Podcasts about The Federalist Papers

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

I read from the Signet Classics edition of The Federalist Papers, introduction and notes by Charles R. Kesler (a guest on the podcast and my professor at the Ph.D. level for the material presented, here). The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-understanding-American-organic-Law podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

It's the 249th Independence Day. The Podcast crew is off celebrating, but we figured we'd drop a message to keep the feed active. Let's look at the foundational documents that formed the Republic and ask: Will the United States survive as a democracy for 250 years? If not, what should go into the next Declaration against this modern tyranny? Other Titles Considered RIP USA It was a good run The New Founders War Special Show Links: The Declaration of Independence: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20220929/115171/HHRG-117-GO00-20220929-SD010.pdf  The Constitution: https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf Common Sense: https://loveman.sdsu.edu/docs/1776ThomasPaine.pdf  Federalist Papers: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text H.R.1 The OBBB: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text 

Summary:In this conversation, the hosts reflect on the significance of Independence Day, discussing the deeper meanings behind the celebration, including the sacrifices made by the Founding Fathers. They explore the ideals of freedom and rights enshrined in the Constitution, the importance of local governance, and the role of the Federalist Papers in understanding the intentions of the framers. The discussion also touches on modern threats to these ideals and the necessity of exercising rights to maintain them.Takeaways:The 4th of July celebrates more than just independence; it reflects a historical breakup letter.The sacrifices of the Founding Fathers were immense, risking everything for the idea of freedom.Understanding the Revolutionary War as an underdog story highlights the bravery of those involved.Modern threats to America require a reevaluation of our preparedness and patriotism.The Federalist Papers provide insight into the intentions behind the Constitution.The balance of power has shifted significantly from the original intent of the Founding Fathers.Local government plays a crucial role in affecting change and maintaining rights.The First Amendment is vital for protecting free speech, even unpopular opinions.Rights must be exercised to be preserved; they are not guaranteed without action.The future of American ideals depends on active participation in governance and community.

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

The Constitutionalist is a podcast co-hosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org.

Iowa politics is heating up—even in the summer. In this episode, Chris and John discuss behind-the-scenes moves in the 2026 Iowa governor's race, including State Representative Eddie Andrews' growing focus on property tax reform. They also cover Governor Reynolds' recent veto and the potential for a special legislative session to override it.The conversation turns to local government spending, highlighting Iowa City's plan to pursue a local-option sales tax—despite already implementing a franchise fee. Chris and John ask why local governments insist on spending more, even while claiming to prioritize property tax relief.The hosts dig into housing policy, questioning the role of cities like Waukee in subsidizing affordable housing despite ample federal incentives already in place. Is government the right entity to address housing shortages—or is it just chasing the next big narrative?They close with reflections on the importance of civic education in Iowa, concerns about ideological bias in new university-led civics centers, and a call to return to foundational civic principles—maybe even through a little Schoolhouse Rock.

New Yorker's greatly oppose the Constitution. Governor Clinton does not even begin the convention until June 1788. After convention delegates receive word that Nine states have ratified and the Constitution is going into effect, with or without New York, the Convention debate turns. Blog ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://blog.AmRevPodcast.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ includes a complete transcript, as well as more resources related to this week's episode. Book Recommendation of the Week: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Eleventh Pillar: New York State and the Federal Constitution, by Linda Grant DePauw Online Recommendation of the Week: VIDEO: The Struggle for Ratification: New York's Role in Shaping the U.S. Constitution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOTfjhwcz6o Join American Revolution Podcast on Reddit: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.reddit.com/r/AmRevPodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Ask your American Revolution Podcast questions on Quora: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://amrevpod.quora.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/groups/132651894048271⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow the podcast on X ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@AmRevPodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Join the podcast mail list: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mailchi.mp/d3445a9cd244/american-revolution-podcast-by-michael-troy ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ARP T-shirts and other merch: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://merch.amrevpodcast.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Support this podcast on Patreon ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/AmRevPodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or via PayPal ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://paypal.me/AmRevPodcast⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of The Classical Mind, we dive into a curated selection of The Federalist Papers, the seminal series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to argue for the Constitution. Rather than tackling all 85 essays, we focus on a thematic collection (#s 1, 9-10, 15, 30, 39, 51, 62-63, 68, and 78) that highlights the philosophical and structural pillars of the American experiment in self-government.We begin with Hamilton's General Introduction (No. 1), then explore how the proposed union protects against internal strife and faction (Nos. 9–10), and why the Articles of Confederation were inadequate (No. 15). We examine the central role of federal taxation (No. 30), the plan's alignment with republican principles (No. 39), and the essential structure of checks and balances (No. 51).We also explore the three branches of government through Madison's defense of the Senate (Nos. 62–63), Hamilton's thoughts on presidential elections (No. 68), and his case for an independent judiciary (No. 78).Along the way, we consider the historical context: chaos under the Articles of Confederation, Enlightenment influences like Montesquieu, and why Democracy in America offers a fitting modern endnote. Join us as we revisit the founding debates that continue to shape the American constitutional imagination.Endnotes: -Hamilton -Junius: The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students by Allan Bloom -Wesley: Democracy in America by Alexis de TocquevilleOur next read will be Peter Pan. Get full access to The Classical Mind at www.theclassicalmind.com/subscribe

