices; a judge rules Virginia Democrats violated the law with their redistricting amendment; an administration official told Punchbowl News that Trump's de-escalatory measures are about trying to placate Democrats into funding the government as is; Democrats win two special elections in Minnesota; a judge has blocked the deportation of 5 year old Liam Ramos; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You, Naked WinesTo get 6 bottles of wine for $39.99, head to nakedwines.com/DAILYBEANS and use code DAILYBEANS for both the code and password.Thank You, BabbelGet up to 55% off your Babbel subscription – at Babbel.com/DAILYBEANS.Guest:Professor Carolyn Shapiro, former Illinois Solicitor General and Professor Chicago Kent College of LawCarolyn Shapiro | Chicago-Kent College of LawCarolyn Shapiro, Author at SCOTUSblogDana Goldberg Tour DatesThe LatestIs Now the Time to Demand a Clawback of the ICE BBB Slush Fund?StoriesD.H.S. Review Does Not Say Pretti Brandished Gun, As Noem Claimed | The New York TimesDonald Trump Is Frightened | The New RepublicJudge rules Virginia Democrats violated law with redistricting amendment | The Washington PostUS federal judge blocks deportation of five-year-old boy and his father | US immigration | The GuardianGood TroubleOperation Fortify materials can be found here: https://www.visibilitybrigade.com/#actions-to-takehttps://www.visibilitybrigade.com/→Standwithminnesota.com→Tell Congress Ice out Now | Indivisible→Defund ICE (UPDATED 1/21) - HOUSE VOTE THURSDAY→Congress: Divest From ICE and CBP | ACLU→ICE List  →iceout.org→standwithminnesota.com→2026 Trans Girl Scouts To Order Cookies From! | Erin in the MorningGood NewsFarmaste Animal SanctuaryIndivisible Guilford County NC Auction Postwww.facebook.com/share/p/1EZeVTPXDW/fb.me/e/k9kYK620Khttps://www.danagoldberg.com/tourTour Dates — DANA GOLDBERG→Go To Good News & Good Trouble - The Daily Beans to Share Yours Subscribe to the MSW YouTube Channel - MSW Media - YouTubeOur Donation LinksPathways to Citizenship link to MATCH Allison's Donationhttps://crm.bloomerang.co/HostedDonation?ApiKey=pub_86ff5236-dd26-11ec-b5ee-066e3d38bc77&WidgetId=6388736Allison is donating $20K to It Gets Better and inviting you to help match her donations. Your support makes this work possible, Daily Beans fam. Donate to It Gets Better / The Daily Beans FundraiserJoin Dana and The Daily Beans with a MATCHED Donation http://onecau.se/_ekes71More Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - Donate

The people who built the domestic terror apparatus are suddenly terrified it's being used. Professor Nick Giordano exposes the receipts they don't want you to see. When protest stops being protest and turns into intimidation, coercion, and violence, the government's response exposes a dangerous line between law enforcement and ideological control. This episode of The P.A.S. Report Podcast examines NSPM-7 and the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism through a critical lens, separating lawful dissent and peaceful protest from the extremism now playing out in cities like Minneapolis. It explains how bureaucratic power expanded under the banner of public safety, why political elites are suddenly alarmed, and how pre-crime logic threatens constitutional liberties regardless of who holds office. What You'll Learn The clear legal and moral difference between peaceful protest and political extremism How NSPM-7 redefined dissent, association, and ideology as threat indicators Why intimidation, harassment, and obstruction cross the line from protest into extremism How Operation Arctic Frost and Prohibited Access files reveal institutional concealment and abuse Why dismantling domestic terrorism frameworks matters more than partisan outcomes This episode confronts selective outrage, exposes constitutional rot, and explains why a free society must protect lawful protest while rejecting extremism enforced through mobs or bureaucratic power.

US federal immigration raids continue in Minnesota, and the operation has set the stage for a standoff between state officials and the federal government. Governor Tim Walz has readied Minnesota's national guard, while the Pentagon has ordered troops to be on standby. A 2024 University of Pennsylvania simulation warned that similar state-federal standoffs could escalate into broader armed conflict. In this episode: Claire Finkelstein (@COFinkelstein),  Center for Ethics and Rule of Law, University of Pennsylvania Episode credits: This episode was produced by Chloe K. Li and Melanie Marich, with Phillip Lanos, Spencer Cline, Tamara Khandaker, Sonia Bhagat and our guest host, Manuel Rapalo. It was edited by Kylene Kiang. The Take production team is Marcos Bartolomé, Sonia Bhagat, Spencer Cline, Sarí el-Khalili, Tamara Khandaker, Kylene Kiang, Phillip Lanos, Chloe K. Li, Melanie Marich, and Noor Wazwaz. Our host is Malika Bilal. Our engagement producers are Adam Abou-Gad and Vienna Maglio. Andrew Greiner is lead of audience engagement. Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Our video editors are Hisham Abu Salah and Mohannad al-Melhem. Alexandra Locke is The Take’s executive producer. Ney Alvarez is Al Jazeera’s head of audio. Connect with us: @AJEPodcasts on X, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube

