Podcasts about Federalism

A tug of war, a balancing act, two dancers dragging each other across the floor. This is the perpetual ebb and flow of power between the states and the federal government. How can things be legal in a state but illegal nationally? Are states obstinate barricades to federal legislation? Or are they laboratories of democracy? Exclusive Coveron discount: : https://coveron.com/CIVICS or use the code CIVICS at checkout. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this "Constitution Day," remember federalism.https://mcclanahanacademy.comhttps://patreon.com/thebrionmcclanahanshowhttps://brionmcclanahan.com/supporthttp://learntruehistory.com

Today on Uncommon Sense with Ginny Robinson, I'm clarifying something about where this show is headed and what I am, and am not, here to do.Over time, people have tried to attach my voice to all kinds of movements, causes, and political factions. I'm not a mouthpiece for anybody's movement. My focus is moving back to the two subjects that have always been at the center of my work: Christianity and America.I'm again addressing my position on Palestine and the Middle East. I still support the Palestinian people, while also believing that Palestinians have to take responsibility for supporting and building their own society. Being opposed to the actions or policies of the Israeli government does not mean that I have adopted every belief, political position, or religious identity associated with the Palestinian cause.The Middle East has experienced conflict for generations, and my audience should not expect me to become a Muslim or pretend to be a Palestinian simply because I oppose particular actions of the Israeli government. My Christian faith and my commitment to America remain central to how I understand the world.We'll also discuss updates on Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and the Ed Sheeran vs Macklemore drama.--https://www.youversion.com/bible-app

Texas frees immigration officer Christian Castro, who is wanted for a shooting in Minnesota, raising critical legal and practical questions about federalism.An attempt by the Trump administration to lower beef prices has many Texas ranchers upset.Also, a look at what appears to be a groundbreaking new treatment in Texas for people with Parkinsons using ultrasound […]

In this week's episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts Alisha Searcy of Center for Strong Public Schools and retired Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Barry Anderson speak with Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School, about constitutional originalism, textualism, and the enduring principles of the U.S. Constitution. Prof. Wurman discusses his new book, The Constitution of 1789, exploring the Constitution's structure, separation of powers, federalism, and the Founders' approach to legislative, executive, and judicial authority. He examines the intellectual influences that shaped the Founders, the significance of early state constitutions, and the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. Prof. Wurman also considers debates between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, limits on executive power, the proper role of the Supreme Court, federalism, and the Fourteenth Amendment. He reflects on how originalist principles can help restore America's system of ordered liberty. Finally, Prof. Wurman reads a passage from his book, The Constitution of 1789.

Have conservatives abandoned limited government to build their own administrative state? In this episode of The P.A.S. Report Podcast, Professor Nick Giordano challenges Matt Walsh's argument that every conservative wants to expand federal power. Professor Giordano exposes the federal power trap and shows why control of Washington's machinery doesn't defeat the progressive state. It merely preserves that machinery for the next administration. Discover why real conservative power requires Congress to dismantle unnecessary agencies, defund the bureaucracy, repeal open-ended statutory authority, and restore Tenth Amendment federalism. What You'll Learn In This Episode: The Power Distinction: Why political power that reduces government control differs from federal power that advances a partisan agenda. The Constitutional Stress Test: How a national abortion ban, federal education curricula, Big Tech speech boards, and corporate retaliation test limited-government principles. The Bureaucracy Trap: Why conservative agency heads change little when statutory authority, surveillance power, and federal appropriations remain intact. The Power-Reversal Test: The essential question every conservative must ask before support for new federal authority: Would you trust Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Gavin Newsom, or Elizabeth Warren with this power? The Blueprint for Restoration: What Congress must do to reclaim Article I power, repeal open-ended statutory authority, reduce the federal bureaucracy, and return power to the states and the people.   Episode Chapters 00:00 Do Conservatives Still Believe in Limited Government? 02:28 Dismantling vs. Controlling the Administrative State 09:24 The Three-Part Test for Federal Government Power 13:09 Why Conservatives Must Dismantle, Not Manage, Big Government 19:48 Federalism, Local Control, and the Tenth Amendment 25:43 FISA Surveillance and the Threat to Civil Liberties 27:57 A Conservative Agenda for Constitutional Restoration ⭐ Support the Show: If you value principled constitutional analysis, follow The P.A.S. Report on Apple Podcasts, leave a five-star rating wherever your platform allows it, and share this episode with someone who needs to hear it.   #LimitedGovernment #Conservatism #Federalism #Constitution #Republicans