This week on the Mark Levin Show, rouge federal district judges are issuing nationwide injunctions against President Trump's voter-supported policies. These judges overstep their constitutional authority, seizing power from elected branches by imposing policy preferences disguised as legal rulings, particularly on immigration and executive actions. The one big beautiful bill passed by the House would limit judges' ability to enforce contempt citations and would require plaintiffs to post financial bonds for injunctions. There's skepticism of any deal with Iran that doesn't destroy their nuclear sites and centrifuges, as they'll still get nuclear weapons like North Korea did. Iran's weak economy and defenses make now the time to act, but a deal lifting sanctions will let them rebuild. Any agreement must be a treaty and go to Congress—it's a constitutional necessity. If a deal is reached Iran will eventually announce they have a nuclear weapon, causing a Middle East proliferation crisis. Their ideology ignores mutually assured destruction, driven by a belief in the afterlife, and they'll never reveal all their nuclear assets to the world. Finally, the U.S. Constitution and historical documents like the Federalist Papers do not grant the judiciary, including lower federal courts like the U.S. Court on Trade, the final authority in disputes. Congress, as the representative body, holds the ultimate decision-making power, particularly in matters of national policy. The judiciary's self-assumed power, stems from cases like Marbury v. Madison (1803), asserts that the framers intended the courts to act as "traffic cops" ensuring other branches stay within their constitutional lanes, not to usurp their authority. Congress, not the courts, should have the final say, aligning with the republican structure of the government. If the Supreme Court does not stop what these lower courts are doing, and quickly, Mark is going to lead a movement to pressure Congress to remake the lower courts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, the framers of the Constitution did not grant courts, such as the International Court of Trade, the final authority on matters like tariffs, reserving that power for Congress. The Constitution gives Congress broad authority over taxation and spending, and through a 1977 emergency law, it delegated certain tariff powers to the president. Courts lack the constitutional basis to override such delegations. Historical records, including Madison's notes, the Federalist Papers, and state ratification debates, show the framers rejected giving courts supreme authority, like judicial review, to resolve separation-of-powers disputes. The framers of the Constitution, heavily influenced by Montesquieu, designed a government with a strict separation of powers to prevent tyranny, as Montesquieu warned that combining legislative, executive, or judicial powers in one entity leads to arbitrary rule and oppression. Congress should address this through legislation, not courts through litigation. Also, Sam Antar accused a Politico writer of "reputational laundering" for praising  New York AG Letitia James as a "Shadow Attorney General" in a Democratic shadow cabinet, while ignoring her federal criminal investigation for alleged mortgage fraud. Politico's omission of the DOJ referral shows the media bias, as James has targeted Trump, notably winning a $450M civil fraud case against him.  Later, the Wall Street Journal reports the decline of America's military-industrial capacity compared to China's rapid growth in the sector. The U.S. has allowed its defense manufacturing and supply chains to weaken due to underinvestment, outsourcing, and a focus on short-term efficiency over long-term resilience. This is frightening. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show, the U.S. Constitution and historical documents like the Federalist Papers do not grant the judiciary, including lower federal courts like the U.S. Court on Trade, the final authority in disputes. Congress, as the representative body, holds the ultimate decision-making power, particularly in matters of national policy. The judiciary's self-assumed power, stems from cases like Marbury v. Madison (1803), asserts that the framers intended the courts to act as "traffic cops" ensuring other branches stay within their constitutional lanes, not to usurp their authority. Congress, not the courts, should have the final say, aligning with the republican structure of the government. If the Supreme Court does not stop what these lower courts are doing, and quickly, Mark is going to lead a movement to pressure Congress to remake the lower courts. And under the Constitution, we have every right as the people of this country to press our elected representatives to uphold the Constitution and give us our republic back. The lower courts are violating separation of powers, seizing authority they do not have, and have become populated with rogue lawyers/activists. The Constitution empowers we, the people, and through us, our representatives, to fix this. Also, the Civil War, with over 700,000 casualties in a nation of 24 million, was worth the cost to end slavery and preserve the Union. Similarly, Israel's ongoing conflicts justify decisive action to destroy Hamas and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, despite repeated ceasefires and attacks from groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis. Israel's fight is for survival, akin to the Civil War's existential stakes. Critics who label this a "forever war" or warmongering are dismissed, as some causes, like survival, demand fighting to the death. Later, Iran is actively advancing its nuclear weapons program. They are developing a sophisticated nuclear program and possesses a growing arsenal of ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads over long distances. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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

Check out our sponsors: ✅ Birch Gold - Text CHAD to 989898 ✅ All Family Pharmacy - https://AllFamilyPharmacy.com/Chad ✅ Go to https://hometitlelock.com/chadprather and use promo code CHAD to get a FREE title history report so you can find out if you're already a victim AND 14 days of protection for FREE!  Episode Description: And make sure to check out the Million Dollar TripleLock protection details when you get there! Exclusions apply. For details visit https://hometitlelock.com/warranty Are we living in the very tyranny our Founding Fathers tried to prevent? In this episode, we expose how the modern administrative state—made up of unelected bureaucrats and weaponized federal agencies—has completely betrayed the original vision laid out in the Federalist Papers. From COVID lockdowns to ATF overreach, to the censorship-industrial complex, we draw a straight line from the warnings of James Madison to the chaos we're living through today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this jam-packed episode of Devolution Power Hour, Jon Herold and Chris Paul break down a week of global and domestic shakeups, from the historic rise of Pope Leo XIV to Trump's tactical reshuffling of the DOJ. They analyze Ed Martin's blocked nomination, Judge Jeanine Pirro's appointment, and how Trump may be using interim roles to sidestep Senate obstruction. The conversation turns constitutional as the hosts explore Trump's potential suspension of habeas corpus, drawing from the Federalist Papers and court precedent to argue it's a return to founding principles, not tyranny. They also call out the regime media's likely meltdown and spotlight how public consensus may be the real weapon. Toss in takedowns of James O'Keefe's Epstein flop, Ron DeSantis' tax posturing, and a bold theory on Trump's “Great Reset,” and you've got a fast-moving, thought-provoking episode that connects the dots like only DPH can.

This conversation starts with fictional candidate Willy Stark, a favorite subject of our guest, Steve Ealy. Steve has written on how to read the Qur'an, the Federalist Papers and constitutional interpretation, the philosophers Jurgen Habermas, Michael Oakeshott, and Eric Voegelin, and the writers C. S. Lewis, Ralph Ellison, Fyodor Deostoevsky, James Fenimore Cooper, John Steinbeck, and Robert Penn Warren. He is currently working on a book-length study of Robert Penn Warren.  In other words, he is qualified to dicsuss Donald Trump in the perspective of history.  

