Podcasts about Federalism

In this episode of the Crazy Wisdom Podcast, host Stewart Alsop sits down with software engineer and entrepreneur Arowolo Muritadhor for a wide-ranging conversation that moves from agriculture and manufacturing in Nigeria to the evolving role of crypto in the country's economy. They touch on how hyperinflation, particularly the naira's dramatic drop in 2023, pushed Nigerians toward stablecoins as a practical savings tool, and how informal kiosk networks have stepped in where traditional banking infrastructure falls short. The conversation also covers the tension between government regulation and the permissionless nature of blockchain technology, comparisons between the decline of the Roman Empire and current shifts in US economic dominance, the role of mobile payments in Africa, language learning, and whether AI agents have any real utility in crypto infrastructure yet. You can connect with Arowolo on LinkedIn and X at @armolas_06.Timestamps00:00 - Host welcomes Arowolo Muritadhor, introducing topics of software engineering and animal food production in Nigeria.05:00 - Discussion shifts to manufacturing, components assembly, and China's dominance in low-cost production globally.10:00 - Conversation explores crypto adoption in Nigeria as a network state phenomenon, separating informed users from mainstream population.15:00 - Mobile payments and kiosk ATM replacements emerge as critical financial infrastructure bridging unbanked Nigerians.20:00 - Roman Empire parallels drawn to modern crypto taxation, government control, and inevitable death-and-taxes reality.25:00 - Bitcoin and Ethereum permissionless nature debated against government wallet-level censorship vulnerabilities.30:00 - AI agents examined as crypto infrastructure tools, revealing mostly trading bots rather than foundational builders.35:00 - Nigeria's 2023 naira collapse compared to Argentina's hyperinflation, driving citizens toward stablecoin dollar savings.40:00 - US Treasury history unpacked through FDR gold confiscation and Nixon ending convertibility, paralleling empire decline.45:00 - Crypto reframed as anti-bank rather than purely anti-government, enabling freedom through immutable accountability.50:00 - Transparent blockchain ledgers discussed as potential government accountability tools across democracy, republic, and oligarchy structures.Key Insights1. Nigeria has a significant divide between its northern and southern regions in terms of economic activity. The north, centered around Abuja, is more agricultural with substantial cattle production, while Lagos in the south functions as a dense urban and commercial hub. This geographic and economic split shapes how different financial tools and technologies are adopted across the country.2. China's dominance in low-cost manufacturing has made it nearly impossible for countries like Nigeria, the United States, or Argentina to compete on price alone. The more realistic path for developing economies is to import components and focus on local assembly and creativity, which is where meaningful economic participation becomes possible.3. Crypto adoption in Nigeria accelerated dramatically around 2023 when the naira experienced a sharp devaluation against the US dollar. Before that point, saving in dollars was difficult for many Nigerians, especially those without formal bank accounts, making stablecoins like USDT an attractive and practical alternative for preserving wealth.4. Informal kiosk operators in Nigeria have organically become a substitute for ATMs, giving communities access to basic financial services where traditional banking infrastructure does not reach. This grassroots financial layer is now a key entry point for integrating crypto and stablecoin payments into everyday commerce.5. Governments are increasingly trying to regulate crypto at the wallet and centralized exchange level, using tax compliance as a primary mechanism. While Bitcoin and Ethereum remain largely permissionless, the practical chokepoints for most users remain centralized platforms where identity and transactions can be monitored.6. The historical parallel between the fall of the Roman Empire and current shifts in US economic and geopolitical power offers a useful frame for understanding why crypto matters. Just as Rome debased its currency and struggled to sustain imperial costs, the US faces mounting debt and a financialized economy that may accelerate dollar instability and push more people toward alternative stores of value.7. One genuinely constructive use case for blockchain beyond speculation is immutable accountability, particularly for public institutions and prediction markets. A transparent ledger that governments or officials voluntarily adopt could create verifiable records of decisions and promises, reducing corruption and increasing trust in ways that traditional governance structures have struggled to achieve.

