Podcasts about federalist no

58PODCASTS
482EPISODES
31mAVG DURATION
1MONTHLY NEW EPISODE
Jun 21, 2025LATEST

POPULARITY

20172018201920202021202220232024

Best podcasts about federalist no

Christian Podcast Community

62 episodes with federalist no

The Federalist Files

85 episodes with federalist no

The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton

85 episodes with federalist no

Squirrel Chatter

53 episodes with federalist no

The Federalist Papers Alexander Hamilton

85 episodes with federalist no

The Paperless Federalists

30 episodes with federalist no

Liberate America

8 episodes with federalist no

The Jeffersonian Tradition

3 episodes with federalist no

Beautiful Illusions

2 episodes with federalist no

Latest podcast episodes about federalist no

6/20/25 - The Battle Over Iran's Nuclear Threat

Mark Levin Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 21, 2025 115:59

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, there's the horseshoe theory against Israel on Iran, which says that the radical left and right political ideologies, such as radical leftists (e.g., Communists, Islamists) and far-right groups (e.g., Klansmen, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, isolationists), converge in their views and actions, forming an alliance despite apparent differences. That's why we see Bernie Sanders agree with Chatsworth Qatarlson (Tucker Carlson) and Steve Bannon. Bannon claims Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Kayleigh McEnany, and Fox News should be investigated for supporting Israel. One would think he would be careful about saying who should be investigated after his past. Matt Gaetz is back saying that Israel doesn't allow Arabs to vote, which is a flat-out lie. As time goes on these people all reveal themselves as the crazy people they are with no loyalty to President Trump or MAGA. Also, Trump is a historic figure leading efforts to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions. Israel's military actions, including destroying Iranian radar and weakening their defenses, make it easier for U.S. or Israeli forces to strike nuclear sites like Fordo. Americans are not warmongers or neo-cons. The American public supports these actions, rejects isolationism, and opposes being labeled warmongers by “fake MAGA” critics. Later, Gov Ron DeSantis calls in to explain Florida's efforts to evacuate Americans in Israel. The state evacuated 1,500 people, including college students and families, with two planeloads of 160-170 passengers already returned to Tampa. He emphasized the emotional relief of families, particularly those with young children, and Florida's commitment to continue the mission, utilizing resources like cruise ships to Cyprus for safe transport. DeSantis also discusses his push to reform property taxes in Florida, focusing on exempting primary residences (homesteaded properties) from property taxes. Homeowners don't truly own their homes if they must continuously pay property taxes, as failure to pay could result in government seizure. Finally, Alexander Hamilton's view of liberty and government contrasted sharply with that of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, favoring a stronger, more centralized federal authority. While Madison, in Federalist No. 45, emphasized that the Constitution granted the federal government limited, defined powers—primarily over external affairs like war and foreign commerce—leaving broad authority to the states, Hamilton advocated for a more robust national government. At the Constitutional Convention, he proposed a powerful executive and legislature with lifelong terms, reflecting his preference for centralized control, though these ideas were swiftly rejected. Despite his role in co-authoring the Federalist Papers to support the Constitution's ratification, Hamilton's vision aligns with modern proponents of an activist government, contributing to his popularity among contemporary elites in media, politics, and academia, as evidenced by Hamilton the musical. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Launchpads, Land Grabs, and Loopholes