Arizona's House Federalism Military Affairs and Elections Committee passes two memorials, sending a message to Congress and President Trump to designate CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood as foreign terrorist organizations. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Navigating Federalism: Power and ParadoxThe podcast episode delves into the complexities of American federalism, focusing on the constitutional constraints that shape the balance of power between federal and state governments. It explores key doctrines like anti-commandeering, the dormant commerce clause, and state sovereign immunity, highlighting landmark cases and their implications. The discussion also addresses the paradoxes and challenges these doctrines present, particularly in crisis scenarios, and questions whether the current legal frameworks effectively protect state sovereignty or inadvertently encourage federal overreach.Sound bites"Understanding federalism is understanding power.""Anti-commandeering: a shield for state sovereignty.""Dormant commerce clause: a check on state power.""State sovereign immunity: a constitutional safeguard.""New York v. United States: a federalism landmark.""Federalism's paradox: sovereignty vs. dominance.""Spending clause: federal influence unleashed.""Anti-coercion: protecting state choices.""State tolerance vs. federal preemption.""Supremacy clause: federal law reigns supreme."TakeawaysUnderstanding the balance of power between federal and state governments is crucial.The anti-commandeering doctrine prevents federal overreach into state governance.The dormant commerce clause limits state interference in national markets.State sovereign immunity protects states from certain federal judicial actions.Landmark cases like New York v. United States and Prince v. United States define federalism limits.The paradox of federalism: protecting state sovereignty can lead to federal dominance.The spending clause is a powerful tool for federal influence over states.The anti-coercion principle limits federal financial pressure on states.State laws that tolerate federally banned behavior are generally not preempted.The supremacy clause prevents states from interfering with federal operations.American federalism, constitutional constraints, anti-commandeering, dormant commerce clause, state sovereign immunity, federal power, state sovereignty, landmark cases, legal frameworks, federal overreach

The Tug of War: Congress vs. PresidentThis conversation delves into the intricate dynamics of power between Congress and the President within the framework of the U.S. Constitution. It explores the historical evolution of federalism, the implications of key constitutional clauses such as the Necessary and Proper Clause, Spending Clause, and Commerce Clause, and the limitations imposed on federal power to protect state sovereignty. The discussion also covers the scope of executive power, the Unitary Executive Theory, and the balance of authority in foreign affairs, culminating in a comprehensive framework for analyzing federal power.In the heart of the American constitutional framework lies a dynamic tension between Congress and the President, a balance of power that has shaped the nation's governance since its inception. This blog post delves into the historical and legal intricacies of federalism and separation of powers, exploring how these principles have evolved through landmark Supreme Court cases and legislative actions.The Evolution of Federalism: Federalism in the United States has undergone significant transformations, from the early days of dual federalism, where state and national powers were distinct, to the cooperative federalism of the 20th century, characterized by collaboration and federal financial influence. The shift towards contemporary federalism saw a resurgence of state rights, influenced by Supreme Court decisions that reined in federal overreach.Key Supreme Court Cases: The blog highlights pivotal cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland, which established the supremacy of federal law, and United States v. Lopez, which marked a turning point in limiting Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. These cases underscore the ongoing judicial role in defining the boundaries of federal and state authority.Congressional and Executive Dynamics: The interplay between congressional powers and executive authority is a cornerstone of American governance. The Necessary and Proper Clause and the Spending Clause have been instrumental in expanding congressional reach, while the President's powers are often tested in the realm of foreign affairs and executive orders. The Youngstown framework provides a critical lens for analyzing presidential actions, ensuring they align with constitutional mandates.As the nation continues to navigate complex legal and political landscapes, the principles of federalism and separation of powers remain vital in maintaining the balance of authority. Understanding these frameworks is essential for interpreting the Constitution's role in contemporary governance and ensuring that power remains checked and balanced.Subscribe Now: Stay informed on the latest constitutional insights and legal analyses by subscribing to our newsletter.TakeawaysThe enduring tension between Congress and the President defines American governance.Federalism has evolved through distinct historical phases, impacting state and national power dynamics.The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to extend its powers beyond those explicitly enumerated.The Spending Clause enables Congress to influence state policy through conditional funding.The Commerce Clause has undergone significant interpretation, affecting federal regulatory power.Post-Civil War amendments expanded congressional authority to enforce civil rights.The anti-commandeering doctrine protects state sovereignty from federal overreach.Executive power is limited by the need for congressional authorization and the Take Care Clause.The Unitary Executive Theory argues for broad presidential control over the executive branch.Checks and balances rely heavily on Congress to assert its legislative powers against presidential overreach.federalism, separation of powers, congressional authority, executive power, commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, spending clause, constitutional law, state sovereignty, checks and balances