Back after a year on hiatus! Noah Smith & Brad DeLong Record the Podcast They, at Least, Would Like to Listen to!; Aspirationally Bi-Weekly (Meaning Every Other Week); Aspirationally an hour...Sokrates: The people find some protector, whom they nurse into greatness… but then changes, as indicated in the old fable of the Temple of Zeus of the Wolf, of how he who tastes human flesh mixed up with the flesh of other sacrificial victims will turn into a wolf. Even so, the protector, once metaphorically tasting human blood, slaying some and exiling others, within or without the law, hinting at the cancellation of debts and the fair redistribution of lands, must then either perish or become a werewolf—that is, a tyrant…Key Insights:* We are back! After a year-long hiatus.* Hexapodia is a metaphor: a small, strange insight (like alien shrubs riding on six-wheeled carts as involuntary agents of the Great Evil) can provide key insight into useful and valuable Truth.* The Democratic Party is run by 27-year-old staffers, not geriatric figurehead politicians–this shapes messaging and internal dynamics.* The American progressive movement did not possess enough assibayah to keep from fracturing over Gaza War, especially among younger Democratic staffers influenced by social media discourse.* The left's adoption of “indigeneity” rhetoric undermined its ability to be a coalition in the face of tensions generated by the Hamas-Israel terrorism campaigns.* Trump's election with more popular votes than Harris destroyed Democratic belief that they had a right to oppose root-and-branch.* The belief that Democrats are the “natural majority” of the U.S. electorate is now false: nonvoters lean Trump, not so much Republican, and definitely not Democratic.* Trump's populism is not economic redistribution, but a claim to provide a redistribution of status and respect to those who feel culturally disrespected.* The Supreme Court's response to Trumpian overreach is likely to be very cautious—Barrett and Roberts are desperately eager to avoid any confrontation with Trump they might wind up losing, and Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Thomas will go the extra mile—they are Republicans who are judges, not judges who are Republicans, except in some extremis that may not even exist.* Trump's administration pursues selective repression through the state, rather than stochastic terrorism.* The economic consequence of the second Trump presidency look akin to another Brexit costing the U.S. ~10% of its prosperity, or more.* Social media, especially Twitter a status warfare machine–amplifying trolls and extremists, suppressing nuance.* People addicted to toxic media diets but lack the tools or education to curate better information environments.* SubStack and newsletters may become part of a healthier information ecosystem, a partial antidote to the toxic amplification of the Shouting Class on social media.* Human history is marked by information revolutions (e.g., printing press), each producing destructive upheaval before stabilization: destruction, that may or may not be creative.* As in the 1930s, we are entering a period where institutions–not mobs–become the threat, even as social unrest diminishes.* The dangers are real,and recognizing and adapting to new communication realities is key to preserving democracy.* Plato's Republic warned of democracy decaying into tyranny, especially when mob-like populism finds a strongman champion who then, having (metaphorically) fed on human flesh, becomes a (metaphorical) werewolf.* Enlightenment values relied more than we knew on print-based gatekeeping and slow communication; digital communication bypasses these safeguards.* The cycle of crisis and recovery is consistent through history: societies fall into holes they later dig out of, usually at great cost—or they don't.* &, as always, HEXAPODIA!References:* Brown, Chad P. 2025. “Trump's trade war timeline 2.0: An up-to-date guide”. PIIE. .* Center for Humane Technology. 2020. “The Social Dilemma”. .* Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, & John Jay. 1788. The Federalist Papers. .* Nowinski, Wally. 2024. “Democrats benefit from low turnout now”. Noahpinion. July 20. .* Platon of the Athenai. -375 [1871]. Politeia. .* Rorty, Richard. 1998. Achieving Our Country. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. * Rothpletz, Peter. 2024. “Economics 101 tells us there's no going back from Trumpism”. The Hill. September 24. .* Smith, Noah. 2021. “Wokeness as Respect Redistribution”. Noahpinion..* Smith, Noah. 2016. “How to actually redistribute respect”. Noahpinion. March 23. .* Smith, Noah. 2013. “Redistribute wealth? No, redistribute respect”. Noahpinion. December 27. .* SubStack. 2025. “Building a New Economic Engine for Culture”. .&* Vinge, Vernor. 1999. A Deepness in the Sky. New York: Tor Books. .If reading this gets you Value Above Replacement, then become a free subscriber to this newsletter. And forward it! And if your VAR from this newsletter is in the three digits or more each year, please become a paid subscriber! I am trying to make you readers—and myself—smarter. Please tell me if I succeed, or how I fail… Get full access to Brad DeLong's Grasping Reality at braddelong.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, Tom and Producer Drew guide listeners through the complex maze of the US immigration debate using the recent high-profile case of Senator Chris Van Hollen's trip to El Salvador. Tom and Drew analyze Supreme Court rulings, break down the spin from both sides of the aisle, and explore the larger implications these decisions have for American governance. They set the scene for why the legalities behind hot-button political issues demand a closer reading, not just reliance on headlines. SHOWNOTES 00:00 "Red Light, Green Light Capitalism Impact" 04:13 Misguided Determination or Meaningful Gesture? 09:02 Federalist Papers' Role in Constitution Interpretation 10:42 Supreme Court Partially Overrules Undercourt 15:11 Supreme Court Immigration Ruling Error 16:42 Executive Deference in Foreign Policy 23:15 "Supreme Court: Values and Society's Balance" 24:30 Balanced Supreme Court Idealism 29:18 Debating Strong Executive Power Origins 34:32 Trump's Economic Strategy and Debt 38:07 Balancing Employment and Inflation 41:33 Trump's Economic Strategy Balancing Act 44:40 Tariffs' Impact on Pricing 47:44 CPI Basket and Economic Essentials 48:58 "Interest Rate Cuts and Currency Impact" 54:34 The Universe's Massive Odds 55:23 Space Exploration Risks and Simulations CHECK OUT OUR SPONSORS Audible: Sign up for a free 30 day trial at https://audible.com/IMPACTTHEORY  Vital Proteins: Get 20% off by going to https://www.vitalproteins.com and entering promo code IMPACT at check out Kettle & Fire: Get 20% off your first order at https://kettleandfire.com/impact with code IMPACT  Shopify: Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month trial period at https://shopify.com/impact Thrive Market: ​​Go to https:thrivemarket.com/impact for 30% off your first order, plus a FREE $60 gift! American Alternative Assets: If you're ready to explore gold as part of your investment strategy, call 1-888-615-8047 or go to https://TomGetsGold.com Tech Unheard: Tune into Tech Unheard from Arm and NPM—wherever you get your podcasts. iTrust Capital: Use code IMPACTGO when you sign up and fund your account to get a $100 bonus at https://www.itrustcapital.com/tombilyeu  Mint Mobile: If you like your money, Mint Mobile is for you. Shop plans at https://mintmobile.com/impact.  DISCLAIMER: Upfront payment of $45 for 3-month 5 gigabyte plan required (equivalent to $15/mo.). New customer offer for first 3 months only, then full-price plan options available. Taxes & fees extra. See MINT MOBILE for details. What's up, everybody? It's Tom Bilyeu here: If you want my help... STARTING a business: join me here at ZERO TO FOUNDER SCALING a business: see if you qualify here. Get my battle-tested strategies and insights delivered weekly to your inbox: sign up here. ********************************************************************** If you're serious about leveling up your life, I urge you to check out my new podcast, Tom Bilyeu's Mindset Playbook —a goldmine of my most impactful episodes on mindset, business, and health. Trust me, your future self will thank you. ********************************************************************** Join me live on my Twitch stream. I'm live daily from 6:30 to 8:30 am PT at www.twitch.tv/tombilyeu ********************************************************************** LISTEN TO IMPACT THEORY AD FREE + BONUS EPISODES on APPLE PODCASTS: apple.co/impacttheory ********************************************************************** FOLLOW TOM: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tombilyeu/ Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@tombilyeu?lang=en Twitter: https://twitter.com/tombilyeu YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TomBilyeu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join the #McConnellCenter as we welcome Steve Ealy as he attempts to convince us of the importance of reading All The King's Men by Robert Penn Warren! Steve Ealy is a Senior Fellow Emeritus at Liberty Fund, Inc. He has published academic articles on Robert Penn Warren, Ralph Ellison, the Qur'an, and The Federalist Papers. He received his BA in political science from Furman University, and earned an MA in government at Claremont Graduate University and his PhD in political science from the University of Georgia. We all know we need to read more and there are literally millions of books on shelves with new ones printed every day. How do we sort through all the possibilities to find the book that is just right for us now? Well, the McConnell Center is bringing authors and experts to inspire us to read impactful and entertaining books that might be on our shelves or in our e-readers, but which we haven't yet picked up. We hope you learn a lot in the following podcast and we hope you might be inspired to pick up one or more of the books we are highlighting this year at the University of Louisville's McConnell Center. Stay Connected Visit us at McConnellcenter.org Subscribe to our newsletter  Facebook: @mcconnellcenter Instagram: @ulmcenter  Twitter: @ULmCenter This podcast is a production of the McConnell Center

This week our guest is author and JAR contributor Jude Pfister. The Federalist Papers stand amongst the most important documents from the Revolutionary era, and they are being reevaluated for a new era. For more information visit www.allthingsliberty.com