Interplace

Play Episode Listen Later May 25, 2025 23:08

Hello Interactors,I was in Santa Barbara recently having dinner on a friend's deck when a rocket's contrail streaked the sky. “Another one from Vandenberg,” he said. “Wait a couple minutes — you'll hear it.” And we did. “They've gotten really annoying,” he added. He's not wrong. In early 2024, SpaceX launched seven times more tonnage into space than the rest of the world combined, much of it from Vandenberg Space Force Base (renamed from Air Force Base in 2021). They've already been approved to fly 12,000 Starlink satellites, with filings for 30,000 more.This isn't just future space junk — it's infrastructure. And it's not just in orbit. What Musk is doing in the sky is tied to what he's building on the ground. Not in Vandenberg, where regulation still exists, but in Starbase, Texas, where the law doesn't resist — it assists. There, Musk is testing how much sovereignty one man can claim under the banner of “innovation” — and how little we'll do to stop him.TOWNS TO THRUST AND THRONEMusk isn't just defying gravity — he's defying law. In South Texas, a place called Starbase has taken shape along the Gulf Coast, hugging the edge of SpaceX's rocket launch site. What looks like a town is really something else: a launchpad not just for spacecraft, but for a new form of privatized sovereignty.VIDEO: Time compresses at the edge of Starbase: a slow-built frontier where launch infrastructure rises faster than oversight. Source: Google EarthThis isn't unprecedented. The United States has a long lineage of company towns — places where corporations controlled land, housing, labor, and local government. Pullman, Illinois is the most famous. But while labor historians and economic geographers have documented their economic and social impact, few have examined them as legal structures of power.That's the gap legal scholar Brian Highsmith identifies in Governing the Company Town. That omission matters — because these places aren't just undemocratic. They often function as quasi-sovereign legal shells, designed to serve capital, not people.Incorporation is the trick. In Texas, any area with at least 201 residents can petition to become a general-law municipality. That's exactly what Musk has done. In a recent vote (212 to 6) residents approved the creation of an official town — Starbase. Most of those residents are SpaceX employees living on company-owned land…with a Tesla in the driveway. The result is a legally recognized town, politically constructed. SpaceX controls the housing, the workforce, and now, the electorate. Even the mayor is a SpaceX affiliate. With zoning powers and taxing authority, Musk now holds tools usually reserved for public governments — and he's using them to build for rockets, not residents…unless they're employees.VIDEO: Starbase expands frame by frame, not just as a company town, but as a legal experiment — where land, labor, and law are reassembled to serve orbit over ordinance. Source: Google EarthQuinn Slobodian, a historian of neoliberalism and global capitalism, shows how powerful companies and individuals increasingly use legal tools to redesign borders and jurisdictions to their advantage. In his book, Cracked Up Capitalism, he shows how jurisdiction becomes the secret weapon of the capitalist state around the world. I wrote about a techno-optimist fantasy state on the island of Roatán, part of the Bay Islands in Honduras a couple years ago. It isn't new. Disney used the same playbook in 1967 with Florida's Reedy Creek District — deeding slivers of land to employees to meet incorporation rules, then governing without real opposition. Highsmith draws a straight line to Musk: both use municipal law not to serve the public, but to avoid it. In Texas, beach access is often blocked near Starbase — even when rockets aren't launching. A proposed bill would make ignoring an evacuation order a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by jail.Even if Starbase never fully resembles a traditional town, that's beside the point. What Musk is really revealing isn't some urban design oasis but how municipal frameworks can still be weaponized for private control. Through zoning laws, incorporation statutes, and infrastructure deals, corporations can shape legal entities that resemble cities but function more like logistical regimes.And yet, this tactic draws little sustained scrutiny. As Highsmith reminds us, legal scholarship has largely ignored how municipal tools are deployed to consolidate corporate power. That silence matters — because what looks like a sleepy launch site in Texas may be something much larger: a new form of rule disguised as infrastructure.ABOVE THE LAW, BELOW THE LANDElon Musk isn't just shaping towns — he's engineering systems. His tunnels, satellites, and rockets stretch across and beyond traditional borders. These aren't just feats of engineering. They're tools of control designed to bypass civic oversight and relocate governance into private hands. He doesn't need to overthrow the state to escape regulation. He simply builds around it…and in the case of Texas, with it.Architect and theorist Keller Easterling, whose work examines how infrastructure quietly shapes political life, argues that these systems are not just supports for power — they are power. Infrastructure itself is a kind of operating system for shaping the city, states, countries…and now space.Starlink, SpaceX's satellite constellation, provides internet access to users around the world. In Ukraine, it became a vital communications network after Russian attacks on local infrastructure. Musk enabled access — then later restricted it. He made decisions with real geopolitical consequences. No president. No Congress. Just a private executive shaping war from orbit.And it's not just Ukraine. Starlink is now active in dozens of countries, often without formal agreements from national regulators. It bypasses local telecom laws, surveillance rules, and data protections. For authoritarian regimes, that makes it dangerous. But for democracies, it raises a deeper question: who governs the sky?Right now, the answer is: no one. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 assumes that nation-states, not corporations, are the primary actors in orbit. But Starlink functions in a legal grey zone, using low Earth orbit as a loophole in international law…aided and abetted by the U.S. defense department.VIDEO: Thousands of Starlink satellites, visualized in low Earth orbit, encircle the planet like a privatized exosphere—reshaping global communication while raising questions of governance, visibility, and control. Source: StarlinkThe result is a telecom empire without borders. Musk commands a growing share of orbital infrastructure but answers to no global regulator. The International Telecommunication Union can coordinate satellite spectrum, but it can't enforce ethical or geopolitical standards. Musk alone decides whether Starlink aids governments, rebels, or armies. As Quinn Slobodian might put it, this is exception-making on a planetary scale.Now let's go underground. The Boring Company digs high-speed tunnels beneath cities like Las Vegas, sidestepping standard planning processes. These projects often exclude transit agencies and ignore public engagement. They're built for select users, not the public at large. Local governments, eager for tech-driven investment, offer permits and partnerships — even if it means circumventing democratic procedures.Taken together — Starlink above, Boring Company below, Tesla charging networks on the ground — Musk's empire moves through multiple layers of infrastructure, each reshaping civic life without formal accountability. His systems carry people, data, and energy — but not through the public channels meant to regulate them. They're not overseen by voters. They're not authorized by democratic mandate. Yet they profoundly shape how people move, communicate, and live.Geographer Deborah Cowen, whose research focuses on the global logistics industry, argues that infrastructure like ports, fiber-optic cables, and pipelines have become tools of geopolitical strategy. Logistics as a form of war by other means. Brian Highsmith argues this is a form of “functional fragmentation” — breaking governance into layers and loopholes that allow corporations to sidestep collective control. These aren't mere workarounds. They signal a deeper shift in how power is organized — not just across space, but through it.This kind of sovereignty is easy to miss because it doesn't always resemble government. But when a private actor controls transit systems, communication networks, and even military connectivity — across borders, beneath cities, and in orbit — we're not just dealing with infrastructure. We're dealing with rule.And, just like with company towns, the legal scholarship is struggling to catch up. These layered, mobile, and non-territorial regimes challenge our categories of law and space alike. What these fantastical projects inspire is often awe. But what they should require is law.AMNESIA AIDS THE AMBITIOUSElon Musk may dazzle with dreams full-blown, but the roots of his power are not his own. The United States has a long tradition of private actors ruling like governments — with public blessing. These aren't outliers. They're part of a national pattern, deeply embedded in our legal geography: public authority outsourced to private ambition.The details vary, but the logic repeats. Whether it's early colonial charters, speculative land empires, company towns, or special districts carved for tech campuses, American history is full of projects where law becomes a scaffold for private sovereignty. Rather than recount every episode, let's just say from John Winthrop to George Washington to Walt Disney to Elon Musk, America has always made room for men who rule through charters, not elections.Yet despite the frequency of these arrangements, the scholarship has been oddly selective.According to Highsmith, legal academia has largely ignored the institutional architecture that makes company towns possible in the first place: incorporation laws, zoning frameworks, municipal codes, and districting rules. These aren't neutral bureaucratic instruments. They're jurisdictional design tools, capable of reshaping sovereignty at the micro-scale. And when used strategically, they can be wielded by corporations to create functional states-within-a-state — governing without elections, taxing without consent, and shaping public life through private vision.From a critical geography perspective, the problem is just as stark. Scholars have long studied the uneven production of space — how capital reshapes landscapes to serve accumulation. But here, space isn't just produced — it's governed. And it's governed through techniques of legal enclosure, where a patch of land becomes a jurisdictional exception, and a logistics hub or tech campus becomes a mini-regime.Starbase, Snailbrook, Reedy Creek, and even Google's Sidewalk Labs are not just spatial projects — they're sovereign experiments in spatial governance, where control is layered through contracts, tax breaks, and municipal proxies.But these arrangements don't arise in a vacuum. Cities often aren't choosing between public and private control — they're choosing between