Episode Topic: Federalism and the Decline of Natural Rights How have our foundational American ideals transformed across the centuries? Stand at a crossroads of constitutional history, where ancient natural rights meet modern legal power. Delve deeply into the shifting landscape of American rights to find a newfound clarity about today's legal debates. Featured Speakers:Jud Campbell, Stanford UniversityRead this episode's recap over on the University of Notre Dame's open online learning community platform, ThinkND: https://go.nd.edu/4f17c5.This podcast is a part of the ThinkND Series titled 1776: The Ideas that Made the Modern World.Thanks for listening! The ThinkND Podcast is brought to you by ThinkND, the University of Notre Dame's online learning community. We connect you with videos, podcasts, articles, courses, and other resources to inspire minds and spark conversations on topics that matter to you — everything from faith and politics, to science, technology, and your career.Learn more about ThinkND and register for upcoming live events at think.nd.edu.Join our LinkedIn community for updates, episode clips, and more.

This episode was originally released May 6th, 2024 for Death Panel patrons. To support the show and help make episodes like this one possible, become a patron at www.patreon.com/deathpanelpod Beatrice and Phil speak with legal scholars Karen Tani and Katie Eyer about how the Supreme Court used cases related to disability and deinstitutionalization in the 1970s and 1980s as an opportunity to remake and expand its own powers, the role that these cases had in securing conservatives' “New Federalism” revolution, and how disability cases continue to be a site of conservative judicial advancement today. We're testing out a new Bookshop.org page (still under construction), where you can find books by past guests and book recommendations from the hosts. Find it here: bookshop.org/shop/deathpanel Show links: Get Health Communism here: bookshop.org/a/118130/9781839765179 Find Tracy's book Abolish Rent here: bookshop.org/a/118130/9798888902523

Review Guide: The Constitutional Blueprint Mastering American Constitutional Power: The Source Code of Our Social Contract.This episode unpacks the core architecture of U. S. constitutional law, offering a clear blueprint for understanding the distribution and limits of government power—vital for law students and practitioners alike. Dive into the crucial gatekeepers, the machinery of power, and the Supreme Court's role in safeguarding individual rights through the lens of real-world cases and legal principles.Most constitutional crises aren't just about laws—they're about who holds the actual power. In April 1952, President Harry Truman's bold steel seizure challenged the very source code of American authority. How did he do it, and what does it tell us about the true limits (or lack thereof) on presidential power? If you're curious about the unseen architecture behind executive decisions—and how the courts decide what's legal or not—this episode is your essential guide.We break down Truman's unprecedented seizure of the steel mills and extract the core principles of constitutional law that shape every power struggle today. You'll discover: the precise role Article 3 plays as the court's gatekeeper and why standing is the ultimate prerequisite to even get in the room. We unravel the layered limits on Congress's legislative engine—from the Commerce Clause's reach to the subtle boundaries of preemption and the Dormant Commerce Clause's negative space—and show how states are kept in check through the Dormant Commerce and Federalism doctrines.On the executive side, learn Jackson's famous triad—how presidential power shifts from absolute to uncertain to outright unconstitutional—depending on congressional support. Explore how treaties and executive agreements differ, and why the president's appointment and removal powers are now hotly contested. The episode also reveals how the courts navigate the tricky terrain of federalism, congressional spending, and the nuanced line separating legitimate regulation from coercion.Most importantly, we clarify the powerful scrutiny matrix—how courts decide whether a law treats groups fairly or crosses the line into discrimination or fundamental rights infringement. Whether it's equal protection for race and gender or due process for marriage and personal liberty, mastering these principles is crucial for law students and anyone interested in the real limits of government power.This isn't just theory. It's the blueprint that explains how our constitutional system balances authority, protects individual rights, and responds to crises like Truman's steel seizure. If you want to see the operating manual behind every high-stakes legal showdown—and prepare for your exams or future cases—this episode is your blueprint for understanding the core architecture of American constitutional law.Perfect for law students, legal professionals, or anyone eager to see how power really works in the U.S. government. Hit play and master the hidden code that keeps the system in check.Main Topics Covered:How the judiciary, Congress, and presidency operate within constitutional boundariesThe role of the Supreme Court's judicial review and standing requirementsThe powers and limitations under Article 1 (legislative), Article 2 (executive), and the Supremacy and Commerce ClausesThe impact of the Tenth Amendment and doctrines like preemption and the Dormant Commerce ClauseThe layered scrutiny matrix for evaluating laws' constitutionality, including strict, intermediate, and rational basis reviewThe evolution of individual rights protections through the 14th Amendment, incorporation, and substantive due process