Federalist Papers. President Trump enjoys saying he's a student of history, and you might say he's familiar with America's way-back documents. While on the campaign trail for the presidency, Mr. Trump often said he wanted to reduce the Federal Government, and in principle, this has been a long-debated argument regarding power over state rights. By any measurement, the 36 trillion Federal debt is an abuse of power and threatens every man, woman, and child. MUSIC Aaron Zigman, Mark Korven, Hildur Gudnadotter, Tyler Bates, & Joel Richard, Benard Herrmann, Michel Lagard

fWotD Episode 2860: James Madison Welcome to Featured Wiki of the Day, your daily dose of knowledge from Wikipedia’s finest articles.The featured article for Tuesday, 4 March 2025 is James Madison.James Madison (March 16, 1751 [O. S. March 5, 1750] – June 28, 1836) was an American statesman, diplomat, and Founding Father who served as the fourth president of the United States from 1809 to 1817. Madison was popularly acclaimed the "Father of the Constitution" for his pivotal role in drafting and promoting the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.Madison was born into a prominent slave-owning planter family in Virginia. In 1774, strongly opposed to British taxation, Madison joined with the Patriots. He was a member of the Virginia House of Delegates and the Continental Congress during and after the American Revolutionary War. Dissatisfied with the weak national government established by the Articles of Confederation, he helped organize the Constitutional Convention, which produced a new constitution designed to strengthen republican government against democratic assembly. Madison's Virginia Plan was the basis for the convention's deliberations. He became one of the leaders in the movement to ratify the Constitution and joined Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in writing The Federalist Papers, a series of pro-ratification essays that remain prominent among works of political science in American history. Madison emerged as an important leader in the House of Representatives and was a close adviser to President George Washington. During the early 1790s, Madison opposed the economic program and the accompanying centralization of power favored by Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton. Alongside Thomas Jefferson, he organized the Democratic–Republican Party in opposition to Hamilton's Federalist Party. Madison served as Jefferson's Secretary of State from 1801 to 1809, during which time he helped convince Jefferson to submit the Louisiana Purchase Treaty for approval by the Senate.Madison was elected president in 1808. Motivated by a desire to acquire land held by Britain, Spain, and Native Americans, and after diplomatic protests with a trade embargo failed to end British seizures of American-shipped goods, Madison led the United States into the War of 1812. Although the war ended inconclusively, many Americans viewed it as a successful "second war of independence" against Britain. Madison was re-elected in 1812. The war convinced Madison of the necessity of a stronger federal government. He presided over the creation of the Second Bank of the United States and the enactment of the protective Tariff of 1816. By treaty or through war, Native American tribes ceded 26 million acres (11 million ha) of land to the United States during Madison's presidency.Retiring from public office at the end of his presidency in 1817, Madison returned to his plantation, Montpelier, where he died in 1836. Madison was a slave owner; he freed one slave in 1783 to prevent a slave rebellion at Montpelier but did not free any in his will. Historians regard Madison as one of the most significant Founding Fathers of the United States, and have generally ranked him as an above-average president, although they are critical of his endorsement of slavery and his leadership during the War of 1812. Madison's name is commemorated in many landmarks across the nation, with prominent examples including Madison Square Garden, James Madison University, the James Madison Memorial Building, the capitol city of Wisconsin, and the USS James Madison.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:07 UTC on Tuesday, 4 March 2025.For the full current version of the article, see James Madison on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm neural Kendra.

G.K. and Dave hit a lot of topics in this power-packed half hour show, including their thoughts on the cult known as the Democrat Party. They also look at China and its border situations. Lastly, Dave gives a quick history lesson on the actual constitutional powers and mandate given to the Judicial Branch. Please be sure to visit our website at www.miningthemedia.com and share it with your friends, relatives, associates, and neighbors.

Boortz joins The Morning Xtra to discuss livning near your job, the band Winger, the OTTA Orchestra, Kimmer at the Dentist, the Federalist Papers, Atlas Shrugged, and much more! Listen to Boortz live with TMX every Tuesday at 7:25 on Xtra 106.3 or the Xtra app!Atlanta's ONLY All Conservative News & Talk Station.: https://www.xtra1063.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, we discuss the sixty-seven possible question on your U.S. Citizenship Civics Test, The Federalist Papers supported the passage of the U.S. Constitution. Name one of the writers. In addition to the question and answer, Andrea will provide a brief history lesson as well to help you understand the question and answer.As you prepare for your U.S. Citizenship Test, you can download my "Audio Pack", which includes all 100 civics lessons, a Citizenship Guide, and Audio Flash Cards for easy memorization of all 100 questions & answers at StudyWithAndrea.com/USA.#USCitizenship, #CitizenshipTest, #NaturalizationTest, #USHistory, #CivicsTest, #USGovernment, #CitizenshipPreparation, #ImmigrationServices, #NewAmericans, #USCitizenshipTestQuestions, #USCitizenshipStudyMaterials, #CitizenshipTraining, #USALearning, #CitizenshipResources, #AmericanHistory, #USConstitution, #BranchesOfGovernment, #RightsAndResponsibilities, #USSymbols,Support the show

Join Jay Scott as he uncovers the Anti-Federalist group that stood against George Washington, the Federalist, and the Constitution in the 1780's!  Natural Freedom, Equal Treatment, Right to Bear Arms, Accountability, and Limits to Power were some of the key points the Anti-Federalist group rallied for. They saw similarities of an Aristocracy rule in the first Constitution. VERY DANGEROUS!  Also important, no clear declarations of individual human rights were written. (Thank these guys for The Bill of Rights we have now.) Learn how these Hero's put their neck on the line for true freedom at a delicate moment in the beginning stages of the USA. You will never think of our origins the same again! Disclaimer: For legal reasons... !!! This show is for entertainment purposes only !!! ~ ENJOY! ____________________________________________________ ❤️Help -keeping it REAL- by being a supporter of the podcast! Support is as simple as giving whatever you feel the show is worth to you. I will always be dedicated to bringing you value. Please consider returning some value in return! Even a like, comment, or share helps. You have my gratitude.