America has a crisis of young men—and Tony Woodlief believes fatherhood, faith, and stronger communities could be part of the answer. On The Karol Markowicz Show, Karol sits down with writer, political scientist, and author Tony Woodlief for a wide-ranging conversation about fatherhood, masculinity, parenting, faith, politics, education, artificial intelligence, and finding purpose in an increasingly disconnected culture. Woodlief explains why he believes too many young men have been left without meaningful friendships, employment, education, or connections to institutions and communities. He discusses the difference between simply being a parent and intentionally being a father, why modern portrayals of masculinity often miss the mark, and what can be done to help men searching for direction and purpose. Karol and Tony also explore his unconventional approach to politics and federalism, including why he believes massive school districts have weakened parents’ control over their children's education and why breaking them into smaller, locally accountable districts could produce better results. Plus, Tony offers his provocative prediction about artificial intelligence and the future of writing and art, explains why AI may expose rather than destroy bad creative work, and shares the simple daily practice he believes can dramatically improve your life: intentional gratitude. It’s a thoughtful conversation about raising children, becoming better men, strengthening families, reclaiming local control, and finding meaning in a rapidly changing America.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 496. Matt Sands of the Nations of Sanity project and I discuss the possible interrelationship between his project and my The Universal Principles of Liberty. Recorded Aug. 14, 2026. https://youtu.be/ET2ucqFU7Ak?si=VVcdipDX-umElPxR Related The Universal Principles of Liberty  Supplemental Principles | Kinsella's Annotations and Commentary KOL442 | Together Strong Debate vs. Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery (Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity) Fusillo on the Universal Principles of Liberty and Liberland Libertarian Nation and Related Projects Liberland KOL480 | The Liberland Constitution and Libertarian Principles (Liberland Prague, 2025) The Voluntaryist Constitution Liberland Constitution Christmas Party Prague 2025 See also draft Liberland Constitution, Art. I, §1, ¶¶3, 4: The Universal Principles of Liberty, adopted on 14 August 2025 and as they stand on the date of adoption of this Constitution, are hereby incorporated by reference and may be consulted for interpretive and suppletive purposes, to the extent that they are not incompatible with the provisions of this Constitution. Any further amendment to the Universal Principles of Liberty shall have no force within Liberland unless adopted as an amendment to this Constitution in accordance with the procedures set forth herein. Note: In the discussion we disagree on whether the standard of proof in a normal property dispute should be preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. In subsequent offline discussion I sent the following comments to Matt (edited): Thinking more about the preponderance of the evidence issue we discussed. See for example this tweet about a property owner using force to eject someone who is a trespasser: always causing problems pic.twitter.com/mdecFjVTnW — Wolverine land (@Breaking57) August 15, 2026 Note: the property owner didn't have to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that they own the store to have the cops threaten force to eject him. Just like you don't have to "prove" "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you own your car, or your body, or are "not an aggressor," to have a right to use force against a trespasser/aggressor: someone attempting to use, alter the physical integrity of, or invade the borders of, your body or other resources that you own in accordance with principles of original appropriation and contractual transfer. Having rights, per se, has nothing to do with proof or standards. It's an if-then thing: if you have certain justified rights of exclusive control to certain resources, then you are justified in using force against the body or other resources possessed or owned by an aggressor. This general statement is not a statement about trials or proof in such fora. It's a statement about justifiable action. To return to one example I gave: if A and B claim grandpa's house (say, from his will), then if you use preponderance to award it to A, then later A can use that property claim to use force to prevent B from entering. Even that use of defensive force does not require any "proof." It is just the right of the owner. Matters of proof only apply in some later forum addressing the actions taken and seeking to recognize certain property rights claims or order punishment of a malfeasor. You have to keep in mind that things like the "right" to jury trial, due process, presumption of innocence, the exclusionary rule, beyond a reasonable doubt—none of these are actual rights. They are just "rights" that accompany being part of a political community: civil or political rights, not natural rights. They are just limits we want placed on powerful actors like the state. So, by arguing for employing the BRD standard in any forum determining ownership of a contested resource based on the general libertarian principles of self-ownership, original appropriation, contract, and rectification, you are importing standards that really meant as limits on the state's power, into how property rights are determined, applied, recognized, and enforced. There is simply no reason to do this. These things are not really even related. Property rights emerge as normative support for natural aspects of action such as control of one's body and homesteading and trading of external scarce resources. See On Property Rights in Superabundant Bananas and Property Rights as Normative Support for Possession. These principles have nothing to do with the state: only with (a) human action, praxeology, economics (descriptive); and (b) society and human interaction: norms, rights (normative). It is possible to have, and to imagine, any of the following, without a state invovled: (a) isolated Robinsonades, with human action and praxeology only (and personal, but not interpersonal, morals); (b) a non-normative society with trade and interaction, both cooperative and conflictual, a might-makes-right society; (c) a stateless normative society laws and rights that provide normative support for the natural aspects of action such as control of one's body and homesteading and trading of external scarce resources (and this society can be either pre-catallactic, or employ money). You can also have (d) something like (c) but with a state that undermines the normative role of private law and rights and is instead a sort of hybrid between (b) and (c). And when you have a state that assumes the power to create and enforce law including imposing punishment or sanctions on people for violating the state's criminal law, the state's claim of authority is usually cloaked in a variety of coverings that masque or even pretend to or maybe do blunt its nature. In other words, the balance between the state and its power and the populace it governs hinges on the great fiction of the state which is maintained by propaganda, by the state giving at least lip service to some obligations and duties that it has, some limits on its power, such as heeding the due process and other political or civil rights of its subjects; this can be done organically, as in Britain's unwritten "constitution," or in a written constitution such as the US Constitution that claims to authorize and limit a new state. The limits can be implied or stated as limits on power: such as in the enumerated powers structure of the constitution itself, (( See, e.g., Thomas B. McAffee, “Federalism and the Protection of Rights: The Modern Ninth Amendment's Spreading Confusion [2],” Brigham Young University Law Review 1996, no. 2 (1996): 351–388 (arguing that the framers regarded the Constitution's limited/enumerated powers scheme itself as a primary structural guarantor of popular rights, and that the Ninth Amendment was designed to preserve that federal structure against the risk that enumerating specific rights would be misread as creating a government of general powers limited only by the listed rights); idem, “The Bill of Rights, Social Contract Theory, and the Rights ‘Retained' by the People,” Southern Illinois University Law Journal 16 (1992): 267–305  (arguing that the “other rights retained by the people” under the Ninth Amendment are those secured residually by the Constitution's grant of only limited, enumerated powers to the national government, so that the amendment protects the original limited-powers design rather than authorizing judicial enforcement of unenumerated natural rights outside the written Constitution). )) or in statements about that the government may not do, or in "rights" such as those in the Bill of Rights that also limit federal government power. But such rights are not always real rights. (( By "real rights," as I am not speaking to a civil law audience, I do not mean what the civil law means, which is property rights pertaining to a "thing," a "res" (droits réels, derechos reales, iura in re), rights enforceable against the whole world (erga omnes)—as opposed to personal rights (droits personnels, iura in personam), rights against a specific person (typically arising from obligations/contracts) (which I object to in my theory of contracts; see The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract; KOL495 | “Rothbard's Revolutionary Contract Theory,” Sociedad de la Libertad Latam (Peru): Rothbard 100: A Legacy for Future Generations). Instead I mean actual or legitimate rights, those recognized by libertarianism. )) If you wanted to limit federal power and prevent it from regulating normal crimes like murder and leave that demesne to the states, you could (attempt to) set up a government of enumerated and limited powers and just omit that power from the list. You could add something like the Tenth Amendment to emphasize the point that was already implied. This does not mean citizens have the right to commit murder, only that the fedgov has no jurisdiction over this. (( See my similar jurisdictional argument in KOL443 | Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Approach (PFS 2024). I argue that the external legal system has no jurisdiction over abortion, even if it is "murder"; it is governed by the mother's legal system itself. )) For other rights, actual rights like the right to bear arms or free speech, you could again protect this right from federal encroachment in multiple ways: you limit congress's power to regulate these activities by denying them a grant of power in an enumerated and limited powers scheme constitution; or you add a Bill of Rights limiting federal power; or both, for "great caution" as Madison said: The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution. You could also limit the state by requiring it to respect "fake" "rights" of the citizens, like "due process,...