Today on The Right Side with Doug Billings, we go underneath the headlines to the structure that drives them: authority—where it comes from, how it's restrained, and what happens when the system is tested.We start at home with the architecture of American federalism—why power flows upward from the people, downward through institutions, and how the Constitution deliberately divides authority to prevent it from becoming automatic.Then we move onto the world stage: why Greenland and the Arctic suddenly matter (and what “quiet geography” tells you about shifting global strategy), how Iran and energy markets function as a form of global leverage, and why China's influence-building often shows up in infrastructure, standards, and systems—not speeches.Then, we slow down and clarify what the Insurrection Act actually is (and what it is not), why it exists, and why precision matters when people throw around terms like “emergency powers.”Finally, we bring it home to your life and your future: markets, confidence, volatility, and long-term planning with Brent Ewert, President of Community Financial Services Group—what headlines miss, what signals matter, and how to think clearly in an unstable world.We're in this together, folks. Believe it. For the Republic! Cheers.Support the show

The Crisis That Shaped the ConstitutionThis conversation delves into the foundational principles of constitutional law, exploring the historical context of the Articles of Confederation, the influence of Enlightenment thinkers, the structure of government established by the Constitution, and the ongoing evolution of federalism and judicial review. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the amendment process as essential components of American governance.The journey of American constitutional law is a fascinating exploration of governance, power, and rights. It begins with the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a system that left the young nation vulnerable and fragmented. This failure set the stage for the creation of the Constitution, a document that would redefine governance by establishing a strong federal structure while balancing state autonomy.The Articles of Confederation: A Failed ExperimentThe Articles of Confederation were designed to preserve the independence of states, but they resulted in a weak central government incapable of addressing national issues. The inability to levy taxes or regulate commerce led to economic turmoil and highlighted the need for a more robust framework.The Constitution: A New FrameworkIn response, the framers crafted the Constitution, drawing heavily on Enlightenment ideas, particularly those of John Locke. This new framework introduced the separation of powers, dividing authority among legislative, executive, and judicial branches to prevent tyranny.Separation of Powers and Checks and BalancesThe Constitution's architecture ensures that no single branch becomes too powerful. Through checks and balances, each branch has the means to limit the others, fostering a system of accountability and preventing the concentration of power.Federalism: Balancing State and National PowerFederalism emerged as a key principle, dividing power between national and state governments. This dual sovereignty allows for diversity in policy and governance, with states acting as "laboratories of democracy."Judicial Review and Landmark CasesThe doctrine of judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison, empowers courts to interpret the Constitution and invalidate laws that conflict with it. This power is a cornerstone of American law, ensuring that legislative and executive actions remain within constitutional bounds.The 14th Amendment and Individual RightsThe 14th Amendment marked a significant shift, extending federal protection of individual rights against state actions. It laid the groundwork for landmark decisions that have shaped civil rights and liberties.Modern Constitutional Interpretation and ChallengesToday, constitutional interpretation continues to evolve, reflecting societal changes and challenges. The balance between state and federal power remains a dynamic negotiation, influenced by judicial decisions and political will.The American constitutional system is designed for conflict and negotiation, not swift efficiency. Its enduring strength lies in its ability to adapt and respond to new challenges while maintaining the foundational principles of liberty and justice.Understanding the foundational architecture of American governance is crucial.The Articles of Confederation highlighted the need for a stronger central government.Judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison, is a key mechanism for checks and balances.Federalism allows for both national unity and state diversity.The 14th Amendment significantly altered the relationship between citizens and states.The amendment process is intentionally difficult to ensure stability in governance.Conflict and negotiation are inherent in the constitutional system.constitutional law, separation of powers, federalism, judicial review, Articles of Confederation, 14th Amendment, Marbury v. Madison, checks and balances, amendment process, governance

BIO: Mandy M. Gunasekara, author of Y'all Fired: A Southern Belle's Guide to Restoring Federalism and Draining the Swamp, has been at the center of US energy and environmental policy for the last decade, from the Senate Cloakroom to the Oval Office. She's a veteran environmental attorney, energy strategist, and communicator. She served President Trump as the Chief of Staff at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Currently, she's a Visiting Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and lives with her husband and children in Oxford, Mississippi.

On today's episode, Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson sits down with Lawfare Contributing Editor Professor Ashley Deeks of the University of Virginia School of Law and Professor Kristen Eichensehr of Harvard Law School to discuss their recent article entitled, "Federalism and the New National Security," recently published in the Harvard Law Review.Together, they discuss the new ways that states are engaging in national security policy (which Deeks and Eichensehr call "entrepreneurial federalism"), the costs and benefits of such practices, and strategies for how the states and the various branches of the federal government should engage with them.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.