Learn how by mid-December, 1776, the American Revolution was in desperate straits.  Explore that after a series of defeats, the American Army had retreated through New Jersey and was stationed in Pennsylvania — with the British Army across the Delaware River. The Continental Army was on the verge of utter collapse. Overconfident, the British went into Winter Quarters.  Congress gave George Washington enormous authority, and Washington used the lull in fighting and his new power to reorganize and strengthen his troops.  Washington and his officers designed a daring attack on Hessian forces in Trenton, New Jersey. Before the battle, Washington inspired the troops through the reading of Thomas Paine's American Crisis. Follow Washington's troops through the winter storm, the crossing of the nearly frozen Delaware River, an arduous march, and the pitched battle. The fate of the new nation depends on it. Through divine intervention, Washington was able to mount a surprise attack on the hated Hessian troops in Trenton, winning an improbable victory, which became a critical turning point in the war. Merry Christmas Highlights include David Hackett Fisher, Washington's Crossing, James McPherson, Christmas 1776, Delaware River, Hessian soldiers, Trenton New Jersey, Your  Excellency, Battle of Bunker Hill, Battle of Long Island a/k/a the Battle of Brooklyn a/k/a/ the Battle of Brooklyn Heights, Continental Army, Brooklyn Heights, Battle of Harlem Heights, New York City, Thomas Paine, Common Sense, General Charles Lee, General William Howe, The American Crisis, Federalist Papers, Pennsylvania Journal, Second Continental Congress, Henry Steel Commager, Richard B. Morris, James Gant, Colonel Johann Rall, Colonel Joseph Reed, militia, Hessians, Hanoverians, Mechlenburghers, Christmas Day, Fifer John Greenwood, General James Ewing, Colonel John Cadwalader, Highlanders, General Israel Putnam, Christmas Eve, American Crisis No. 1, “These are the times that try men's souls,” Lieutenant Andreas Von Wiederholdt, Major Friedrich von Dechow, Captain Thomas Rodney, Daniel Hitchcock, Lieutenant Widerholdt, Victory or Death!, Sergeant Madden, General Nathanael Greene, Captain William Hull, the first use of synchronized watches to time a military battle, Captain George Wallis, Adam Stephens, Virginia's Fourth Regiment, Major John Sullivan, artillery barrage, future President James Monroe, General Henry Knox, Battle of Trenton, and many others. To learn more about George Washington the American Revolution & Patriot Week, visit www.PatriotWeek.org. Our resources include videos, a TV series, blogs, lesson plans, and more. Check out Judge Michael Warren's book America's Survival Guide, How to Stop America's Impending Suicide by Reclaiming Our First Principles and History at www.AmericasSurvivalGuide.com, amazon, or other major on-line retailers. Join us! SUPPORT: Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/michael-warren9/support [donations go the nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) Patriot Week Foundation] --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/michael-warren9/support

www.commsolutionsmn.com- The pardon is one of the most sweeping and king-like powers that our presidents posess. He just pardoned his son, Hunter, for not just crimes that he's been convicted of, but any crimes that they discover in the future over an eleven-year time period. Is that even legal? Unfortunately, it looks that way. The evidence is there from the laptop and corroborrating evidence that Hunter's influence peddling with Ukraine and China are even bigger potential charges than tax evasion and lying on a background check. All of that goes away with the waive of a hand. This is a constitutional power that the president has, and there are no checks on it. Alexander Hamilton wrote about it in Federalist Paper #74, reaffirming this power. Should  there be checks on it? Rumors are floating that pardons are coming for the President's brother, Jim, Anthony Fauci, Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff, and others... before there are even any charges, let alone a conviction. This doesn't seem like it should stand, but it will.

I don't believe a serious study of the Constitution can be made without looking at the public debates over the documents. After the Constitutional Convention sent the proposed constitution to the states for ratification, a great debate was had over its pros and cons. Supporters of the document as proposed, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, published essays in New York State newspapers under the pseudonym Publius. These essays are collectively known as the Federalist Papers. Meanwhile, several authors published articles and essays opposing, or at least cautioning a rush to adopt the proposed Constitution, under many pseudonyms. In this article, we'll look at the first papers from each group. Both Federalist #1 and Antifederalist #1 deal with the same topic, should the states ratify the newly proposed Constitution?

TODAY ON THE ROBERT SCOTT BELL SHOW: Dr. Karlfeldt, Integrative Cancer Solutions, Michael Boldin, Tenth Amendment Center, Cable News Decline, Founders' Warnings on Power, Michigan Anti-CBDC Bill, Tench Coxe's Federalist Papers and MORE! https://robertscottbell.com/dr-karlfeldt-integrative-cancer-solutions-michael-boldin-tenth-amendment-center-cable-news-decline-founders-warnings-on-power-michigan-anti-cbdc-bill-tench-coxes-federalist-p/