This Week In Startups is made possible by:IM8 Health - https://IM8health.com/TWISTEvery - Every.ioSentry - https://Sentry.io/TWISTBanks don't want to hand over their data to AI labs. So David Moscatelli built a $250,000 box that runs AI on-prem. He already has 1,600 pre-orders. On today's episode of TWiST, Jason and Alex sit down with the Go Abacus founder and Yanez's Jose Caldera to unpack how regulated industries are getting AI without the cloud, why Bittensor subnet 54 is incentivizing miners to attack identity systems, and why Cloudflare just laid off 20% of its workforce in the same week it raised guidance. The show closes with Jason explaining what it means to build an AI-first startup, and how workers can derisk their future employment!Guest Links:Go AbacusGo1 direct linkDavid Moscatelli on LinkedInYanezBittensor Subnet 54 on TAOstatsJose Caldera on LinkedInLAUNCH Links:Founder UniversityFounder University Japan application portalNews Links:Cloudflare lays off 20% of its staffCoinbase cuts 14% of its staffBlock post on how it is rebuilding its companyBlock's earnings, including its raised guidanceAnthropic's massive upcoming funding roundWHOOP's new on-demand cliniciansStripe Atlas's growthTimestamps:0:00 Introduction: Jason in Brooklyn, Knicks playoffs2:30 Go Abacus joins: AI infrastructure for regulated industries3:25 Plaud: If your work depends on conversations — interviews, meetings, calls — you need a Plaud NotePin. You can check it out at https://Plaud.ai/twist and use code TWIST for 10% off!4:00 The Go1: 2,000-user on-prem AI appliance7:04 Pricing the Go1: How far does $250,000 go?7:24 1,600 orders and the hardware delivery challenge10:14 Sentry - New users can get $240 in free credits when they go to https://sentry.io/twist and use the code TWIST20:23 Every.io - For all of your incorporation, banking, payroll, benefits, accounting, taxes or other back-office administration needs, visit https://every.io27:22 Chicago tech scene and in-office culture30:09 IM8 Health: Start feeling like your best self every day. Go to https://IM8health.com/twist and use the code TWiST to get a free welcome kit, five free travel sachets, and 10% off your order.35:11 Yanez joins: How to prove personhood and uniqueness38:32 How biometric capture and bio-keys work40:05 Agent delegation: proving humans authorized AI agents44:19 Bittensor Subnet 54 and incentivizing adversarial miners47:11 Founder University Japan Cohort 2 applications open49:15 Tech layoffs: Cloudflare cuts 20%, Coinbase cuts 14%, Block raises guidance1:02:14 Anthropic's $50B round at $900B pre-money1:04:22 WHOOP adds on-demand clinicians1:06:42 Federalism, state-level regulation, and AI policySubscribe to the TWiST500 newsletter: https://ticker.thisweekinstartups.comCheck out the TWIST500: https://www.twist500.comSubscribe to This Week in Startups on Apple: https://rb.gy/v19fcpFollow Lon:X: https://x.com/lonsFollow Alex:X: https://x.com/alexLinkedIn: ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexwilhelmFollow Jason:X: https://twitter.com/JasonLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jasoncalacanisCheck out all our partner offers: https://partners.launch.co/Great TWIST interviews: Will Guidara, Eoghan McCabe, Steve Huffman, Brian Chesky, Bob Moesta, Aaron Levie, Sophia Amoruso, Reid Hoffman, Frank Slootman, Billy McFarlandCheck out Jason's suite of newsletters: https://substack.com/@calacanisFollow TWiST:Twitter: https://twitter.com/TWiStartupsYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/thisweekinInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/thisweekinstartupsTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thisweekinstartupsSubstack: https://twistartups.substack.com

Episode #532: “Constitutions need power,” says Henning Glaser, a Bangkok-based lawyer working on constitutional politics in Asia. In his second appearance on the podcast, he argues that Myanmar's constitutional problem is less about drafting the perfect text than about whether any text can bind the actors who hold force, and whether there is enough unity to sustain a shared political community. He describes the early post-independence settlement as broken at its origin, saying the promised autonomy that predated the first constitution “was never really done so from the beginning,” leaving what he calls “the original sin of constitutionalism and statehood” that still shapes mistrust. Later military-era constitutions, in his view, often functioned as cover for power rather than restraint, with the 2008 charter operating as “insurance” that preserved military vetoes and control. Glaser insists a viable constitutional state “needs a certain degree of unity,” and that unity cannot be manufactured by constitutional language alone. Federalism and peace-making become inseparable challenges, because the constitutional design question sits on top of armed realities, competing visions of federation versus confederation, and minority-within-minority tensions that do not map neatly onto territory. He also emphasizes “constitutional infrastructure” as a precondition for any genuine rule of law: courts that function, legal education that produces doctrine rather than slogans, a press able to criticize judgments, and citizens able to engage without fear. Courts can guard a constitution only if judges can rule independently and if the broader system accepts rulings without reverting to coercion. Glaser's most pragmatic conclusion is that Myanmar may need a tentative constitution first—a minimal framework that can be implemented while institutions, doctrine, and civic capacity develop—because constitutional ambition that exceeds enforceable power risks repeating the cycle of promises made on paper and withdrawn in practice.