The Declaration as a “promissory note”—and what it demands now In the final discussion of The Declaration at 250 series, Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, argues that the Declaration of Independence should be read in the Lincoln–King tradition: not as proof that the American project was completed in 1776, but as a promissory note that sets enduring standards for justice. He confronts the central tension head-on—slavery alongside the Declaration's equality claims—contending that the nation's gravest wrongs were never the result of too much devotion to the Declaration's ideals, but rather repeated failures to honor them. For George, the Declaration's moral architecture depends on natural law and natural rights: rights are not gifts from the state, courts, or political majorities, but are grounded in a “more-than-merely human” authority and therefore cannot be legitimately revoked by human power. He then reframes the most familiar triad—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—arguing that “liberty” is freedom for worthy ends (not license) and “happiness” is flourishing and character (not mere pleasure or desire satisfaction), which means the founding principles carry substantive moral content rather than a thin, value-neutral individualism. Jonathan Gienapp, Professor of History at Stanford University, broadens and complicates this account by bringing the Declaration's historical context into sharper focus. He emphasizes that the document's immediate purpose was political: to justify revolution and to define legitimate liberty as non-domination—being governed by laws made with genuine representation and consent rather than by an alien will. Gienapp presses George to connect moral freedom-for-flourishing to political freedom-as-self-government: what changes if we place republicanism and democracy at the center of the Declaration's promise, alongside natural rights? He also signals that the Declaration did not simply announce shared principles; it generated intense argument almost immediately over what “liberty” and “licentiousness” meant in practice, setting up a long-running contest over whose interpretation truly carried forward the Revolution's aims. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters: [00:00:26 – 00:04:40] Chapter 1 — Series finale setup + introducing the speakers Host Michael McConnell closes out The Declaration at 250 and tees up the theme: the Declaration as a “promissory note,” then introduces Robert P. George and Jonathan Gienapp and frames the conversation as a capstone debate.[00:04:40 – 00:42:48] Chapter 2 — Robert P. George's case: natural rights, civic virtue, and “freedom for” flourishing George argues America's failures come from infidelity to the Declaration, not devotion to it, and grounds rights in a Creator and natural law. He reframes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as moral claims aimed at virtue, ordered liberty, and human flourishing—not license or pleasure.[00:43:00 – 00:47:45] Chapter 3 — Jonathan Gienapp's first question: liberty as non-domination and self-government Gienapp presses the political meaning of liberty at the founding—freedom as non-domination under representative institutions and consent. He asks how George's moral account of liberty connects to republican self-rule and the Declaration's grievance-driven justification for revolution.[00:47:45 – 01:00:19] Chapter 4 — Jonathan Gienapp's second and third questions: wealth inequality + early fights over “liberty vs. licentiousness” Gienapp adds the material foundations of republicanism—property distribution, anti-aristocracy reforms like abolishing primogeniture/entail—and asks how inequality threatens civic virtue and ordered liberty. He then argues the Declaration sparked immediate, bitter disputes (Federalists vs. Jeffersonians/Jacksonians) over what counted as true liberty and who “captured the soul” of American democracy.[01:00:27 – 01:09:09] Chapter 5 — George's replies: non-domination affirmed, inequality debated, polarization then vs. now George embraces the non-domination point and explains how founders linked freedom and republican self-government, while suggesting leading founders worried more about forced leveling than wealth gaps. He reflects on early partisan conflict but argues today's divide is deeper because Americans no longer share a common moral vocabulary or civic framework. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Govs. Josh Stein (D-N.C.) and Phil Scott (R-Vt.) join Kristen Welker for a Common Ground conversation on the balance of power between the states and the federal government.  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Last week, Ralph, along with our constitutional law expert, Bruce Fein, organized another symposium in Washington DC on impeaching Donald Trump. On today's program, we play you highlights from that symposium with eight of the participants, each of whom are going to give listeners their perspective on why Donald Trump should be impeached even before the midterm elections.The rhetoric from many Democratic leaders has not kept up with the horror and the urgency of what [Donald Trump] is inflicting on America and the American people. He has moved very, very quickly to develop a fascist dictatorship embodying a kleptocratic corporate state that is marked by non-regulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, and tax escapes for the wealthy and major corporations, as well as expanded corporate welfare in the midst of personal and institutional two-way bribery and extortion. It's very important to punctuate the seriousness of what he's already done.Ralph NaderCelinda Lake is a political strategist and president of Lake Research Partners.What I love about polling is: conventional wisdom is wrong about 90% of the time, plus or minus 5%. Beltway conventional wisdom is wrong about 100% of the time, plus or minus 5%. So, “Everybody knows impeachment is unpopular.” No, it's not. It's very popular. A majority of people support it. “Everyone knows that it'll energize the other side.” No. The other side, to the extent they're going to be energized, they're already energized. We need to energize our side. We need to get our people out to vote… “Everyone knows it's very volatile.” No, it's not. Attitudes about impeachment track with job performance… And finally, “Everybody knows that nobody understands impeachment.” Well, frankly, voters understand it better than a lot of elected officials.Celinda LakeSuparna Reddy is the Senior Counsel for Free Speech For People.Let us be clear: Congress should impeach and remove Trump for each and every one of these hundreds of offenses. And we have a duty to record his every abuse of power. But in the process, we should not miss the forest for the trees— Trump is intentionally and systematically dismantling our democratic institutions to consolidate his own power and line his own pockets.Suparna ReddyRichard Painter is the S. Walter Richey professor of corporate law at the University of Minnesota Law School and was the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007.We have seen serious, indeed, tragic financial conflicts of interest in the executive branch never before seen in the history of our country—unless we look at our very early Presidents who held vast plantations with slave labor, a clear economic conflict of interest with their official duties. A conflict of interest shared by many Senators and Representatives and Justices of the Supreme Court, and indeed a tragic conflict of interest for the first eighty years of our history that ended only with a bloody civil war. But since then, we have not had at least a President who is embroiled in financial conflicts of interest with his official duties.Richard PainterDoug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy and civil liberties.We need to make a persuasive argument for people, whether they like Donald Trump or not, to understand the Constitution transcends this President. The Constitution transcends future Presidents and future crises. We need to convince Americans across the political spectrum to stand with the rule of law, to stand with accountable government, to stand with an accountable executive, responsible legislatures. History tells us that one person making these decisions is not good. Plenty of authoritarians in the past have made these decisions and brought their countries to disaster.Douglas BandowErwin Chemerinsky is the Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.We're now at a moment when the federal government is a threat to our rights. The actions of the Trump administration are unprecedented in the violations of the Constitution. And so I think it's crucial that state and local governments step in so as to protect rights. It's interesting that through American history, Federalism has always been equated, states' rights have always been equated with regressive policies… But now it's time for progressives to use states' rights and look for the opportunities for states to safeguard our constitutionErwin ChemerinskyKeira Havens is a United States Air Force veteran, a former scientist, and a longtime political activist. She is the executive director of Citizens' Impeachment.Everybody has agency. Everybody has a role that they can play. Everybody can take action. As a private citizen, I can say, “Man, there are a lot of things wrong with what's happening.” In fact, I wrote several articles of impeachment: tyranny, treason, obstruction of justice, and of course, corruption, right? Members of Congress have more power than that. They need to do more than say things. They have to take action. Courage is an action. It's what you do after you say the words that really matters. And every single member of Congress is able to take action. They are able to introduce articles of impeachment, and they are refusing.Keira HavensJessica Denson is a former Trump staffer and founder of the Removal Coalition.The American people (and particularly Democratic primary voters) are looking for fighters. For God's sake, what could you do better than to exert the power that you have—this one privilege in the House, Rule 9, that gives any member of the Congress, including the minority, the ability to force a vote any time. Why would you sit on that? Why would you wait? Instead, in my activism, I've had to resort to relying on literally one Congressman. This is so pathetic. He is a dear friend, and I am so grateful for him. But to this day, I think it is pathetic that I have to rely on one Congressman to bring forth articles of impeachment and force votes, and that's Representative Green.Jessica DensonNews 7/31/26* Our top stories this week have to do with the Democratic National Committee. Several stories have recently come out about DNC Chair Ken Martin, ranging from interpersonal issues to his utter failure to raise money for the Democratic Party. The most stunning example of this comes from NOTUS, which reports that Martin “put [the DNC's] physical headquarters up for collateral last year in order to obtain a $15 million line of credit to help invest in off-year elections.” While the party has used this mechanism before, it underlines the gaping disparity between the DNC, which is currently over $2 million in debt compared to the Republican National Committee (RNC), which can boast $128.5 million cash on-hand.* Compounding the issues of the already cash-strapped DNC, the New Republic reports the Democratic National Committee was scammed out of nearly $29,000 by an email from someone pretending to be Chair Ken Martin last year. DNC spokesperson Mia Ehrenberg is quoted saying “The DNC takes seriously our duty to protect the funds provided to us by millions of patriotic Americans chipping in to fund our mission…this was a one-off mistake that was promptly caught and addressed, and no similar issues have occurred since.” That said, only $7,000 worth of this money has been recovered. As TNR puts it, “This has all been very embarrassing. Martin can't raise money, can't keep money, and can't unite the base under the big tent' he likes to talk about.” Martin may also be facing an outright rebellion led by party insiders.* One surprising proposal to this effect is coming from a very unlikely source. The Hill reports veteran Democratic strategist James Carville, while tearing into Martin, opened the door to former DNC Vice-Chair David Hogg taking the reins. Carville said the DNC appears “dysfunctional” and that the committee needs to “figure out a way maybe they could be somewhat relevant,” adding that “If David Hogg wants to take it over, I ain't stopping you…Go ahead, man, I don't really care.” This is a stark turnabout from Carville's position on Hogg when the latter was in DNC leadership; back then, Carville dismissed him as “a contemptible little twerp.” In an interview, Hogg highlighted this exact reversal, while simultaneously saying that he did not want to lead the crumbling Democratic Party organization. Ben Wikler, the former Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair who challenged Ken Martin in 2025 has also resisted calls to take over the DNC, with rumors circulating that he is gearing up to run for Senate in the Badger State next cycle. While pressure continues to mount on Martin, alternative leadership remains elusive.* Speaking of lackluster leadership, Sources Say News reports Capitol CNCT has launched The Scoop which they describe as “a confidential rating system that lets current and former Hill staffers weigh in on the members and offices they have worked for.” As one might imagine, some reviews are extremely scathing. This piece cites one that reads, “Leadership is abusive. Lies about promotions and bonuses…This place will leach at your mental health like a vampire…Beware.” Sources Say highlights the fact that “Unlike most workplaces, Congress has no HR department, which means bad behavior by members and senior staff can go unreported and unchecked for years.” The new site verifies that the posters are or were real employees of these offices, but keeps their names anonymous to protect them from retaliation.* In more news from Congress, POLITICO reports Maryland Representative and House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin is launching a new investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, this time focusing on whether the deceased sex offender and financier acted as an unregistered foreign agent. In a letter to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton, Raskin writes that “Jeffrey Epstein never registered as a foreign agent…Yet numerous recently released documents now show he acted aggressively on behalf of multiple foreign governments, including several with interests adverse to the United States, in order to influence policies of the first Trump Administration.” The declassified files reveal that Epstein “offered to serve as a conduit between Saudi Arabia and members of the Trump administration, consulted with Russian officials on engaging with the president and advised former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.” This inquiry is likely to raise fresh questions about not only Epstein's role working on behalf of foreign governments, but his possible connections with intelligence and espionage organizations including the CIA and Mossad.* Other progressive members of Congress, led by Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, have issued a formal response to a new Trump administration report on Cuba. These members interpret this report – which claims that the tiny Caribbean nation of 10 million people has “waged a sustained campaign” to “conquer” the United States and is backing “left-wing terrorism on American soil” – is in fact an instrument the administration plans to use to persecute “Trump's perceived political enemies.” Omar, joined by Representatives Jim McGovern, Delia Ramirez, Rashida Tlaib, AOC and more, contend that Trump is “hell-bent on taking America back 70 years to the height of Cold War McCarthyism, when hawkish foreign policy was paired with unsubstantiated accusations of communist subversion and political repression against dissidents at home.” The administration report singled out several organizations and activists, including the National Lawyers Guild, Hasan Piker, and campus activist Isra Hirsi, daughter of Congresswoman Omar. This from Common Dreams.* In more news from the left, POLITICO reports Donavan McKinney – who is challenging incumbent Congressman Shri Thanedar in Detroit – picked up a major batch of endorsements this week from members of the Congressional Black Caucus. These new endorsers include Representatives Steven Horsford, the former chair of the CBC, along with Lateefah Simon and Ayanna Pressley. These endorsements, particularly that of Congressman Horsford, are notable because Thanedar retains the support of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his deputies, Representatives Pete Aguilar and Katherine Clark. McKinney said he was “honored” by these endorsements, adding that he “[looks] forward to working alongside these incredible leaders to pass critical legislation to protect voting rights, get big money out of our politics, and ensure all families have access to the resources they need to not just survive, but to truly thrive.” McKinney's primary will be held on August 4th, along with the more closely watched Senate primary between progressive Abdul El-Sayed and his moderate, establishment-backed opponent Haley Stevens.* Meanwhile, in New York City, Mayor Zohran Mamdani continues to fulfill campaign promises at an astonishing rate. First, Forbes reports that Mamdani has officially introduced a $124.7 billion city budget which includes funding for five city-run grocery stores which will sell staple foods at a 30% discount compared to private grocery stores. These staples are set to include produce, dairy, bread, select meat and seafood, and approximately 20 other products. Being city-owned, these stores will not have to pay rent or property taxes, ensuring they can operate more cheaply than their competitors in the private sector. This piece notes that similar experiments in smaller cities like Baldwin, Florida, and Erie, Kansas proved unsustainable financially, while proposals in Chicago and Kansas City struggled to get off the ground. There is reason to believe New York will prove a different matter entirely, but that remains to be seen. At the same time, Jacobin reports Mamdani is launching a new initiative called “Talk to Tenants,” which will “send volunteers door-to-door in buildings with chronic housing code violations, connecting renters with organizing resources, neighborhood organizations, and training on tenants' rights and how to build tenant associations.” This effort will be led by the Office of Mass Engagement in partnership with the Office to Protect Tenants. It is extremely encouraging to see Mamdani utilizing a varied array of tools at his disposal – including both direct action by the city as on grocery stores or using city resources to promote the formation of non-governmental organizing efforts – in order to achieve his vision of a just and affordable American metropolis.* In more troubling, if not surprising, news, the Wall Street Journal is out with a new report finding that the Department of Justice is giving a green light to corporate criminals. The Journal cites examples ranging from Alibaba to Boeing and EagleBank to Abbott Laboratories where the Trump DOJ “declined to charge companies even when prosecutors thought executives or managers were involved in the wrongdoing.” This follows from directives given by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who has “said prosecutors shouldn't view prosecuting companies as their goal and should instead focus on holding individual wrongdoers accountable.” This piece cites a December speech by Blanche in which he stated that “Companies don't go to jail, people do.” Yet, it seems that under the Trump Justice Department, neither do.* Finally, in more corporate news, the antitrust lawsuit filed by over a dozen state attorneys general has at least temporarily succeeded in halting the mega-merger between Warner Bros. Discovery and the Ellisons' media conglomerate, Paramount Skydance. After the lawsuit was filed, a federal judge in Oakland ordered a pause on the deal, and since then, the Ellisons themselves have agreed to put the merger “on ice” pending the outcome of the trial, Variety reports. This piece also highlights the private sentiments of anonymous Warner Bros. executives who apparently hope that the deal hits a “legal landmine” and is ultimately “nixed.” However, in an internal memo, David Ellison maintained that “the facts and the law are on our side, and a full hearing will demonstrate why the plaintiffs' arguments should not prevail.”This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