This week, I'm excited to welcome Dr Jack Kruse. Dr Kruse is a board certified neurosurgeon, health educator, and proponent of unconventional health and wellness practices. Dr. Kruse's philosophy often challenges conventional medical approaches, emphasizing the importance of natural living and reconnecting with ancestral health principles. In this episode, Dr Kruse explains the current state of play around decentralised medicine. View all episodes at www.thehealthsessions.com.au Learn more about Dr Jack Kruse at https://jackkruse.com Episode Transcript: Stuart Cooke (00:01.252) Hey guys, this is Stu from the Health Sessions and I am delighted to welcome Dr. Jack Cruz to the podcast. Dr. Cruz, how are you? Yeah, I'm very well, very well indeed. Very excited to have this conversation. But first up for all of our listeners that may not be familiar with you or your work, I'd love it you could just share a little about yourself, please. Dr Jack Kruse (00:08.76) Pretty good, how about you? Dr Jack Kruse (00:21.976) Yeah, I'm a board certified neurosurgeon in the United States. I have been living in El Salvador for the last four years. When COVID hit, I began to question a lot of the things that were present, and I decided to unretire, go back and do trauma call to see if they were lying to us or not. And I found out that they were. So then I decided to do something about it. and I wound up presenting to the Bukele administration in El Salvador and they shared some of their country-wide data with me and things that they were facing. And they asked me, what did I think was the solution? And I told them, I think you need to have a constitutional amendment put into your constitution so this would never happen again. And I think you need to re-educate some of the people in your health ministry, I think. You need to educate the doctors. You need to tell people the truth. You need to have freedom of the press. You need to embrace freedom. And this was an easy message for Bukele because he gave his people freedom almost as soon as he got elected the first time in 2019, 2020 made Bitcoin legal tender. And that basically returns freedom back to people and their, and their money. So since he did that first, and then he cleaned up the crime problem in the country, fixing the next problem actually was pretty easy. The real hard part, since you're Australian, I can imagine you know this because it's still going on in your country, that you can't get even people to admit that there was a problem with COVID. And if you can't admit there's a problem, you can't solve for X. And that's kind of where we're going. And then after me helping President Bukele, then... Stuart Cooke (01:59.77) Mm-hmm. Dr Jack Kruse (02:16.854) that information started to bleed into Bobby Kennedy's vice presidential candidate, Nicole Shanahan. And then Bobby called me about the law and then they started to use the law in their campaign. And then next year, know, this summer he joins forces with Donald Trump and then Donald Trump has got the message now too. So I would consider myself more of a lethal pathogen for probably the COVID narrative than most other people that you could probably have on. Stuart Cooke (02:45.957) Fantastic, wow, that is quite an introduction. And very interesting times ahead. Let's see what happens. mean, game on. Everything that we've been speaking about in the counterculture world of health, wellness and human performance is about to take centre stage. So really, really interested. So coming from a traditional medicine background into being one of the... one of the leaders in the biohacking and wellness space now. How do you look at traditional medicine right now? Dr Jack Kruse (03:16.664) Traditional medicine is like a sweet on the Titanic. They would like to renovate it and I would like the boat to sink. Why? Because we've gone past the point, you know, it's like a patient with metastatic cancer in just about every Oregon. You know, the time to fix it was to do the prevention earlier, but you have to realize that Stuart Cooke (03:26.829) Right. Dr Jack Kruse (03:42.636) The people that control big pharma really are the bankers. It's a, it's a very big story. And when I mean big, complicated because it's a Leviathan to know where all the missing pieces and parts are, you know, it take a lot longer time than you have allocated to talk to me. But in the last, I would say six months in the United States, I have been doing a ton of podcasts. Why? Because people in the United States, unlike probably Australia, unlike Canada, unlike Europe, they're ready for this discussion about really what happened. And I think, you know, the people in the States voted that way on November 5th, that they were sick and tired of being lied to. And we didn't go down the path that, you know, Canada went, you guys went, Europe went, or even places like South America went. We decided that we're still for the freedom of speech. Stuart Cooke (04:16.12) Hmm. Dr Jack Kruse (04:42.456) And we're still fighting for the truth. We're not going to have digital IDs or we're saying right now that we're not going to have central bank digital coins. But I don't know if that's going to be true or not. I think there may be a path to that because the people that truly control the United States, which are the bankers and the industrial military complex, may have different designs because effectively, you know, what Trump and Bobby Kennedy are bringing to the table right now, really is the vaccine for Big Pharma. It's really the vaccine for the bankers. It's quite a lot to swallow. And like I said, one of my good friends in this story, Kevin McKiernan, who's the person that found SV40 in the jabs, said it's kind of like expecting Trunk and Bobby to go into the Death Star and somehow make Darth Vader nice. I don't know if that's really possible. But I certainly think that it's worth an opportunity to do it. I think other places in the world have actually got collateral effects from COVID. And that's actually what the people who were doing this, the Agenda 201 people, the WEF people, I know there's a lot of people in Australia that are now really fighting hard against this. But you guys already got digital ID. You guys are. are headed towards a CBDC. you know, basically they're interested in making us economic slaves on the plantation. And it's kind of the way in which they've done it is, I'm going to tell you, it's brilliant. It's a brilliant plan. It's been crafted over 120 years and they've done small little changes, insidious changes that you're like, come on, this isn't that bad. But when you add the whole collection up, you know, it's not a good situation. And they've used medical tyranny to pull it off. They've also used financialization, you know, through rehypothecation of money. That's actually the base problem for every country, including my own. And it's actually the base problem that was here in El Salvador. But El Salvador was the one country who started to reverse this trend because during their civil war, Dr Jack Kruse (07:09.292) that the United States CIA effectively started, you know, 30 years ago, they lost their fiat currency called the Cologne and they started to use, you know, U.S. dollars as their economy. So they're completely, you know, dollarized and that creates, you know, a huge problem. when Bukele got in and broke the cycle of corruption that was down here, the first thing he did was, I'm going to give my people a parallel monetary system. that's not tied to the Federal Reserve. And I don't think people like all over the world realize how big a thing that was. And believe it or not, that's actually what got me to come to El Salvador because I realized that this type of maneuver was like what George Washington did for the United States where was, but Kelly was like George Washington on steroids. Why? Most people don't know the history. of the United States well enough, especially you guys, since you're a commonwealth. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote in Federalist Papers before our founding documents were done. They actually had fights with each other and a guy named Alexander Hamilton, which you probably heard. And Jefferson was ardent that the biggest problem with the Bank of England was that their level of usury. and also the way the bank handled business. And he said that no government will ever be successful if you allow the bankers to have this level of control. And Alexander Hamilton took the other side and said, well, that's all well and good, but if you're to create a country like we're trying to do here in the United States, you still have to have a monetary system. right now, going back to the Magna Carta, the Britons have done a pretty good job for about 1,000 years. Why don't we just roll with that until something comes up? And we didn't have a better form of money, you know, at that time. But the funniest part of the story is when Jefferson becomes president after George Washington, his vice president, Aaron Burr, kills Alexander Hamilton in a duel. Like this problem has not gone away in the United States. And I would say to you, it went all the way up into the Bitcoin Nashville event in Dr Jack Kruse (09:29.816) You know, July this year, when you had both Trump and Bobby, when they were both running for president, both of them said that they were about making Bitcoin a reserve currency to back the US dollar, you know, to make it affect how it used to be prior to 1971 when it was backed up by gold. And that's a good step. You know, for me as a Bitcoin maximus, it's not what I want to see. But is that a really positive step? you know, for the United States, yes. If it's a positive stuff for the United States, when we do something, everybody else usually follows. The interesting part is, I don't think Britain is gonna be doing that now because what did they do in their election? They voted for a version of Kamala Harris with a penis. That's called pure scarmor. And generally what the UK does, that's what Canada does, that's what Australia does. And a lot of times the same thing is true with Europe. But this is the first time I can tell you, think, maybe since World War I, when the United States and Britain have gone two different paths. Trump is radically different than King Charles. And in a good way, King Charles is trying to bring the UK and the Commonwealth back to the Dark Ages, medievalism, feudalism, you know, some, I think you guys call it Fabianism, because it's a version of you know, communism, but that's good for a monarchy. And, you know, I'm perfectly fine if the people of Australia, Canada, and the