Minnesota and Illinois are suing the Trump administration to slow down or reshape ICE operations—using the language of federalism and constitutional rights to challenge how immigration law is enforced. Todd Huff breaks down what these lawsuits are really arguing (administrative warrants, “sensitive locations,” and claims of political retaliation), and why the bigger story is a sudden left-wing “concern” for federalism only when enforcement shows up in blue jurisdictions. He also revisits Arizona v. United States and explains the difference between civil immigration removal and criminal conviction—plus why enforcement isn't “punishment,” it's the federal government doing its job.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana (January 12) - Federal Officer Removal Statute; Issue(s): (1) Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute, which provides federal jurisdiction over civil actions against "any person acting under [an] officer" of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office"; and (2) whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract.West Virginia v. B.P.J. (January 13) - Fourteenth Amendment; Title IX; Issue(s): (1) Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth; and (2) whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.Little v. Hecox (January 13) - Fourteenth Amendment; Title IX; Issue(s): Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation (January 14) - Sovereign Immunity, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether the New Jersey Transit Corporation is an arm of the State of New Jersey for interstate sovereign immunity purposes.Wolford v. Lopez (January 20) - Second Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier.M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund (January 20) - ERISA; Issue(s): Whether 29 U.S.C. § 1391’s instruction to compute withdrawal liability “as of the end of the plan year” requires the plan to base the computation on the actuarial assumptions most recently adopted before the end of the year, or allows the plan to use different actuarial assumptions that were adopted after, but based on information available as of, the end of the year.Trump v. Cook (January 21) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Administrative Law; Issue(s): Whether the Supreme Court should stay a district court ruling preventing the president from firing a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.Featuring:Bradey A. Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law GroupStephanie L. Freudenberg, Counsel, Schaerr Jaffe LLPJacob H. Huebert, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceRyan D. Walters, Deputy Attorney General, Legal Strategy, Texas(Moderator) Tiffany H. Bates, Associate, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC

Minnesota and Illinois are suing the Trump administration to slow down or reshape ICE operations—using the language of federalism and constitutional rights to challenge how immigration law is enforced. Todd Huff breaks down what these lawsuits are really arguing (administrative warrants, “sensitive locations,” and claims of political retaliation), and why the bigger story is a sudden left-wing “concern” for federalism only when enforcement shows up in blue jurisdictions. He also revisits Arizona v. United States and explains the difference between civil immigration removal and criminal conviction—plus why enforcement isn't “punishment,” it's the federal government doing its job.

Sarah Isgur and David French return for a bonus episode on the Minneapolis ICE shooting and explain the concept of Supremacy Clause immunity. The Agenda:—Corrections from Thursday's episode—How to analyze police shootings—Federalism and the Supremacy Clause—Federal officer removal—Broader impacts of police violence—Bowe v. United States—Church autonomy and employment law 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

In 2026 a return to our core principles as a nation will be the paramount goal. Constraints on power are reasserting themselves. System memory returns. Back to the founder's concepts. Federalism by friction. Borders will be redrawn not in ink, but in practice. Somali's were targeted for specific reasons. We'll hear about currency zones and sovereignty blocks. Europe is changing fast too. UK won't dissolve but unity is weakening. The world sees old rules no longer apply. Conformity is unenforceable. The eighth and ninth Amendments will be key. Power will flow back to the states. This is basic political physics and not rebellion. The economic hardships are real. Traditional structure will win and systems will stop pretending. America 250 matters. Trump's statements on the new year give hints. He won't be around forever. Since 2013, the power has returned to the people. Ohio minimized it's own state's constitution and invited federal overreach. That's important. Empires last about 250 years. Traditional colonialism is returning. China security buildup happening in the Sahel. There's South America and aliens too. Hardships are lessons. So much reckoning is coming. Above it all, President Trump is slowly and carefully returning power to the people.

Thank you so much for listening to the Bob Harden Show, celebrating over 14 years broadcasting on the internet. On Tuesday's show, we visit with Florida State Senator Kathleen Passidomo about Federalism and Trump's position on artificial intelligence, and we discuss Senate preparations for the next legislative session. We visit with Maggie Anders Producer of “Undoctrination” for the Foundation for Economic Education, about claims that Sweden and other Nordic countries practice “democratic socialism.” We visit with Boo Mortenson about trade schools as an alternative to college education. We also visit with Linda Harden about the lack of Congressional action in support of Trump's agenda. Please join us tomorrow when we visit with Cato Institute Chairman Emeritus Bob Levy and author and professor Andrew Joppa. Access this or past shows at your convenience on my web site, social media platforms or podcast platforms.

Thank you so much for listening to the Bob Harden Show, celebrating over 14 years broadcasting on the internet. On Tuesday's show, we visit with Florida State Senator Kathleen Passidomo about Federalism and Trump's position on artificial intelligence, and we discuss Senate preparations for the next legislative session. We visit with Maggie Anders Producer of … The post Trade School as an Alternative to a College Education appeared first on Bob Harden Show.

In this week's episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Ark. Professor Albert Cheng and American Federation for Children's Shaka Mitchell speak with Erika Donalds, America First Policy Institute's Chair of Education Opportunity and Chair of the AFPI-Florida State Chapter. A nationally recognized education policy expert, Ms. Donalds shares the formative educational experiences that shaped her […]

Todd breaks down why he believes Indiana must approve new congressional maps and why many of the loudest objections completely miss the point. He connects the redistricting fight to basic civics and federalism, arguing that states were designed to be “laboratories” that can learn from one another instead of bowing to Washington's top down control. Todd also ties in inflation, Democrat spending, and illegal immigration to explain why sending more Democrats to Congress undermines Hoosier values. Plus, he responds to some of the more unhinged social media attacks and walks through how other states like Texas, California, Virginia, and Florida are handling their own redistricting battles.