On CoinDesk's The Policy Protocol, Renato Mariotti is joined by guest host Ari Redbord, Global Head of Policy at TRM Labs, for a conversation on the politics of the CLARITY Act, the state-vs-federal fight over prediction markets, and Wisconsin's invocation of an 1849 law that could bar prediction-market users from voting. And, they sit down with Rachel Anderica, Head of Global Operations at Anchorage Digital, who walks through Anchorage's agentic banking build inside its OCC trust and a "cashless reserves" model in partnership with JPMorgan. Plus, the hosts name the TradFi endorsers of CLARITY — BlackRock, Fidelity, and Goldman Sachs — as the Person of the Week. - This episode is brought to you by RealFi, a smarter stablecoin, backed by real-world assets. Find out more at⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ realfi.co⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. - Ledn provides a secure and transparent way to access liquidity while maintaining your bitcoin holdings. Perfect 8 year track record of keeping clients assets safe. Don't sell your bitcoin. Get a bitcoin-backed loan. Check out your rate by using their loan calculator at⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ledn.io⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - JPEG Trading is a global proprietary trading firm specializing in cryptocurrency and decentralized finance markets. From market structure and liquidity provision to quantitative trading strategies, JPEG Trading operates across the full spectrum of blockchain-based assets. Follow @jpegtrading on X to stay ahead of the latest developments in digital asset markets:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://x.com/jpegtrading⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - Timecodes: 00:00 Cold Open: Wisconsin's 1849 Voting Law 01:13 Welcome to The Policy Protocol 01:29 Ari Redbord Joins as Guest Host 02:13 CLARITY's Law Enforcement Provisions 03:05 'Burn and Reissue': Getting Funds Back to Victims 04:19 The Politics: Why the Votes Aren't There 06:26 Prediction Markets and the CFTC Battle 08:04 Wisconsin's 1849 Law and the Right to Vote 09:53 Federalism, Circuit Splits, and the Road to SCOTUS 11:10 The HFSC Scam Report and AI at Scale 14:04 Rachel Anderika of Anchorage Digital Joins 14:34 Who's Liable When an Agent Moves Money? 18:56 OCC Rulemaking, Secondary Markets, and Sanctions 20:40 'Cashless Reserves' with JPMorgan Tokenized Funds 22:53 Trash Talk: The Skinny Master Account 24:29 Person of the Week: The TradFi Endorsers of CLARITY