austerity and access to cash. In the United States, local governments are revenue-starved by design. Most lack control over income taxes or resource royalties, and depend heavily on sales taxes, property taxes, and development fees. This creates a perverse incentive: to treat corporations not as entities to regulate, but as lifelines to recruit and appease.Desperate for jobs and investment, cities offer zoning concessions, infrastructure deals, and tax abatements, even when they come with little democratic oversight or long-term guarantees. Corporate actors understand this imbalance — and exploit it. The result is a form of urban hostage-taking, where governance is bartered piecemeal in exchange for the promise of economic survival.A more democratized fiscal structure — one that empowers cities through equitable revenue-sharing, progressive taxation, or greater control over land value capture — might reduce this dependency. It would make it possible for municipalities to plan with their citizens instead of negotiating against them. It would weaken the grip of corporate actors who leverage scarcity into sovereignty. But until then, as long as cities are backed into a fiscal corner, we shouldn't be surprised when they sell off their power — one plot or parking lot at a time.Highsmith argues that these structures demand scrutiny — not just for their economic impact, but for their democratic consequences. These aren't just quirks of local law. They are the fault lines of American federalism — where localism becomes a loophole, and fragmentation becomes a formula for private rule.And yet, these systems persist with minimal legal friction and even less public awareness. Because they don't always look like sovereignty. Sometimes they look like a housing deal. A fast-tracked zoning change. A development district with deferred taxes. A campus with private shuttles and subsidized utilities. They don't announce themselves as secessions — but they function that way.We've been trained to see these projects as innovation, not governance. As entrepreneurship, not policy. But when a company owns the homes, builds the roads, controls the data, and sets the rules, it's not just offering services — it's exercising control. As political theorist Wendy Brown has argued, neoliberalism reshapes civic life around the image of the entrepreneur, replacing democratic participation with market performance.That shift plays out everywhere: universities run like corporations, cities managed like startups. Musk isn't the exception — he's the clearest expression of a culture that mistakes private ambition for public good. Musk once tweeted, “If you must know, I am a utopian anarchist of the kind best described by Iain Banks.” In a New York Times article, Jill Lepore quoted Banks as saying his science fiction books were about “'hippy commies with hyper-weapons and a deep distrust of both Marketolatry and Greedism.' He also expressed astonishment that anyone could read his books as promoting free-market libertarianism, asking, ‘Which bit of not having private property and the absence of money in the Culture novels have these people missed?'”The issue isn't just that we've allowed these takeovers — it's that we've ignored the tools enabling them: incorporation, annexation, zoning, and special districts. As Brian Highsmith notes, this quiet shift in power might not have surprised one of our constitution authors, James Madison, but it would have troubled him. In Federalist No. 10, Madison warned not of monarchs, but of factions — small, organized interests capturing government for their own ends. His solution was restraint through scaling oppositional voices. “The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed...and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.”— James Madison, Federalist No. 10 (1787)Today, the structure meant to restrain factions has become their playbook. These actors don't run for office — they arrive with charters, contracts, and capital. They govern not in the name of the people, but of “efficiency” and “innovation.” And they don't need to control a nation when a zoning board will do.Unchecked, we risk mistaking corporate control for civic order — and repeating a pattern we've barely begun to name.We were told, sold, and promised a universe of shared governance — political, spatial, even orbital. But Madison didn't trust promises. He trusted structure. He feared what happens when small governments fall to powerful interests — when law becomes a lever for private gain. That fear now lives in legal districts, rocket towns, and infrastructure built to rule. Thousands of satellites orbit the Earth, not launched by publics, but by one man with tools once reserved for states. What was once called infrastructure now governs. What was once geography now obeys.Our maps may still show roads and rails and pipes and ports — but not the fictions beneath them, or the factions they support.References:Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism's stealth revolution. Zone Books.Cowen, D. (2014). The deadly life of logistics: Mapping violence in global trade. University of Minnesota Press.Easterling, K. (2014). Extrastatecraft: The power of infrastructure space. Verso Books.Highsmith, B. (2022). Governing the company town: How employers use local government to seize political power. Yale Law Journal.Madison, J. (1787). Federalist No. 10. In A. Hamilton, J. Madison, & J. Jay, The Federalist Papers. Bantam Books (2003 edition).Slobodian, Q. (2023). Crack-Up Capitalism: Market radicals and the dream of a world without democracy. Metropolitan Books. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