Todd breaks down why he believes Indiana must approve new congressional maps and why many of the loudest objections completely miss the point. He connects the redistricting fight to basic civics and federalism, arguing that states were designed to be “laboratories” that can learn from one another instead of bowing to Washington's top down control. Todd also ties in inflation, Democrat spending, and illegal immigration to explain why sending more Democrats to Congress undermines Hoosier values. Plus, he responds to some of the more unhinged social media attacks and walks through how other states like Texas, California, Virginia, and Florida are handling their own redistricting battles.

https://thelawschoolofamerica.com/ConstitutionLaw2025.htmlNavigating the Complexities of Constitutional Law: Federalism and State SovereigntyThis conversation provides a comprehensive overview of critical constitutional law doctrines that define the relationship between state and federal powers. It covers foundational concepts such as due process, preemption, the anti-commandeering doctrine, the dormant commerce clause, and the Pike balancing test, while also addressing modern challenges in federalism and state taxation. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding these doctrines for legal education and exam preparation.In the realm of constitutional law, the tug-of-war between federal and state powers is a perennial topic of debate and analysis. This dynamic is vividly illustrated in the doctrines of anti-commandeering and the dormant commerce clause, which serve as critical tools for understanding the balance of power in the United States.The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: Protecting State SovereigntyThe anti-commandeering doctrine is a cornerstone of state sovereignty, ensuring that the federal government cannot coerce states into enforcing federal regulations. This principle was solidified through landmark cases such as New York v. United States and Murphy v. NCAA, which underscore the importance of political accountability and the prevention of federal overreach. By prohibiting the federal government from commandeering state resources, this doctrine maintains a healthy balance of power and protects the autonomy of state governments.The Dormant Commerce Clause: Ensuring a Unified National MarketOn the flip side, the dormant commerce clause prevents states from enacting protectionist measures that could fragment the national market. This doctrine is crucial for maintaining economic unity across state lines, as seen in cases like City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey. The Pike balancing test, a key component of this doctrine, evaluates whether a state's regulation imposes an excessive burden on interstate commerce relative to its local benefits. This nuanced analysis is essential for preserving the delicate equilibrium between state interests and national economic cohesion.Modern Implications and ChallengesRecent cases, such as the National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, highlight the ongoing relevance and complexity of these doctrines. The Supreme Court's decision in this case reflects the challenges of applying centuries-old principles to contemporary issues, particularly in an interconnected economy. As states continue to assert their regulatory powers, the balance between federal oversight and state autonomy remains a dynamic and evolving landscape.Understanding the interplay between federal and state powers is crucial for navigating the complexities of constitutional law. As these doctrines continue to shape the legal landscape, they offer valuable insights into the ongoing dialogue between national authority and state sovereignty. For students and practitioners alike, mastering these principles is essential for engaging with the ever-evolving field of constitutional law.Subscribe now to stay updated on the latest developments in constitutional law and deepen your understanding of the intricate balance of power in the United States.TakeawaysGovernments can't deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.Procedural due process focuses on fair procedures for deprivation.Substantive due process protects fundamental rights from government interference.Federal law preempts contrary state law, with express and implied preemption.The anti-commandeering doctrine prevents federal government from forcing states to enact laws.The dormant commerce clause prevents states from discriminating against out-of-state commerceConstitutional Law, Federalism, Due Process, Preemption, Anti-Commandeering, Dormant Commerce Clause, Pike Test, State Taxation, Supreme Court, Legal Education

Notes: https://thelawschoolofamerica.com/ConstitutionLaw2025.htmlUnderstanding Federalism: Navigating the Complexities of State and Federal PowerThis conversation delves into the complexities of constitutional law, focusing on federalism and state power. The discussion covers key doctrines such as the anti-commandeering doctrine, preemption under the Supremacy Clause, sovereign immunity, and the dormant commerce clause. Each topic is explored in depth, providing insights into how these legal principles interact and affect the balance of power between state and federal governments. The conversation aims to equip law students with a framework for analyzing federalism issues, particularly in preparation for exams and the bar.Federalism is a cornerstone of the United States' constitutional framework, embodying the delicate balance between state sovereignty and federal authority. This intricate dance of power is not just a historical artifact but a living, breathing aspect of American governance that continues to evolve. In this post, we delve into the nuances of federalism, exploring key doctrines and landmark cases that define the boundaries of state and federal power.The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: At the heart of federalism lies the anti-commandeering doctrine, a principle that prevents the federal government from commandeering state governments to enforce federal laws. This doctrine was solidified in cases like New York v. United States and Printz v. United States, where the Supreme Court underscored the importance of state autonomy and accountability. The doctrine ensures that states remain independent entities, not mere administrative arms of the federal government.Preemption and the Supremacy Clause: The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law. However, the application of this principle is not always straightforward. Preemption can be express, where federal law explicitly overrides state law, or implied, where federal regulation is so pervasive that it leaves no room for state action. Understanding the nuances of preemption is crucial for navigating the legal landscape of federalism.The Dormant Commerce Clause: The Dormant Commerce Clause is an implicit aspect of the Commerce Clause, preventing states from enacting legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. This doctrine aims to maintain a national economic union, free from protectionist state policies. However, its application often involves complex judicial balancing, as seen in cases like Pike v. Bruce Church and Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines.Federalism is a dynamic and complex system that requires constant negotiation and interpretation. As we continue to grapple with the balance of power between state and federal governments, understanding these foundational doctrines and their implications is essential. Whether you're a law student preparing for exams or a citizen interested in the workings of government, federalism remains a vital and fascinating area of study. Subscribe now to stay informed on the latest developments in constitutional law.TakeawaysLaw students often struggle with applying the correct test in complex fact patterns.The anti-commandeering doctrine preserves state sovereignty by preventing Congress from forcing states to enact federal laws.Preemption ensures federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws, based on congressional intent.Sovereign immunity protects states from being sued without their consent, emphasizing state dignity.The dormant commerce clause prevents states from enacting laws that discriminate against interstate commerce.Understanding the distinction between express and implied preemption is crucial for legal analysis.constitutional law, federalism, state power, anti-commandeering, preemption, sovereign immunity, dormant commerce clause, legal analysis, bar exam, law school