Day 5 of 50 Days for Freedom, hosted from @Swan after Cory's handle hit tech trouble. Swan's buy fee sits at 50 basis points through Labor Day. Framing doc: swan.com/battle. Cory on disagreeing well. Three summers of shows with Vlad Costea despite splitting on layer twos and drivechain. A lot of people we think we oppose actually love Bitcoin, and privacy is common ground. UK digital ID scrapped, sort of. Suz reports the £1.8B scheme killed after a 2.9M-signature petition and cross-party opposition. Her warning: canceling a brand name is not abandoning the architecture. The back door is already open. GOV.UK One Login covers 122 services, with all central government services slated to join by 2027. Age verification, employment checks, and the Online Safety Act converge on the same result. America's version, differently packaged. No single federal portal yet, but Real ID, mobile driver's licenses, and digital age checks add up. Federalism is a partial brake. Panel consensus: very close. Fear plus convenience is the playbook. 9/11, COVID, now the FATF travel rule reframed as national security. Suz: "you can make a scared man do anything." Bitcoin's answer is separating money from the identity gateway. Fourth Turning, with an exit. Brady's case: institutions are collapsing on schedule, but this cycle has Bitcoin and Nostr already built. Freedom tech that math makes un-co-optable. Cory's version: ten million US Bitcoiners, the race to avoid the war. Education is the whole mission. Lyn Alden's Seven Misconceptions, Vijay's 2018 Bullish Case article, Yan Pritzker's Inventing Bitcoin, and the Bitcoin Season documentary. Cory: understanding earns you the right to own more. ETF buyers who skipped it get lettuce hands. Swan versus Coinbase, box by box. Swan Sovereign, Swan Vault multisig, Swan Safe Plus with live video withdrawal confirmation, buy fees under Coinbase's advanced exchange, and Swan covering network fees. Plus Steve's scarcity chart: 60 million millionaires, 21 million coins. Agentic commerce wants Bitcoin. Scott's Machine Economy project, Buzz, Lightning Labs' Wavelength, and HTTP 402 finally getting built. An agent needs only a keypair. Cory also set the BIP110 policy: not daily here, but a moderated debate is coming.