united states america american university texas culture google earth disney las vegas land new york times ukraine elon musk russian local illinois tesla hamilton corporate banks cities thousands infrastructure spacex architects desperate walt disney mapping honduras logistics george washington santa barbara starlink scholars gulf coast undoing loopholes governing james madison grabs pullman neoliberalism unchecked cowen incorporation boring company class b vandenberg minnesota press starbase highsmith federalist papers air force bases jill lepore easterling sidewalk labs verso books above the law yale law journal john winthrop outer space treaty wendy brown reedy creek roat bantam books iain banks company town metropolitan books vandenberg space force base international telecommunication union federalist no zone books slobodian keller easterling bay islands

The Presidential Pardon Power

We the People

Play Episode Listen Later May 8, 2025 59:52

Brian Kalt  of Michigan State College of Law and  Jeffrey Toobin, author of  The Pardon: The Politics of Presidential Mercy, join Jeffrey Rosen to explore the founders' vision for the pardon power and the use of the presidential pardon throughout American history—from Thomas Jefferson's pardons to those issued by Presidents Biden and Trump. This conversation was originally streamed live as part of the NCC's America's Town Hall series on March 27, 2025. Resources Jeffrey Toobin, ⁠The Pardon: The Politics of Presidential Mercy⁠ (2025) Brian Kalt, ⁠Constitutional Cliffhangers⁠ (2012) ⁠Nixon Pardon⁠ (Gerald Ford Presidential Library) ⁠Trump v. United States⁠ (2024) Alexander Hamilton, ⁠The Federalist No. 74⁠, New York Packet (March 28, 1788) Abraham Lincoln, “⁠Proclamation 124—Offering Pardon to Deserters⁠” (March 11, 1865) ⁠United States v. Klein⁠ (1871) ⁠Ex parte Garland⁠ (1866) Andrew Glass, “⁠Bush pardons Iran-Contra felons, Dec. 24, 1992⁠,” Politico (Dec. 24, 2018) ⁠Presidential Records Act⁠ Donald Trump, “⁠Granting Pardons and Commutation of Sentences for Certain Offenses Relating to the Events at or Near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021⁠,” (Jan. 20. 2025) Jimmy Carter, “⁠Proclamation 4483—Granting pardon for violations of the Selective Service Act, August 4, 1964, to March 28, 1973⁠,” (Jan. 21, 1973) ⁠Pardons granted by President Barack Obama⁠ ⁠Pardons granted by President Joe Biden⁠ ⁠Pardons granted by President Bill Clinton⁠ ⁠Pardons granted by President Donald Trump⁠ Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. ⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠. Support our important work. ⁠⁠⁠Donate⁠⁠

The Evolution of the Presidential Pardon From Jefferson to Trump

Live at America's Town Hall

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 8, 2025 59:50

In this episode, Brian Kalt of Michigan State College of Law and Jeffrey Toobin, author of The Pardon: The Politics of Presidential Mercy, explore the founders' vision for the pardon power and the use of the presidential pardon throughout American history—from Thomas Jefferson's pardons to those issued by Presidents Biden and Trump. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources Jeffrey Toobin, The Pardon: The Politics of Presidential Mercy (2025) Brian Kalt, Constitutional Cliffhangers (2012) Nixon Pardon (Gerald Ford Presidential Library) Trump v. United States (2024) Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 74, New York Packet (March 28, 1788) Abraham Lincoln, “Proclamation 124—Offering Pardon to Deserters” (March 11, 1865) United States v. Klein (1871) Ex parte Garland (1866) Andrew Glass, “Bush pardons Iran-Contra felons, Dec. 24, 1992,” Politico (Dec. 24, 2018) Presidential Records Act Donald Trump, “Granting Pardons and Commutation of Sentences for Certain Offenses Relating to the Events at or Near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021,” (Jan. 20. 2025) Jimmy Carter, “Proclamation 4483—Granting pardon for violations of the Selective Service Act, August 4, 1964, to March 28, 1973,” (Jan. 21, 1973) Pardons granted by President Barack Obama Pardons granted by President Joe Biden Pardons granted by President Bill Clinton Pardons granted by President Donald Trump Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

#0175 Articles of Confederation, An End To The Ukraine War?, Vance vs The Pope on Ordo Amori, The First Female Congresswoman, TBC: The Great Divorce, and Apologetics 101 - Further. Every. Day.