UK are cool with that because, you let's face it, you guys lived with it for a really long time. But that version of bullshit doesn't follow in the United States. Remember, we are the misfits that told the king to kiss our ass in 1774. So I can tell you that I am the latest iteration of that asshole. in 2024 because I don't want any part of what England's doing. I don't want any part of what Australia is doing. I don't want any part of what Canada is doing. I like our founding documents. And this was the case that I made to Bukele in his basement. I actually had to teach him the story that Jefferson went through with a guy named Benjamin Rush. The only remnants that you'll ever hear about Benjamin Rush from anybody else, he was a Dr Jack Kruse (11:57.706) a doctor and a politician who is originally British. You know, he was born in the States, but he had lots of ties to England because remember, we're effectively British just like you guys are in the States. And what Benjamin said that we needed to put a constitutional amendment in our founding documents and the founding fathers who are writing these papers, they went back for 5,000 years and couldn't find anything in human history where Medical Tierney was the attack vector to take a government down and apart. And Jefferson told him, he says, look, I think it's a good idea, but I just don't think that we can do this and do it well because it's going to slow our process down. And there was a lot of different things that went back and forth if you read the Federalist Papers. But I told Bukele the story, and that's when Bukele said to me, so you think that's the best plan of attack? I said, yeah, it is. Because if you try to use lawfare, like having lawyers go after Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca. That's gonna be a giant shit show, especially in the United States. And the reason why is most people don't know this, and I know you guys are just waking up to this, but who is the distributor of the jab? It's the Department of Defense in the United States government. It wasn't Big Pharma. Big Pharma acted like the local street dealers that sell cocaine on the streets. The guy who is the big cartel in Columbia selling the jab is the Department of Defense. This came directly from a bio weapons program that I laid out on some of the podcasts that I had told you about earlier. The specific one is the Danny Jones podcast where I really let it all hang out. And when you find out that the original SV-40 problem showed up in 1951 through 1957 in the polio jabs by Salk, And now we have proof positive that they're present in the jab. 75 years later, you gotta ask yourself a question unless you're completely brain dead. How does, how does SV 40 wind up in the first generation of the polio vaccine and now in these brand new, supposedly cutting edge vaccines? Well, the reason why is because the program isn't what it was designed to be. It was a bio weapon that they decided to use at Dr Jack Kruse (14:24.704) a specific time to actually try to slow Trump down and get him out of office. And it was successful. And in the United States, the real big issue that happened was not only did they get Trump out, they were trying to manufacture, you know, falsified election. That's what January 6th, you know, 2020 was all about. Everybody thought that these people were trying to overthrow the government, but it was actually the opposite. The government certified a falsified election. And we now know that. If I would have told you that three or four years ago, I probably would have the FBI and CIA knocking on my door. But now we now know that things were falsified in Arizona. We know that they were falsified in Pennsylvania. We know that it were falsified here and there. But it's four years later. You can't change history once the government certifies the election on January 6th. They try to pin this insurrection on Trump, which was an absolute joke, but believe it or not, they've thrown a lot of Americans in jail over this issue. Like I know you guys in Australia, Europe, and Canada, you guys actually really bought the story hook, line, and sinker that these people were truly crazy and they were trying to overthrow their government. They were let in by the government. This was a government PsyOps. And it fits now with the narrative that we see with the aftermarket data for the four years of COVID. We are the people for the rest of the world now overturning and putting Windex on all your glass eyes just how bad this really was. So I told people early on, this is before the jabs even were coming out, I looked at the patents of Moderna and Pfizer and I noticed something very interesting, that there was two legal definitions in the Pfizer patent, one for BioNTech and another one for Pfizer. And I just looked at it and I said, this doesn't make sense to me. My initial gut feeling was that they were going to present one to the FDA and then they were going to use one that they were going to mass produce. So that way the FDA wouldn't have all the true data. And since vaccines are protected in this 1986 law, that's horrible that we have, they could unleash this as a giant experiment. Dr Jack Kruse (16:47.5) to get the jab out. I told people, I did a documentary with Robert Malone and Robert McCullough, who are two doctors here in the States that you probably have heard of. And that had to be behind a paywall because you can imagine at that time, the things that we were saying were pretty controversial. Now I was the least controversial person in the movie. Why? Because I didn't really talk too much about medicine. I talked about these two legal definitions at length. And why was I doing that? Because I knew the story in detail more than anybody knew that I knew. Now people know it because I unleashed that story on the Danny Jones podcast. And I felt that they were going to put SV40 in one of the jabs. Why? Because their development team at Pfizer wasn't as advanced as Moderna. Moderna was using an E. coli vector, which I could see in the patents. made sense to me. you know what they were doing. I still thought it was a bad idea because it didn't have any proper safety testing. But I didn't have as big a problem with Moderna as I did with the Pfizer thing. And that's what I said in the documentary. So here we go till 2022 and all of a sudden, this guy, Kevin McKiernan, for those of you in Australia who don't know him, you need to know him. In fact, he just came out on the Danny Jones podcast because I hooked him up with Danny Jones to get his end of the story down because the aftermarket data we have now is even more devastating, probably even more devastating than you know in Australia because something just got published that he did, which we'll talk a little bit about. Kevin got two vials of Pfizer jabs from two lots, tested them in 2022 and found out that the SV40 promoter was in it. He published that information on Twitter. And of course you can only imagine what happened on Twitter at that time. everything exploded, everybody that was on the opposite side, the Biden and Kamala Harris side, the Operation Warp Speed people, the big pharma, they're like, this guy's full of shit, we don't believe him. It got so bad that one of the molecular virologists who is part of the evil empire, or the dark star as we talked about before, he said, I'm gonna prove him wrong, I'm gonna do the test myself. His name's Philip Buchholz, he's at the University of South Carolina, very accomplished. Dr Jack Kruse (19:16.856) virologist who works and has lots of grants with the federal government. Lo and behold, guess what he found? He didn't prove Kevin wrong, he proved Kevin right. And to his credit, to his credit, I have to give him a lot of credit here, he immediately went to the state Senate in South Carolina and actually told the senators that this is a huge problem. Why? Because now we have to start to question other things that potentially could be going on. Because at that time, The initial pulse in the aftermarket data is that I think everybody everywhere in the world knew about the myocarditis story. We knew about the clotting story, but we had just started to see there were several people with several locks that were getting cancers who had no history of cancer at all. And they were getting not minor cancers. These were stage three and stage four cancers in very young fit people. Remember, we were all told the lie that all the fatties were going to die. And it turned out that also was a lie early on. The fatties weren't the ones dying even in the hospital. The people who are dying are the people who getting Tony Fauci's drugs and the people who got intubated. It actually was the hospital algorithmic medicine treatment, you know, that the people in big tech and what we call HARPA, which is a version of DARPA, those are the people that are Silicon Valley connected healthcare folks. came up with these algorithms to treat people with and it became obvious something was going on. So you remember when we started this podcast, I told you I was effectively retired. And when I started hearing all this story, you can only imagine Uncle Jack said, I'm going to check into this bullshit big time. So what did I do? I go back and start volunteering to do a week of trauma call and I'm spending time in the ERs and spending time in the ICUs because that's what neurosurgeons do. So I got to see the sickest of the sick. Stuart Cooke (20:55.641) Mm. Dr Jack Kruse (21:15.352) And lo and behold, what did I find over two years between actually two and a half years, 2021 through 2024? I was averaging 13 clots and at least eight to 10 cancers in a week that would show up in the hospital. And most of those were in vaccinated people. The most amazing part of my observations is that there was no unvaccinated people. that were afflicted by these problems. Like people who just had regular COVID, this truly was like the cold or the flu. And these people never sought care in the ICUs. They came to the ERs, but the ERs would send them out. They wouldn't do anything with them. The people that got admitted, they got put on these algorithms that the hospitals did. And it turned out the hospitals were incentivized by CMS is the government version of healthcare that pays for things and the government would pay for things that they wanted done. They wouldn't pay for the things that shouldn't get done. That's where you heard nobody would let us use hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin. They wouldn't let us use methylene blue. They wouldn't let us use vitamin D. And it turned out all those things for the