Text the show! What happens when Americans expect FBI-level investigations from departments operating on county budgets?In this Best of Common Sense episode, Chad Law explores the widening gap between federal investigative agencies and the local law enforcement officers responsible for solving the vast majority of crimes in America.Using one nationally watched investigation as a starting point, Chad explains why modern policing increasingly depends on resources many local agencies simply don't possess—and why the answer isn't necessarily more federal power, but stronger local institutions.Along the way, the conversation covers:• The difference between federal and local investigative capabilities• Why constitutional policing matters• How staffing and training affect justice• Why Americans ignore the elections that matter most• Whether technology can ever replace community policing• Why rebuilding local government may be the key to rebuilding trustIf you've ever wondered why some investigations look dramatically different than others, this episode explains the structural reasons behind it.

After taking some time away to help my family through my dad's open-heart surgery, I'm back with a new episode of Uncommon Sense with Ginny Robinson. Thank you to everyone who reached out and supported my family during this time.Today, I share my opinions on several current events. I discuss why I believe America must remain a sovereign nation and why I have concerns about the growing military relationship between the United States and Israel, including why I believe these actions raise real constitutional and legal questions.I also share my thoughts on the continued loss of American service members in the Iran War and explain why the United States should NOT be involved in another foreign war.Finally, I discuss the assassination of Charlie Kirk and how it is connected to the Epstein files, and why I think Americans deserve greater transparency and accountability from those in power.--https://www.youversion.com/bible-app

In this week's episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts retired Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Barry Anderson and Massachusetts state champion U.S. history and civics teacher Kelley Brown speak with Alison LaCroix, the Newton Reid Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, about the constitutional foundations of American federalism. Drawing on her book, The Ideological Origins of […]

In this week's episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts retired Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Barry Anderson and Massachusetts state champion U.S. history and civics teacher Kelley Brown speak with Alison LaCroix, the Newton Reid Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, about the constitutional foundations of American federalism. Drawing on her book, The Ideological Origins of American Federalism, Prof. LaCroix explores the ancient Greek and Roman, the Enlightenment, and British Common Law models of federalism that so powerfully influenced Anglo-American constitutional thought. She discusses the Revolutionary and Founding generations' understanding of the natural law, the rights of colonies, and how national and state authority should be divided in a modern commercial republic, including the constitutional ideas of the American statesmen James Otis, John Adams, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. Then, Prof. LaCroix provides an overview of her recent book The Interbellum Constitution: Union, Commerce, and Slavery in the Age of Federalisms. She examines the enduring historical and legal influences of the Marshall Court; Jeffersonian Supreme Court Justice William Johnson; Gibbons v. Ogden; and Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, on the various modes of early-19th century American federalism. Prof. LaCroix closes with a reading from The Interbellum Constitution.

What does the Oath of Office actually mean if elected officials openly campaign on dismantling the Constitution before taking it? This episode explores a constitutional question that few legal scholars have confronted, but every American should understand. Professor Nick Giordano examines a critical constitutional blind spot at the heart of the American Republic. While the Constitution provides mechanisms to address corruption and abuses of power after an official takes office, it appears to provide no clear constitutional mechanism for examining whether someone who openly rejects the constitutional order can honestly take the constitutional oath in the first place. Explore the purpose of Article VI, the meaning of constitutional fidelity, why existing Supreme Court precedent does not squarely answer this question, and why the survival of a constitutional republic ultimately depends on the character of both its leaders and its citizens. What You'll Learn In This Episode: Why the Oath of Office matters: Discover why the Founders required the constitutional oath and why it serves as one of the Republic's most important safeguards. Reform vs. replacement: Learn why amending the Constitution through Article V is fundamentally different from campaigning to dismantle the constitutional order itself. A constitutional blind spot: Understand why current constitutional law appears to provide no clear mechanism for examining the sincerity of the oath before an official assumes office. Fraudulent oaths and constitutional subversion: Explore the difference between taking the oath in bad faith before entering office and using public office to undermine the constitutional system from within. Why the voters matter most: Learn why civic virtue, constitutional loyalty, and an informed electorate remain the ultimate safeguard of the American constitutional republic. Topics Covered: Oath of Office, Constitutional Oath, Article VI, United States Constitution, Constitutional Republic, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Fidelity, Supreme Court, Powell v. McCormack, Bond v. Floyd, Democratic Socialists of America, Separation of Powers, Federalism, Civic Virtue, American Government