Debt and deficits used to be political dealbreakers. So why don't they seem to matter anymore? In this episode, Gene Tunny explores the concept of fiscal illusion with John Humphreys and Professor Sinclair Davidson. They examine whether Australia is “sleepwalking” into a more precarious fiscal position, and what could happen if a crisis hits. A thought-provoking discussion on debt, accountability, and economic literacy. Sinclair Davidson is Professor of Institutional Economics in the School of Economics, Finance and Marketing at RMIT University. John Humphreys is Chief Economist at the Australian Taxpayers' Alliance.  Gene would love to hear your thoughts on this episode. You can email him via contact@economicsexplored.com.  Takeaways Governments use various budget measures that can obscure the true fiscal position (“fiscal illusion”). Off-budget spending and government “investments” may not appear in key budget figures, even when they worsen debt. Growth in national debt may be the clearest indicator of underlying fiscal reality. Public attitudes toward debt and deficits have softened, reducing political pressure for fiscal discipline. Debt may not be an immediate crisis, but it represents a slow-burning risk that could become serious over time.  Timestamps Public Debt and Its Implications (0:00) Off-Budget Spending and Fiscal Risks (4:17) Complexities of Budget Reporting (6:29) State Debt and Federalism (12:17) NDIS and Government Spending (42:50) Economic Literacy and Public Perception (54:40) Alternative Solutions and Policy Reforms (56:46) Links relevant to the conversation Australian Taxpayers' Alliance livestream, Thursday 23 April, “New Taxes and Rising Debt”: https://www.youtube.com/live/6sc7wU8vKpo?si=QG4tmu8ntyb6dspL Lumo Coffee promotion 10% of Lumo Coffee's Seriously Healthy Organic Coffee. Website: https://www.lumocoffee.com/10EXPLORED Promo code: 10EXPLORED

This is the ninth episode of our ongoing series breaking down the U.S. Constitution. This month, Roman and Elizabeth discuss Article VI and VII, which include some odds and ends like the Debts Clause, the No Religious Test Clause, and the process for ratification. But tucked into Article VI is the all-important Supremacy Clause, which states that the Constitution is the “supreme Law of the Land,” and is probably the most frequently used constitutional law in practice. Roman and Elizabeth are also joined by Dr. Alondra Nelson, a leading expert on AI. She discusses why AI is a challenge to regulate, what to think of the tug of war between the states and the federal government on the topic, and whether she's optimistic governments will figure this out. The 99% Invisible Breakdown of the Constitution Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of 99% Invisible ad-free and a whole week early. Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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.Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission, (April 20) - Corporations & Securities; Issue(s): Whether the SEC may seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm.T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., (April 20) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Standing; Issue(s): Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents parties who lose in state courts from challenging injuries caused by state-court judgments, can be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court.Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc.,(April 21) - Communications & Technology; Issue(s): Whether the Communications Act of 1934 provisions that govern the Federal Communications Commission’s assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III.Bondi v. Lau, (April 22) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether, to remove a lawful permanent resident who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, the government must prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the lawful permanent resident's last reentry into the United States.Chatrie v. United States, (April 27) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether the execution of a geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.Monsanto Company v. Durnell, (April 27) - Energy & Environmental Law; Issue(s): Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I, (April 28) - International Law & Human Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting; and (2) whether the Torture Victim Protection Act allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., (April 29) - Patent Law / Intellectual Property Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether, when a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a “generic version” and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) are enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use; and (2) whether a complaint states a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use.Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot, (April 29) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether the Trump administration can end the Temporary Protected Status program for Syrian and Haitian nationals.