We discuss Streit's 1939 proposal for a international federation of democracies to avoid a new world war. We explore the limits of argumentation and the difference between making an argument and doing politics.

Send Wilk a text with your feedback!Episode 291 – Featuring Joni Bryan of The 917 SocietyIn this episode, Wilk sits down with Joni Bryan, Founder & Executive Director of The 917 Society, an organization dedicated to inspiring the next generation with a personal connection to the U.S. Constitution.Joni shares how a simple question — “Have you ever read the Constitution?” — evolved into a nationwide effort to provide every 8th-grade student with a free pocket Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in honor of Constitution Day.Topics include:Why constitutional literacy is decliningOriginalism vs. modern interpretationsLimited government and the balance between federal and state powerThe role of bureaucracy in shaping today's political dividesPushback The 917 Society receives — and whyThe importance of the Constitution for all Americans, regardless of political beliefsThe 2026 goal: 2.5 million pocket Constitutions for America's 250th anniversaryLearn more about Joni & The 917 Society in the full show notes for this episode at DerateTheHate.com or visiting 917society.org.The world is a better place if we are better people. That begins with each of us as individuals. Be kind to one another. Be grateful for all you've got. Make every day the day that you want it to be! Please follow The Derate The Hate podcast on: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter(X) , YouTube Subscribe to us wherever you enjoy your audio or from our site. Please leave us a rating and feedback on Apple podcasts or other platforms. You can share your thoughts or request Wilk for a speaking engagement on our contact page: DerateTheHate.com/Contact The Derate The Hate podcast is proudly produced in collaboration with Braver Angels — America's largest grassroots, cross-partisan organization working toward civic renewal and bridging partisan divides. Learn more: BraverAngels.org Welcome to the Derate The Hate Podcast! *The views expressed by Wilk, his guest hosts &/or guests on the Derate The Hate podcast are their own and should not be attributed to any organization they may otherwise be affiliated with.

Returning to the Founders' blueprint for dividing power across federal, state, and local governments may be the greatest weapon we have to reverse the appalling state of our politic divisiveness. What is federalism? And what would a recommitment to federalism look like? Saving Elephants welcomes panelists from the State Policy Network and the Acton Institute to discuss what it means to take federalism seriously again.  The panelists include: Brooke Medina - VP of Comms with the State Policy Network Jenn Butler - Sr Policy Advisor with the State Policy Network Dan Hugger - Librarian and Research Associate with the Acton Institute