This episode highlights an often-missed story: the Declaration of Independence didn't just shape the U.S. Constitution—it directly shaped state constitutions, many of which echo its natural-rights language more explicitly than the federal charter. Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick argues that reading state constitutional provisions through the Declaration can strengthen enforceable limits on government power. The conversation reframes the Declaration from anniversary rhetoric into a practical interpretive tool in living state constitutional law. Bolick traces a two-way influence between the Declaration and early state charters, pointing to founding-era texts like Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights as a roadmap for Jefferson's phrasing—and noting that later state constitutions continued to incorporate Declaration principles such as equality, popular sovereignty, and inalienable rights. He then connects those ideas to modern doctrine, arguing that state courts can treat natural-rights provisions as meaningful constraints (or interpretive “prisms”) rather than mere preambles, with recent state supreme court decisions illustrating how the Declaration's ideals can translate into concrete protections today. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters: [00:00:26] Chapter 1 — McConnell's framing: the “hidden” constitutional story in state charters The host introduces how state constitutions borrow explicitly from the Declaration and why that matters for modern rights protection. [00:05:59] Chapter 2 — Bolick's thesis: an “enduring symbiosis” between the Declaration and state constitutions Bolick argues the Declaration's influence on state constitutional text and interpretation is deeper and more direct than its influence on the U.S. Constitution. [00:10:46] Chapter 3 — Origins and transmission: Virginia's 1776 rights language and state constitution “laboratories” Bolick explains the two-way borrowing between early state constitutions and the Declaration, including George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights. [00:27:57] Chapter 4 — From principles to doctrine: natural-rights clauses as enforceable limits (with cases) Bolick lays out how courts have used natural-rights provisions as substantive protections or interpretive tools, citing key state cases and modern disputes. [00:46:34] Chapter 5 — Ford's recorded response + Bolick rebuttal: state power, natural rights, and the limits of the frame Ford praises state constitutionalism but complicates the natural-rights narrative; Bolick responds, emphasizing both self-government and enforceable individual rights. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

 Dr. Andrew Fox, organizational culture expert, author, and Anglican priest, discusses the Supreme Court's ruling on girls' and women's sports, the role of federalism in cultural debates, and how groupthink and the pursuit of approval are shaping American life.  https://drandrewfox.com/

Christ is Lord over heaven and earth, including every nation on earth (Matthew 28:18), and we are commanded to make disciples of the nations, teaching them to obey His commands. The founding fathers of the United States recognised the Lordship of Christ and affirmed His authority and rule. Pastor Daniel addresses the biblical foundation for human governments and addresses the history and future of America as a federal country of Christian states.

Episode #564: “We want to make federalism not just as a slogan, but also as an action. We want to turn it into action!” Neineh Plo is secretary to the International Relations and Alliance committee of the Karenni National Progressive Party, and he has worked closely with the KNPP since the 2021 coup through international relations, humanitarian work, and headquarters administration. He describes Karenni State as a place where resistance actors are forced to do two things at once under war pressure: protect civilians at scale, and build an interim governing system credible enough to hold a diverse state together. Neineh Plo argues that Karenni State's diversity makes unilateral leadership both illegitimate and self-defeating. “KNPP cannot do it alone,” he asserts, “and should not also do it alone and impose its agenda on other people.” He describes the KNPP reaching out to other stakeholders and forming the Karenni State Consultative Council, then drafting interim arrangements meant to translate coordination into real authority. Those arrangements created interim executive, legislative, and judiciary bodies, with the interim executive council providing the most visible services. The list he gives is bluntly practical: humanitarian assistance, food and shelter, civilian protection, education, healthcare, and limited rehabilitation and livelihood support. On the international side, Neineh Plo describes access as constrained by aid systems built to work through the junta's capital. He says organizations willing to cooperate with non-state actors are limited, even as needs expand in displacement and war zones. Here he references cross-border assistance as a longstanding pathway, but argues for an added channel that can reach resistance-held areas directly, including a proposed inclusive humanitarian forum meant to bring donors and Myanmar stakeholders into a workable design. Neineh Plo treats negotiation as a daily discipline inside the wider resistance ecosystem, including relationships with the National Unity Government. “We disagree,” he says simply, “but at least we are on the same side of the movement.” Federalism, in his framing, is the only model capable of accommodating Myanmar's differences without returning to domination, and he insists that it has to be practiced now through structures and coalition governance rather than promised later.

»

»

»