Eric Duhaime, Leader of the Conservative Party of Quebec Image: THE CANADIAN PRESS/Christopher Katsarov

In this week's episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts Prof. Albert Cheng of the University of Arkansas and American Federation for Children's Walter Blanks speak with Dr. Keri Ingraham, Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. Dr. Ingraham reflects on her academic and athletic journey, including being an Academic All-American, and how it shaped her belief […]

This episode is presented by Create A Video – Virginia just joined an interstate alliance with other Democrat-run states to usurp the US Constitution and change the way they apportion their Electoral College votes for Presidential elections. Plus, the Department of Justice issued a massive report on how the Biden Administration weaponized the DOJ against pro-life groups, pregnancy centers, and Christian Americans.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-kaliner-show--6946691/support.Subscribe to the podcast All the links to Pete's Prep are free!Get exclusive content here!Media Bias Check: GroundNews promo code!Advertising and Booking inquiries: Pete@ThePeteKalinerShow.com  

In this week's episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts Prof. Albert Cheng of the University of Arkansas and American Federation for Children's Walter Blanks speak with Dr. Keri Ingraham, Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. Dr. Ingraham reflects on her academic and athletic journey, including being an Academic All-American, and how it shaped her belief in discipline, opportunity, and high expectations in education. She shares that in deep blue states like Washington, Oregon, California, and New York, strong teacher union political influence has often limited K-12 reform and innovation. Despite roughly $800 billion in annual K–12 spending, she points to stagnant academic outcomes, highlighted by National Assessment of Educational Progress results, as evidence that funding alone is insufficient without meaningful school choice and accountability. She discusses persistent achievement gaps and their economic consequences, emphasizing how today's workforce increasingly rewards knowledge and skills. She also highlights the rapid expansion of school choice policies following landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions, such as Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue and Carson v. Makin, and critiques testing monopolies like those tied to the College Board. Dr. Ingraham concludes by underscoring the importance of federalism and a more limited role for the Beltway in education, with states, localities, and parents leading the way on school reform efforts.

From handing environmental reviews to states and reshuffling federal funding to navigating a looming congressional reauthorization deadline, America's transportation network stands at a critical crossroads. Moderated by William Glasgall, Volcker Alliance Public Finance Adviser and Penn IUR Fellow, and Leslie Richards, Founder and Director of the Transportation Initiative at Penn (TRIP) and Weitzman School Professor of Practice of City & Regional Planning, join our Special Briefing expert panel as we discuss the sweeping realignment of federal fiscal support for states and localities—and what it means for the future of highways, transit, safety, and railroads across the country. Speakers include: • Eryn Hurley, Chief Government Affairs Officer, National Association of Counties • Baye Larsen, Vice President/Senior Credit Officer, Moody's • Robert Poole, Director of Transportation Policy and Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow, Reason Foundation • Naomi Renek, Renek LLC, former Senior Advisor, NY MTA • Lauren Schapker, Vice President of Legislative Affairs, American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) NOTABLE QUOTES Renek: "Traditionally, there was a common understanding that improved mobility is a public good. Anything that goes into transportation, operational safety, infrastructure, reduced pollution… Federal funding has been provided based on this very basic concept that these things are good for society." Renek: "Policies and funding programs that encourage transit, active transportation and denser land use are impactful to affordability." Larsen: "Even in the midst of turmoil and the changing federal, state, local funding relationships, our transportation issuers do have tremendous flexibility and independence that stabilizes their credit profiles." Larsen: "A rapid change in access to federal funds has caught folks by surprise, and that less predictable funding freeze is typically harder to respond to than the more gradual transitions." Hurley: "Counties are actually the single largest owner and operator of local infrastructure in the country." Hurley: "Counties and other local governments received on average 14% of federal formula transportation dollars… The counties that sometimes have the greatest infrastructure needs…have the least institutional support to access federal dollars." Schapker: "We are laser focused on finding a way to get another service transportation reauthorization bill done on time that continues this robust trajectory of investment." Schapker: “"The House and Senate are working in a real bipartisan way…any proposed transit cuts…are not going to make it across the finish line." Poole: "Congress cannot continue indefinitely bailing out the highway trust fund with borrowed money." Poole: "We really should look at the alternative of devolution—devolve the revenue and spending authority to the states and localities."

Guest Tim Minella, The Goldwater Institute, joins to discuss ongoing push for DEI in higher education. Why are they so desperate to cling onto identity politics? Discussion of mandatory honors classes involving DEI activism, and how we change higher education from within.  Governor Hochul of New York complains about corporations moving out of state due to high taxes. Is she starting to realize the concept of federalism and having competitive tax rates? Are mental health professionals encouraging unhealthy behavior? Discussion of the "body positivity" movement, and encouraging people to stay obese and unhealthy. 