Under our Constitution, the federal government and the states have distinct powers — especially when it comes to elections. But the Trump administration has repeatedly tried to interfere with how states run elections, pushing unlawful policies that undermine faith in safe, secure and accurate elections.Host Simone Leeper sits down with Catie Kelley, Senior Director of Policy and Strategic Partnerships at Campaign Legal Center, and Jonathan Diaz, CLC's Director of Voting Advocacy and Partnerships, to examine how the Trump administration has attempted to federalize elections, impose unconstitutional voter restrictions and silence Americans.They unpack CLC's major court victory against the administration's unlawful election executive order; explain how new proof-of-citizenship requirements could disenfranchise millions of voters; and discuss lawsuits defending states' rights and voters' privacy against federal overreach. They also explore broader threats—from troubling legislation and to presidential attacks on mail-in voting—and what Campaign Legal Center is doing to preserve checks and balances, protect election integrity and defend every American's freedom to vote.Timestamps:(00:00) — What does “federalism” mean, and why is it under attack?(02:50) — How is the Trump administration overstepping its authority on elections?(06:44) — What lawsuits has CLC filed to stop the president's election overreach?(07:58) — Why are proof-of-citizenship rules so dangerous for voters?(11:28) — How are military families impacted by new voting restrictions?(14:50) — Why is the DOJ demanding states' voter data—and why is it alarming?(17:56) — How are states pushing back to defend their power and voters' privacy?(19:10) — What is the SAVE Act, and how could it silence millions of voters?(25:16) — Why is mail-in voting under attack again?(28:41) — How does misinformation from the president erode trust in elections?(30:51) — What lessons from 2024 should shape the 2026 midterms?(34:04) — What can states do to strengthen confidence in elections?(36:24) — What should voters remember heading into 2026 and beyond?(40:17) — How can Americans hold the line for democracy?Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at Campaign Legal Center, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Catie Kelley is Senior Director of Policy & Strategic Partnerships at Campaign Legal Center. Catie oversees CLC's policy work at the federal, state and local levels. She is leading CLC's work to address the emerging threats of election sabotage. Previously, Catie built and ran CLC's state campaign finance program. In that capacity, she worked with state and local stakeholders and policymakers to advance innovative policies designed to decrease the influence of money in the political process. She began her legal career in the Federal Election Commission's Office of General Counsel.Jonathan Diaz is Director of Voting Advocacy and Partnerships at Campaign Legal Center. Jonathan advocates for laws and policies that expand the freedom to vote for all Americans; leads CLC's work on combatting election sabotage; and coordinates CLC's relationships with national, state and local voting rights partners.Jonathan manages CLC's work to protect election results and defend against election sabotage, and he works directly with CLC's litigation, communications and policy teams to help set organizational strategy on voting rights and elections advocacy. He also works directly with election officials at the state and local level to improve election administration processes, and he represents CLC in democracy reform coalitions to coordinate legal, advocacy and messaging strategies with partner organizations across the country.Jonathan has also litigated voting rights cases in federal courts across the country, including LULAC v. Executive Office of the President (challenging the President's unconstitutional executive order on voting); LUCHA v. Fontes (challenging Arizona's burdensome and discriminatory proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration); VoteAmerica v. Raffensperger (challenging Georgia's restrictions on the distribution of absentee ballot applications); and Raysor v. Lee (challenging Florida's conditioning of rights restoration for voters with past felony convictions on the payment of legal financial obligations).Links:Victory! Anti-Voter Executive Order Halted in Court  – CLCVoting Is an American Freedom. The President Can't Change That – CLCHow CLC Is Pushing Back on the Trump Administration's Anti-Voter Actions – CLCTaking Action Against Presidential Abuses of Power  – CLCWhat You Need to Know About the SAVE Act  – CLCVote-By-Mail: A Secure and Accessible Way to Cast Your Ballot  – CLCA Raging Battle for Democracy One Year from the Midterms – Trevor Potter's newsletterAbout 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. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Federalism vs. seminalism—which view is correct? What is the federal understanding of original sin? What is the seminal understanding of original sin?

Day 28 of the so-called “Schumer shutdown” and the chaos isn't an accident—it's a strategy. Today Todd breaks down why Senate math and Rule 22 matter, how the 17th Amendment rewired federalism, and why repealing it could change everything about modern shutdown politics. We also hit Indiana's surprise special session on redistricting, the left's campus and street activism from Antifa to AOC rallies, and Biden's latest speech about “protecting institutions.” Todd makes the case for restoring the Founders' safeguards so states—not parties—regain a real voice in Washington. Plus: flight delays, filibusters, and why low-information narratives keep winning.(Sponsor) Christopher's Organic Botanicals — christophersorganicbotanicals.com • code: TODDHUFF(Sponsor) Soltea — soltea.com • code: TODD(Sponsor) Full Suite Wealth — fullsuitewealth.com(Sponsor) Four Eight Financial — 48financial.com/todd

Day 28 of the so-called “Schumer shutdown” and the chaos isn't an accident—it's a strategy. Today Todd breaks down why Senate math and Rule 22 matter, how the 17th Amendment rewired federalism, and why repealing it could change everything about modern shutdown politics. We also hit Indiana's surprise special session on redistricting, the left's campus and street activism from Antifa to AOC rallies, and Biden's latest speech about “protecting institutions.” Todd makes the case for restoring the Founders' safeguards so states—not parties—regain a real voice in Washington. Plus: flight delays, filibusters, and why low-information narratives keep winning.(Sponsor) Christopher's Organic Botanicals — christophersorganicbotanicals.com • code: TODDHUFF(Sponsor) Soltea — soltea.com • code: TODD(Sponsor) Full Suite Wealth — fullsuitewealth.com(Sponsor) Four Eight Financial — 48financial.com/todd

Sean Beienburg, Associate Professor at the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership at Arizona State University (ASU) on a piece he published with his brother Matt at The Goldwater Institute, “Federalism and State Constitutions: Model Language for “Tenth Amendments” in State Constitutions.” A listener call-in proposing President Trump call Congress into special session. More protests are erupting against United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – We often talk about our need to learn the Constitution to help our state governments fulfill their duties to protect our rights, even from federal infringement. When the states remember that they are the creators of the federal government, not its vassal, then we can restore the power balance the Framers of the Constitution envisioned...