One Indian's vote is worth 2.5 times another Indian's vote. According to Professor Gautam Desiraju, that single fact reveals a deep flaw in Indian democracy—and fixing it could require redrawing the map of India itself. Most Indians have never heard the word delimitation. Yet Professor Desiraju argues it may be the most important political issue India will face in the coming decade. He believes India should not have 28 states, but closer to 75. He argues that every vote must carry equal value. He questions whether the Constitution should be treated as a sacred document. And he makes the case for reforms that could fundamentally reshape how India is governed. Professor Gautam Desiraju is one of India's most distinguished scientists and a recipient of the Ewald Prize, often called the Nobel Prize of Crystallography. In recent years, however, he has turned his attention to a different question: How should India govern itself in the 21st century? In this conversation with Roshan Cariappa on Bharatvaarta, Professor Desiraju explains why delimitation, state reorganization, constitutional reform, representation, and governance are all interconnected—and why India may need to rethink some of its deepest political assumptions. This is a conversation about democracy, federalism, representation, and the future of Bharat. What We Cover * Why India should have 75 states * Why some Indian votes are worth more than others * The principle of “One Vote, One Value” * Why smaller states strengthen democracy * The case for delimitation * Why India's MPs represent too many people * The “missing middle” in Indian democracy * Why young Indians feel disconnected from politics * First-Past-The-Post vs Proportional Representation * Why the Constitution is not a holy book * The case for a new Constituent Assembly * Ambedkar's views on state reorganization * Why India may need 2,000 MPs * The future of Indian democracy ⏱️ TIMESTAMPS 00:00 One Indian's Vote Is Worth 2.5x Another's 01:04 Introduction: Why India Needs 75 States 02:02 The Case For 75 States & Stronger Democracy 21:04 Why India's States Are Too Unequal In Size 22:31 The Problem Of Political “Heft” & Representation 23:24 How 75 States Would Actually Work 24:43 Why MPs Have Become Too Distant From Citizens 26:33 Why Delimitation Must Happen Now 26:59 Why Young Indians Feel Disconnected From Politics 27:21 India's Missing Middle Problem 32:14 The Growing Disconnect Between Citizens & Government 33:45 Why First-Past-The-Post Is Failing India 46:45 Breaking Karnataka Into Seven States 47:51 Ambedkar On Language, States & Federalism 48:44 “The Constitution Is Not A Holy Book” 50:27 Why 105 Amendments Signal A Bigger Problem 52:18 Why India Needs A New Constituent Assembly 53:56 Constitution vs Civilizational State 55:05 Why Delimitation Was Delayed For 50 Years 56:31 Why India Needs 2,000 MPs 01:00:29 Redrawing Bengal: A Practical Example 01:14:20 Why Vajpayee Wanted More States 01:15:00 Reforming India's Bureaucracy

The separation of powers, federalism, and the rule of law are critical elements of American constitutional democracy. Judge Bernice Donald, formerly of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; Judge Robert Kugler, formerly of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court; and Judge Thomas Griffith, formerly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, explore the current state of these fundamental constitutional principles. Julie Silverbrook, the chief content and learning officer at the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was presented in partnership with Keep Our Republic's Article III Coalition, a bipartisan group of retired federal district and circuit court judges dedicated to safeguarding the separation of powers and preserving an independent judiciary. The Coalition's civic education work informs citizens why an independent judiciary matters, how courts safeguard rights and maintain constitutional checks and balances, and the critical role that impartial justice plays in keeping our republic. Resources  Constitution 101: Separation of Powers and Federalism, National Constitution Center Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr Explore the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠America at 250 Civic Toolkit⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Support our important work ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

The Preacher Behind the Constitution #RTTBROS #NIGHTLIGHT #USA250 #AMERICA250 #NATION250The Preacher Behind the Constitution“"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”— Jeremiah 17:9THE STORYJames Madison arrived at the Constitutional Convention with a plan.He had spent the winter of 1786 to 1787 reading every book he could find on the history of governments. He studied them as a diagnostician, trying to understand why human governments so reliably collapse into tyranny or anarchy.His conclusion was thoroughly biblical: the problem is human nature. People in power abuse it. Majorities oppress minorities. Madison's genius was in designing a system that took human sin seriously as a structural assumption. Checks and balances. Separation of powers. Federalism. Each element of the Constitution reflects a deep suspicion of concentrated human authority.Madison had learned this from a Presbyterian minister. John Witherspoon, the only clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence, was president of the College of New Jersey when Madison was a student. The Father of the Constitution was, in a real sense, the student of a preacher.THE REFLECTIONJeremiah 17:9 is not a comfortable verse. The heart is deceitful above all things. Desperately wicked. This is the anthropology of Scripture, which takes the Fall seriously.Madison took it seriously. His Constitution was built for fallen people living in a fallen world, which is exactly why it has lasted longer than any comparable governing document in history. It does not assume the best about human nature. It builds in safeguards for the worst.The irony is beautiful: the most successful secular governing document in human history works precisely because it was designed around a profoundly biblical understanding of human nature.We live in an age that has recovered the Enlightenment's optimism about human nature, the belief that people given enough education will reliably choose good. History has not been kind to that view. Scripture has always been honest about it.THE PATRIOT'S PRAYERLord, You know the heart better than we know ourselves, and we are grateful that You do not leave us to our own devices. We thank You for the wisdom You gave to the framers of this Constitution, wisdom that looked honestly at human nature and built accordingly. Forgive us for the ways we have trusted in our own goodness rather than Your grace. In Jesus' name, Amen.PRAY IT FORWARD: Ask God today to show you an area of your own heart where you have been trusting in your own goodness rather than His grace, and receive His honest assessment with humility.

On this week's Mining the Media, G.K. Allen tackles several headlines raising important questions about America's place in an increasingly unstable world. From Taiwan's decision to test missiles by pointing them toward China, to the opportunity presented by the World Cup as millions of international visitors experience the United States firsthand, G.K. offers his unique perspective on global events and national identity. He also examines whether Iran can be trusted in the current geopolitical climate and challenges listeners to take a sober look at what he believes are the policies and priorities alienating many Americans from today's Democrat Party. Then, in Crusty's Corner, Dave Jeffers takes a deep dive into the intersection of election integrity, federalism, and constitutional responsibility. While affirming the importance of secure elections, Dave argues that the solutions must remain consistent with the principles of limited government and the Tenth Amendment. Rather than looking to Washington to solve every problem, he contends that citizens within each of the fifty states must engage locally, hold their leaders accountable, and do the hard work of self-government. As always, the goal isn't merely to react to the news cycle, but to think critically, engage faithfully, and encourage listeners to become informed and active citizens in the public square. Please be sure to visit our website at www.miningthemedia.com and share it with your friends, relatives, associates, and neighbors. 

Danielle Smith uses the energy MOU has Exhibit A in her argument for remaining in Canada. Pierre Poilievre uses it as Exhibit A in making his case that the federal government is failing Alberta.Our guests worry that divisions over how to battle separatism could fracture the provincial conservatives and even pose problems for federal conservatives.Host Kathleen Petty is joined by two people with deep ties to the Conservative movement. Ian Brodie is a former chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a political science professor at the University of Calgary, and a senior advisor at New West Public Affairs.Sean Speer served as senior economic policy advisor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and is editor-at-large at The Hub.Both explore the perils of this debate within the broader Conservative movement.Host: Kathleen PettyGuests: Ian Brodie, Sean SpeerProducer: Diane Yanko

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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