Do Randolph and Calhoun make convincing arguments for a coherent southern conservatism? How can you advocate for a political philosophy while still supporting slavery? More importantly, is love really love? All this and more as we continue discussing Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind!Follow us on X!Give us your opinions here!

In this episode of The Todd Huff Show, Todd continues his series explaining the foundational principles behind America's constitutional system. Today's focus: why the Constitution was intentionally designed to slow the expansion of government power. Todd explores how good intentions in politics can still produce harmful policies, from welfare incentives and regulatory barriers to government-driven inflation in higher education. He also explains the Founders' reasoning behind separation of powers, federalism, and enumerated powers—and why government gridlock can actually protect liberty. Finally, Todd examines how crises are often used to justify expanding government authority, reminding listeners why vigilance is necessary to preserve freedom.

In this episode of The Todd Huff Show, Todd continues his series explaining the foundational principles behind America's constitutional system. Today's focus: why the Constitution was intentionally designed to slow the expansion of government power. Todd explores how good intentions in politics can still produce harmful policies, from welfare incentives and regulatory barriers to government-driven inflation in higher education. He also explains the Founders' reasoning behind separation of powers, federalism, and enumerated powers—and why government gridlock can actually protect liberty. Finally, Todd examines how crises are often used to justify expanding government authority, reminding listeners why vigilance is necessary to preserve freedom.

The National Security Hour with LTC Sargis Sangari – Drones change the math of conflict. A weapon worth tens of thousands can force defenses that cost far more. Criminal cartels and state actors exploit that gap. Countermeasures are emerging, from directed energy to electronic measures. Those tools must be fielded at scale and priced for use, not hoarded as luxury tech. There is no simple path to...

The National Security Hour with LTC Sargis Sangari – Drones change the math of conflict. A weapon worth tens of thousands can force defenses that cost far more. Criminal cartels and state actors exploit that gap. Countermeasures are emerging, from directed energy to electronic measures. Those tools must be fielded at scale and priced for use, not hoarded as luxury tech. There is no simple path to...

Most civil cases turn on a deeply complex question: when will federal courts say no—even if they have the power to decide? In this masterclass, we unravel the layered world of federal restraint doctrines that protect the balance of power between State and Federal courts. Discover how legal giants like Younger v. Harris, Pullman, Burford, Colorado River, and the Anti-Injunction Act shape when and why federal courts step back, even amid broad jurisdiction.You'll explore:How federal courts honor state sovereignty through Younger abstention, which bars interference in ongoing criminal, civil, or administrative proceedings—unless exceptional circumstances like bad faith, harassment, or flagrantly unconstitutional laws arise.The subtle art of Pullman abstention, preventing premature constitutional rulings by deferring to state courts on ambiguous laws and utilizing the innovative certification mechanism—an elegant dialogue between sovereigns that keeps the federal judiciary from overstepping.Judicial economy in Colorado River, showing when courts can prudently decline cases involving parallel disputes—by balancing six crucial factors— to avoid wasteful, conflicting judgments.Statutory blocks like the Anti-Injunction Act, which outright prohibit injunctions against state proceedings, except in narrowly defined exceptions such as Congress explicitly authorizing or protecting federal rights via statutes like Section 1983.The emerging landscape of cooperative federalism with certification—a modern tool allowing federal judges to consult state supreme courts on unsettled state law, ensuring accurate application without unnecessary litigation or guesswork.And finally, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which strictly prevents lower federal courts from overturning or reviewing final state court judgments—saving you from the abyss of unauthorized appellate jurisdiction when your injury stems directly from a state decision.This episode is essential—perfect for civil procedure students, lawyers preparing for exams, or anyone interested in the subtle but powerful mechanisms ensuring federalism's delicate balance. Master how these doctrines interlock—timing, the nature of the case, exact relief sought, and finality—and understand the ultimate question: who decides where, under what law, and with what binding authority?By the end, you'll have a crystal-clear framework to quickly analyze complex fact patterns—distinguishing when to intervene, when to defer, and how to navigate the intricate dance of federal restraint that preserves democracy, order, and justice. Whether in exams or real-world litigation, this knowledge keeps the federal judiciary's power in check, safeguarding both state sovereignty and individual rights.Prepare to see the big picture of judicial restraint—not as abdication, but as structured moderation—ensuring your strategy is both principled and practical. Hit play and master the art of federal courts' disciplined restraint.