Further. Every. Day.

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 5, 2025 117:03

#0175 Articles of Confederation, An End To The Ukraine War?, Vance vs The Pope on Ordo Amori, The First Female Congresswoman, TBC: The Great Divorce, and Apologetics 101 - Further. Every. Day. The Articles of Confederation – A Failed Democracy Of States Cut 1#: Introduction: The Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781, served as the first governing document of the United States. However, it soon proved inadequate, leading to widespread calls for reform. The Founding Fathers—especially George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton—expressed serious concerns about its weaknesses. Many of these concerns were articulated in their letters, speeches, and debates, culminating in the drafting of the U.S. Constitution in 1787. Key Weaknesses and Contemporary Critiques 1. Lack of Taxation Authority One of the most significant weaknesses of the Articles was Congress's inability to levy taxes. The federal government had to rely on voluntary contributions from the states, leading to financial instability and an inability to pay off war debts. Cut 2#: James Madison, “Vices of the Political System” (April 1787):"It is no longer doubted that a unanimous and punctual obedience of 13 independent bodies, to the acts of the federal Government, ought not be calculated on. Even during the war, when external danger supplied in some degree the defect of legal & coercive sanctions, how imperfectly did the States fulfil their obligations to the Union? In time of peace, we see already what is to be expected." Cut 3&4#: Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 30 (December 28, 1787):"The present Confederation, feeble as it is intended to repose in the United States, an unlimited power of providing for the pecuniary wants of the Union. But proceeding upon an erroneous principle, it has been done in such a manner as entirely to have frustrated the intention. Congress, by the articles which compose that compact (as has already been stated), are authorized to ascertain and call for any sums of money necessary, in their judgment, to the service of the United States; and their requisitions, if conformable to the rule of apportionment, are in every constitutional sense obligatory upon the States. These have no right to question the propriety of the demand; no discretion beyond that of devising the ways and means of furnishing the sums demanded. But though this be strictly and truly the case; though the assumption of such a right would be an infringement of the articles of Union; though it may seldom or never have been avowedly claimed, yet in practice it has been constantly exercised, and would continue to be so, as long as the revenues of the Confederacy should remain dependent on the intermediate agency of its members." Cut 5#: George Washington's letter to John Jay (August 15, 1786):"Requisitions are actually little better than a jest and a bye word throughout the Land. If you tell the Legislatures they have violated the treaty of peace and invaded the prerogatives of the confederacy they will laugh in your face." Comparison to the Constitution: Articles of Confederation: Congress could not impose taxes and had to request funds from the states. U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8): Congress gains the power to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.” 2. No Executive or Judicial Branches Under the Articles, there was no executive branch to enforce laws and no national judiciary to settle disputes, leading to inefficiency and legal conflicts among states. Cut 6#: James Madison at the Constitutional Convention (June 19, 1787):"The existing Confederacy does not sufficiently provide against this evil. The proposed amendment to it does not supply the omission. It leaves the will of the States as uncontrolled as ever." Cut 7#: Alexander Hamilton, Federalist NO. 22 (December 14, 1787):"Several States have endeavored, by separate prohibitions, restrictions, and exclusions, to influence the conduct of that kingdom in this particular, but the want of concert, arising from the want of a general authority and from clashing and dissimilar views in the State, has hitherto frustrated every experiment of the kind, and will continue to do so as long as the same obstacles to a uniformity of measures continue to exist." And later in Fed 22: Cut 8#: “A circumstance which crowns the defects of the Confederation remains yet to be mentioned, the want of a judiciary power. Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation. The treaties of the United States, to have any force at all, must be considered as part of the law of the land. Their true import, as far as respects individuals, must, like all other laws, be ascertained by judicial determinations. To produce uniformity in these determinations, they ought to be submitted, in the last resort, to one SUPREME TRIBUNAL. And this tribunal ought to be instituted under the same authority which forms the treaties themselves. These ingredients are both indispensable.” Comparison to the Constitution: Articles of Confederation: No executive or judiciary, making enforcement and dispute resolution nearly impossible. U.S. Constitution: Establishes three co-equal branches with checks and balances. 3. Inability to Regulate Commerce With no power to regulate trade, states imposed tariffs on each other, creating economic discord and weakening national unity. Cut 9#: George Washington's letter to James Madison (November 30, 1785):"I hope the resolutions which were published for the consideration of the House, respecting the reference to Congress for the regulation of a Commercial system will have passed. The proposition in my opinion is so self evident that I confess I am at a loss to discover wherein lyes the weight of the objection to the measure. We are either a United people, or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation, which have national objects to promote, and a National character to support—If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending to it. for whilst we are playing a dble game, or playing a game between the two we never shall be consistent or respectable—but may be the dupes of some powers and, most assuredly, the contempt of all." Comparison to the Constitution: Articles of Confederation: No power to regulate interstate or international trade. U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8): Grants Congress the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states.” Constitutional Convention Debates on the Articles The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was