In this episode, Todd DeVoe and Dan Scott explore the evolving balance of power between federal, state, and local governments in emergency management. Drawing from Todd's doctoral research and professional experience, they unpack how “picket fence federalism” may actually find its most authentic expression in disaster management. From FEMA's shifting role to the tension between autonomy and centralization, this conversation dives deep into what federalism means for practitioners on the ground… and what happens when the fence starts to shake.Show NotesFederalism has always been a delicate balance, a system designed to distribute power, but often pulled toward centralization in crisis. Emergency management sits right in the middle of that tension. Todd and Dan discuss how major disasters begin as local emergencies but inevitably become national spectacles, the role of subsidiarity in maintaining local agency, and why FEMA's future may depend on its ability to act as a convener of partnerships rather than just a participant of last resort.Topics covered include:* How disasters expose the strengths and weaknesses of American federalism* The philosophy behind picket fence federalism and its application to EM* The evolution of FEMA from a relief bureau to a convener of capability* Ethical federalism, subsidiarity, and the importance of proximity in governance* How local innovation drives national doctrine* Lessons from the Trump-era proposals to restructure FEMA* The moral responsibility of emergency managers to protect the integrity of shared governanceKey takeaway:Emergency management may be America's best living model of federalism today — not because it is perfect, but because it is cooperative, adaptive, and rooted in trust. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit emnetwork.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, Todd DeVoe and Dan Scott explore the evolving balance of power between federal, state, and local governments in emergency management. Drawing from Todd's doctoral research and professional experience, they unpack how “picket fence federalism” may actually find its most authentic expression in disaster management. From FEMA's shifting role to the tension between autonomy and centralization, this conversation dives deep into what federalism means for practitioners on the ground… and what happens when the fence starts to shake.Show NotesFederalism has always been a delicate balance, a system designed to distribute power, but often pulled toward centralization in crisis. Emergency management sits right in the middle of that tension. Todd and Dan discuss how major disasters begin as local emergencies but inevitably become national spectacles, the role of subsidiarity in maintaining local agency, and why FEMA's future may depend on its ability to act as a convener of partnerships rather than just a participant of last resort.Topics covered include:* How disasters expose the strengths and weaknesses of American federalism* The philosophy behind picket fence federalism and its application to EM* The evolution of FEMA from a relief bureau to a convener of capability* Ethical federalism, subsidiarity, and the importance of proximity in governance* How local innovation drives national doctrine* Lessons from the Trump-era proposals to restructure FEMA* The moral responsibility of emergency managers to protect the integrity of shared governanceKey takeaway:Emergency management may be America's best living model of federalism today — not because it is perfect, but because it is cooperative, adaptive, and rooted in trust. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit emnetwork.substack.com/subscribe

How the Trump administration is trying to seize power from states and is actively trying to consolidate those powers within the executive branch; Brandy Zadrozny breaks down her new reporting on how entire offices at the CDC have been wiped out and why one former CDC employee says the agency “is over”; Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield discusses his lawsuit against the Trump administration for violating the state's sovereignty; Rev. Al Sharpton describes what will happen if the Supreme Court upends what remains of the Voting Rights Act Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Announcing our new show, Monitoring the Situation, hosted by a16z General Partners Erik Torenberg and Katherine Boyle, with guest Eddie Lazzarin, CTO of a16z crypto. In this first episode, we ask how American Dynamism, consumer, games, and crypto all fit together, from Palmer/Oculus to Marc Andreessen's Techno-Optimist Manifesto, while also exploring crypto × AD values, parenting in the AI era, and how internet subcultures shape the news. Timecodes: 0:00 Introduction1:25  Tech Coherence: American Dynamism & Consumer Crypto4:55 The Hero's Journey in Tech5:59 Games, Toys, and Defense Innovation6:38 Crypto & American Values11:25 Decentralization, Federalism, and Tech13:08 AI, China, and Competing Values14:18 Medicine, Parenting, and the Wisdom of Crowds20:47 ADHD, Diagnosis Incentives, and Education27:31 Alternative Schooling & AI Tutors35:46 Parenting, Family, and Modern Support Systems42:24 Zoomer Culture, Internet Fragmentation, and X54:38 Media, Social Networks, and Cultural Shifts Resources: Find Eddy on X: https://x.com/eddylazzarinFind Katherine on X: https://x.com/KTmBoyleFind Erik on X: https://x.com/eriktorenberg Stay Updated: If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to like, subscribe, and share with your friends!Find a16z on X: https://x.com/a16zFind a16z on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/a16zListen to the a16z Podcast on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5bC65RDvs3oxnLyqqvkUYXListen to the a16z Podcast on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a16z-podcast/id842818711Follow our host: https://x.com/eriktorenbergPlease note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Stay Updated:Find a16z on XFind a16z on LinkedInListen to the a16z Podcast on SpotifyListen to the a16z Podcast on Apple PodcastsFollow our host: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Constitution Day came and went, but federalism is the reason for the season.https://mcclanahanacademy.comhttps://patreon.com/thebrionmcclanahanshowhttps://brionmcclanahan.com/supporthttp://learntruehistory.com