In Suncor Energy, Inc., v. Commissioners of Boulder County, the Supreme Court will consider whether state courts may use tort law to impose what amounts to a nationwide climate regulatory regime—despite Congress’s central role in addressing interstate and international emissions.Colorado local governments sued several energy companies in state court, asserting nuisance, trespass, consumer protection, and conspiracy claims for harms allegedly caused by global greenhouse-gas emissions. Although framed as state-law tort actions, the lawsuits seek damages and remedies tied to worldwide energy production and cross-border emissions—issues that are inherently national and international in scope.The energy companies argue that these claims are displaced by federal law because they attempt to regulate interstate and international pollution, an area requiring uniform federal rules. Allowing 50 different state courts to impose varying standards for global emissions, they contend, would undermine constitutional structure, interfere with federal authority, and invite judicial policymaking on questions committed to Congress and the political branches.The Colorado Supreme Court rejected those arguments, permitting the case to proceed in state court. The U.S. Supreme Court has now granted review and added an important threshold question: whether it even has jurisdiction to hear the case at this interlocutory stage—raising additional concerns about the proper limits of judicial power under Article III.This webinar will examine whether state-law climate tort suits represent a legitimate exercise of state authority or an attempt to achieve sweeping national policy changes through strategic litigation rather than the democratic process. What does constitutional structure require when global environmental regulation collides with state common law? And what are the consequences for federalism if courts become venues for resolving inherently national policy disputes?Join us for a discussion of the constitutional stakes and what this case may mean for the future of climate litigation nationwide. Featuring:Jonathan Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law and William H. Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law School; Senior Fellow, Property and Environment Research CenterO.H. Skinner, Executive Director, Alliance For ConsumersMichael Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia(Moderator) Annie Donaldson Talley, Partner, Luther Strange & Associates

This deep dive explores the complex and foundational Erie Doctrine in federal civil procedure, covering its historical evolution, key cases, and modern analytical framework. Perfect for law students and legal practitioners aiming to master the balance of federal and state law.Most law students dread the eerie doctrine — often the most intimidating topic in civil procedure. But what if mastering it could unlock your highest exam scores? Imagine transforming this complex, fearsome concept into a crystal-clear decision tree that demystifies federalism, federal court limits, and the true boundaries of judicial power. This episode reveals the structured framework behind the Erie Doctrine, turning insurmountable confusion into strategic mastery.We begin by unpacking the core constitutional challenge Erie addressed: how federal courts navigate the delicate federal-state law balance after jurisdiction is established. Once jurisdiction hurdles are cleared, the final question emerges — whose law governs? This isn't just about procedural rules; it's about safeguarding federalism and preventing federal courts from overstepping their constitutional bounds. Learn why Erie rejected the Swift era's federal common law and reasserted states' sovereignty over substantive law, cementing the principle that federal courts must respect state law unless a federal rule or statute explicitly applies.Delve into the layered hierarchy of laws: the Constitution sits at the peak, followed by federal statutes and rules, then state substantive law, and finally, federal procedural rules at the base. We break down the pivotal tests: the Rules Enabling Act (REA), which validates federal rules if they regulate procedure without affecting substantive rights; and the twin aims of Erie — avoiding forum shopping and ensuring equitable law administration. Discover the historical flaws of outcome determinative and the refined, flexible approach introduced by Hanna and subsequent cases, which impose a careful, structural balance.You'll uncover the two critical tracks in Erie analysis: Track One, when a federal rule or statute directly conflicts with state law, where the REA controls; and Track Two, which involves assessing whether applying federal practice encourages forum shopping or inequities, using the modified outcome determinative test and the balancing framework from Byrd and Hanna. Our decision tree toolkit offers a step-by-step process, empowering you to evaluate any fact pattern confidently and avoid common pitfalls like mixing procedures and substance or misidentifying the appropriate track.The episode also tackles nuanced issues: federal common law's limited scope, how to handle novel state law issues through predictions or certification, and the layered hierarchy guiding judicial deferment. Plus, we explore a paradox — federal judges sometimes influence state law via Erie's dialogue, raising questions about federal-state interactions that could seem almost paradoxical.Perfect for exam takers, practitioners, and law lovers alike, this episode transforms daunting doctrine into an accessible, strategic tool. Master the Erie Doctrine's architecture, understand its constitutional heartbeat, and confidently navigate federal versus state law questions — all in one comprehensive, actionable guide.Whether you're preparing for the bar, tackling civil procedure, or just love understanding the architecture of our legal system, this episode provides the clarity and confidence to dominate Erie. Don't just memorize rules — understand the structure, so you can apply it seamlessly under exam pressure or in practice.Key TopicsErie Doctrine and its constitutional basisHistorical evolution from Swift v Tyson to Erie Railroad v Tompkins Erie Doctrine, Federal Civil Procedure, Federalism, Swift v Tyson, Hanna v Plumer, Rules Enabling Act, Outcome Determinative Test, Twin Aims, Federal Common Law, Legal Analysis