largely a response to the Articles' failings. Many Founders voiced concerns about its weaknesses and emphasized the necessity of a new framework. Cut 10#: George Washington's Address at the Constitutional Convention (1787):"It is too probable that no plan we propose will be adopted. Perhaps another dreadful conflict is to be sustained. If to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God." Cut 11#: James Madison at the Convention (June 6, 1787):"The confederation was founded on temporary principles. It cannot last: it cannot be amended. If we do not establish a good Govt. on new principles, we must either go to ruin, or have the work to do over again. The people at large are wrongly suspected of being averse to a Genl. Govt. The aversion lies among interested men who possess their confidence." Conclusion: The Articles' Failure & The Constitution's Success The weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation were widely recognized by the Founders, who sought a stronger federal government through the U.S. Constitution. By granting the national government taxation authority, an executive branch, a judiciary, and regulatory power over commerce, the new Constitution directly addressed the Articles' failings. Cut 12#: Benjamin Franklin on the new Constitution (1787):"Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best." This new government would not only survive but become one of the most enduring political systems in history. Russo-Ukraine War Ends, New Wars In Taiwan? With the war, hopefully ending in Ukraine, new peace talks can begin:Cut 13#: JD Vance and Zelensky Clip Hegseth addressed NATO in Brussels this week: Cut 14#: No, we're not leaving Ukraine behind, negotiations are just starting Cut 15#: NATO needs to step up, the German reporter asks if the US will raise spending from 3.4% to 5% as Hegseth suggests the EU does https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOzzVfhkwn4 Cut 16#: Fighting two different wars on two different fronts, Gaza and Ukraine, has weakened our strategic reserves, oil, ATACMS, small arms munitions, and in many other ways says Command Adm. Samuel Paparo in Nov of 24: https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-weapons-taiwan-missiles-stockpiles-28564bbed21f72b9a3c6b3cd9c086bc7 Cut 17#: This may be why Trump is so focused on peace with Russia and China https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70Gr2eAYORI The Pope vs VP Vance on the Ordo Amori Much ink and discussion has been spilled on this, but let's hear a surrogate from the Pope speak to this: Now let's open God's Word in a very Augustine way, looking at the nature of affections as laid out in scripture: Cut 18#: https://x.com/TaylorRMarshall/status/1890437635883086485 1. Love for God as Supreme Cut 19# Matthew 22:37-38 – “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment.” Cut 20# Deuteronomy 6:5 – “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” Cut 21# Luke 14:26 – “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” (Jesus is not commanding literal hatred but is emphasizing that love for God must come first.) Cut 22# Exodus 20:3 – “You shall have no other gods before me.” 2. Love for Family Cut 23# Ephesians 5:25 – “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Cut 24# Ephesians 6:1-2 – “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. ‘Honor your father and mother' (this is the first commandment with a promise).” Cut 25# 1 Timothy 5:8 – “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Cut 26# Genesis 2:24 – “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” 3. Love for Community Cut 27# Leviticus 19:18 – “You shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.” Cut 28# Luke 10:27-37 (Parable of the Good Samaritan) – Demonstrates love for one's neighbor beyond ethnic or social boundaries. 4. Love for Nation Cut 29# Jeremiah 29:7 – “But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.” Cut 30# Romans 13:1-7 – “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Cut 31# 1 Peter 2:13-17 – “Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution… Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” Now, how does allowing an invasion of Military Aged Men into our country fit into this rubric? How does the Vatican deal with threats against his excellency?Cut 32# Oh… Cut 33# Nicki Knows Facts: The First Congresswoman Cut 34#-37 The Book Corner: The Great Divorce Foreword-Chapter 2 Foreword C.S. Lewis explains that The Great Divorce is an allegory, not a theological treatise, and should not be taken as a literal depiction of the afterlife. He argues against the idea that good and evil can be reconciled, emphasizing that one must fully choose either Heaven or Hell—there is no blending of the two. He also mentions his inspiration from William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell but clarifies that his book is meant to show their absolute separation rather than their unity. Chapter 1 The narrator finds himself in a grim, joyless city (Hell or “the Grey Town”) on a rainy evening. He joins a line for a bus that promises to take people away from the city. As he waits, he observes the other passengers arguing, bickering, and expressing general dissatisfaction. These people, it seems, are unhappy but reluctant to leave, preferring their own grievances and pride over change. When the bus arrives, it appears unusual—bright and floating above the ground. Chapter 2 As the bus takes off, it begins to ascend, moving higher and higher into the sky. The narrator notices that the interior of the bus seems to grow larger than its exterior, a hint at the supernatural nature of the journey. The other passengers continue arguing, revealing their selfishness, resentment, and attachment to their past sins. Some complain about the rules of the Grey Town, while others insist they deserve better treatment. The chapter ends with the bus flying toward an unfamiliar, beautifully radiant land, which we later understand to be the foothills of Heaven. Apologetics 101 The 3 Rules of Apologetics 1. Define Terms 2. Answer the Questioner, not the Question 3. Remember who wins the person's soul, hint it's not you. Final Question: Favorite fictional work Sources for Further Reading: https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a7s3.html https://www.bartleby.com/lit-hub/respectfully-quoted/george-washington-173299-2/ https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-03-02-0357 https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed22.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed30.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_619.asp

Podcasts about federalist no

Best podcasts about federalist no

Christian Podcast Community

The Federalist Files

The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton

Squirrel Chatter

The Federalist Papers Alexander Hamilton

The Paperless Federalists

Liberate America

The Jeffersonian Tradition

Beautiful Illusions

Latest news about federalist no

Latest podcast episodes about federalist no

6/20/25 - The Battle Over Iran's Nuclear Threat

Launchpads, Land Grabs, and Loopholes

The Presidential Pardon Power

The Evolution of the Presidential Pardon From Jefferson to Trump

#0175 Articles of Confederation, An End To The Ukraine War?, Vance vs The Pope on Ordo Amori, The First Female Congresswoman, TBC: The Great Divorce, and Apologetics 101 - Further. Every. Day.

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, February 28, 2025

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, February 21, 2025

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, February 14, 2025

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, February 14, 2025

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, 24 January 2025

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, 24 January 2025

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, January 10, 2025

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, January 10, 2025

Interview with Joe Wolverton - Unraveling Federal Overreach and Constitutional Boundaries

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, January 3, 2025

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, January 3, 2025

#329 特朗普 2.0 时代，一场美国精英年轻人理性政治讨论的切片

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, November 22, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, November 22, 2024

The President's Power to Make Recess Appointments

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, November 15, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, November 15, 2024

Ep 82 — Trump Won The Presidency. He's Seizing Congress By Fiat.

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, November 8, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, November 8, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, November 1, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, November 1, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, October 18, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, October 18, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, October 4, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, October 4, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, September 27, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, September 27, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, August 30, 2024

Unity Is Dead, Long Live the Union

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, August 23, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, August 16, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, August 2, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, June 28, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, June 21, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, May 31, 2024

Declaring and Making War (Federalist Paper No. 23 - Alexander Hamilton)

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, May 3, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, May 3, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, April 26, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, April 26, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, April 19, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, April 19, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, April 5, 2024

Squirrel Chatter! Friday, April 5, 2024