In episode 248 of America Adapts, host Doug Parsons is joined by Professor Mark Nevitt of Emory University School of Law to unpack the repeal of the Clean Air Act's Endangerment Finding and what it means for climate governance in the United States. Long considered the legal backbone of federal climate regulation, its rescission raises fundamental questions about agency authority, the role of the courts, and the durability of federal climate policy. Mark explains the legal theory behind the repeal, how it intersects with Supreme Court precedent, and what likely comes next in federal court. The conversation also explores the practical implications of regulatory instability — from increased climate litigation to the shifting balance between federal, state, and local responsibility. For listeners working in adaptation, public policy, infrastructure, law, or risk management, this episode offers a clear look at how legal shifts at the federal level can reshape the broader climate landscape — and why adaptation efforts must continue regardless of political volatility. Transcript for this episode here.  Key Themes Covered in This Episode What the Endangerment Finding actually did under the Clean Air Act Why Massachusetts v. EPA mattered The legal basis for the repeal How the repeal affects federal climate regulation The role of the Supreme Court and administrative law What happens next in federal court More emissions and rising adaptation costs States and cities filling the federal vacuum The growing role of climate litigation Adaptation continuing — but in a more fragmented system Previous appearances by Mark Nevitt on America Adapts Destroy, Rebuild, Repeat: How to Break the Climate Disaster Cycle with Mark Nevitt Climate Change and the Legal System: Why the U.S. Constitution Needs to Adapt with Law Professor Mark Nevitt Climate Adaptation Predictions for 2025: What the Experts Say For Educators & Students The structure and limits of federal agency authority The interaction between executive action and judicial review How Supreme Court doctrine reshapes environmental governance Federalism and the division of climate authority between states and Washington Legal uncertainty and its impact on infrastructure and long-term planning Climate governance in periods of institutional instability The evolving role of courts in climate policy disputes Risk management when regulatory frameworks shift abruptly Professors are welcome to assign this episode or excerpts in syllabi. Who Should Listen to This Episode Climate adaptation and resilience professionals navigating shifting federal policy State and local government officials responsible for long-term planning Urban and regional planners integrating climate risk into infrastructure decisions Insurance, reinsurance, and financial sector professionals assessing regulatory volatility Corporate risk, legal, and strategy teams tracking climate governance shifts Environmental law and public policy scholars following administrative law developments Funders and foundations evaluating the durability of climate investments Climate communicators explaining governance instability to broader audiences   ClimateTech Connect Conference Mentioned in the Episode! ClimateTech Connect Registration Use code: AAVIP for 25% discount off ticket prices   Support for America Adapts helps make episodes like this possible, including more international conversations on how adaptation is unfolding globally. All donations are now tax deductible! Check out the America Adapts Media Kit here! Subscribe to the America Adapts newsletter here. Listen to America Adapts on your favorite app here!   Facebook, Linkedin and Bluesky: https://www.facebook.com/americaadapts/ https://bsky.app/profile/americaadapts.bsky.social https://www.linkedin.com/in/doug-parsons-america-adapts/ Doug Parsons and Speaking Opportunities: If you are interested in having Doug speak at corporate and conference events, sharing his unique, expert perspective on adaptation in an entertaining and informative way, Now on Spotify! List of Previous Guests on America Adapts Follow/listen to podcast on Apple Podcasts. The 10 Best Sustainability Podcasts for Environmental Business Leadershttps://us.anteagroup.com/news-events/blog/10-best-sustainability-podcasts-environmental-business-leaders For more information on this podcast, visit the website at http://www.americaadapts.org and don't forget to subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts.   Podcast Music produce by Richard Haitz Productions Write a review on Apple Podcasts ! America Adapts on Facebook!   Join the America Adapts Facebook Community Group. Check us out, we're also on YouTube! Subscribe to America Adapts on Apple Podcasts Doug can be contacted at americaadapts @ g mail . com

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.

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.

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

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.

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 […]