people that were in the ER that went home, they did really well. In fact, that's actually what Bukele found. Bukele found within two months of doing the jobs, they started to notice a problem. So what did he do? Even through his own Twitter feed, started telling people, we're going to give you little bags of goodies in it that had a lot of these off-label medications. And they didn't have a huge problem. It turned out the people that got admitted and wound up having to go into the ICU who were getting drugs they shouldn't have gotten and got intubated, those are the people that died. And the story continued to get worse. Why? Because we started to see the pulse of the serious stuff, meaning these turbo cancers, the spike in the data went straight up. And for you guys in Australia who don't know this, there's a guy on Twitter that you should follow. His name is the Ethical Skeptic, at Ethical Skeptic. And he is a former Navy intelligence officer in the United States. What did he start doing? Dr Jack Kruse (23:40.856) He's good with numbers. So he started to post many different things and to show how the CDC, the FDA, and everybody was lying through these numbers. And when I saw this, plus I had my observations of being in the hospital, that's part of the reason when Bukele tapped me in 2023 to write this law. I said, you can't fix this problem in the United States with lawfare. And that's when I found out that El Salvador had assigned these special agreements with the drug manufacturers because guess what? El Salvador doesn't have a 1996 vaccine protection law. Turns out Australia doesn't either. Neither does Europe. Neither does Canada. So guess what? This should tell all of you in those countries that the politicians who were in charge at that time, they signed those documents with them. That means they're all technically a path, a legal path in your country to actually go after them soon. But this is only if the politicians aren't crooked. And it turns out in Australia, we found out they're as crooked as all get out. know, the chick that was in charge of New South Wales, she was being paid off by Fisler. We know that. So, and we also know how serious the lockdown effect was, you know, in Canada and Australia. I think you guys probably had it way worse than we did because remember, as Americans, we didn't put up with too much. And I can tell you what I did. I closed my clinic in Louisiana and moved to Florida where DeSantis was. It was business as usual. I was on the beach the whole time, you know, during COVID. And we didn't give a shit. We actually laughed at you guys. And here I was getting on planes and going to states where the COVID situation was bad. And I was actually able to go see what was happening in different areas. And of course, then I started talking to other doctors in the United States to see what their experience was. And what I found out is the zip code of where people were linked to the ideology and the politics of a specific policy. And it was much worse when you were around people who were, how shall we say, left-wing progressives, where they were taking freedom away much faster, kind of like King Charles. Dr Jack Kruse (26:02.316) you know, has advocated through his, you know, good friendship with Klaus Schott. Like, you know, his famous saying is, you'll own nothing but yet be happy about it kind of stance. You know, that's kind of what the Mararkey was all about for a long period of time. And I noticed that the states that had politicians that are in power like that had the worst outcomes. And it turned out places that should have been bad, like for example, One of the things that I did very early is I started to look at data in Africa. Nobody in Africa was getting any problems from this, even though the vaccines were given to them just about for free. But nobody took them because nobody got sick. And it turned out the ethical skeptic started showing that there was a lot of people in Equatorial Africa that were already immune to the virus. Why? Because that was proof positive the virus had gotten out earlier than anybody said. That's when I realized that we were in a giant PsyOps. This was a bioweapons program gone wrong through a lab leak in Wuhan. And we knew the link in the States because we know the story of Fauci. We know why he had to go offshore because of 9-11, because of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act has a provision in it that we're not allowed to do gain-of-function study in the United States. If you do, it's punishable by treason. So why did the Department of Defense decide to give Anthony Fauci a 67 % raise a long time ago? Because he moved the bioweapons lab to both Wuhan and the Ukraine. Maybe that'll tell you why we have a Ukraine war going on as well, because we're protecting something that we don't want anybody else to know about. And all of this stuff starts to come free through Freedom of Information Acts. And we start to find out that his links are to this cat in a place called EcoHealth Alliance. That's the guy that basically creates all the gain and function studies that get shipped over to the bioweapons lab. Then all of a sudden the story makes sense. The aftermarket data continues in 23 and 24. And it's very clear now when you look at it that we have huge problems not only with clotting and that's with certain jabs. Like all the jabs have different Dr Jack Kruse (28:26.55) diseases associated with them. And we now know through Kevin McKiernan's work, because he's kept on this, when the turbo cancer data came up, he went to Germany and found someone who got four injections, four jabs, patient got colon cancer, the patient decided to have a biopsy done. Kevin was able to sequence the first tumor, then he did another biopsy a week later. and then he did a postmortem biopsy. And what he was looking for was the sequence in the spike protein, the sequence in the cancer, was there intercalation of the plasmid from, you know, Pfizer in the tumor itself? In other words, are you a GMO person if you took this jab? And it turned out without a doubt you are. So that proved what Philip Buchholz was really concerned about when he went to talk to the centers in South Carolina. because frame shift mutations are one cause of cancer. But the other big one is could these little plasmids that are in these jabs also show up? This made Kevin go look further. And then he found out that every single jab you get, there's 60 billion copies of DNA plasmids in each one. That's common to all the messenger RNA. See, SV40 is only in the Pfizer one. But it turns out, is there another nuclear bomb? with the other Jabs and it is, it's that there's DNA plasmids all in there. How did many of the manufacturers hide the level of plasmids in there? They made sure that they put aluminum in their Jabs. Why? Because it turns out aluminum, they'll tell you it's an adjuvant, but it's really an agglutination effect that decreases the number of plasmids so you can get it through, you know, a regulator, which in our country is the FDA and I know in your country has a different name. And I know they're under fire right now too. for some of the stuff that's going on in Australia. But this is how it went down. And this is exactly how they got the Gardasil vaccine approved in the United States as well. It was through this aluminum effect. So the question immediately came up, you know, for guys like me and Kevin, who started to communicate and also communicate with the ethical skeptic and many other researchers in the world. We're talking about Jay Badachari, Martin Kulldorf. We've all started chatting. Dr Jack Kruse (30:52.652) you know, and had our private conversations because we put this together better than the FDA, CDC, and the people in Washington, DC. We figured out the scam very, very quickly. And we started to say, these are the things that we need to start testing and looking for. We now know that in the spike protein of these German cancer patients who had colon cancer, there's sequences in there. that are not attributable to the Pfizer vaccine. So you know what that means? It means one of two things. That means this came from somewhere else, another vector, like it's out there running around, or it came from the people who manufactured the vaccine in there, meaning that this can go through jump conduction. That's a really big problem because that means that now we have a new problem to worry about. This is the latest data I'm bringing to you. It's only two weeks old. Okay, no one's talking about this. Like in the gain of function world, nobody knows what I'm telling you right now. I know nobody in Australia knows this. I imagine when you put this out, people's heads are gonna explode. But I can tell you that Kevin McKiernan just talked about this live on Danny Jones, which is the reason why I told Danny Jones to get Kevin on. podcast because this is information that you're never going to get from the Department of Defense. You're never going to get from the CDC. You're never going to get it from the FDA. Why? Because this directly exposes the fraud and the problems that were present. And not only that, this now takes this vaccine story to a true next level. This means people who took the jab, not only they potentially genetically modified humans, but they may be the source of many future pandemics down the road. And the diseases they get, this is the thing we don't know. This is the next level testing. We need to test every lot in every jab to see what the effect is because what we believe now is that people are gonna get. Dr Jack Kruse (33:16.562) certain diseases from different companies and different lots within those companies. So this is the reason why in the United States we see certain lots associated with turbo cancers. This is why we see certain lots associated with clotting. This is why we see certain lots associated with myocarditis. And this is the reason why we see people getting rhabdomyolysis. And we're starting to see another pulse now with people getting really nasty diseases. called prion diseases, those are diseases neurosurgeons deal with, that's diseases like Jakob-Kreutzfeld disease or amyloidosis, okay? And autoimmune conditions. And the autoimmune conditions have really spiked up. We're starting to see a lot of cases of very unusual type one diabetes in people who shouldn't have it. And we're also starting to see some very unusual. cases of neuroendocrine tumors and guts that normally we wouldn't see that are usually associated with people that have bad diabetes over a period of time. And we're also starting to see neurodegeneration happen at very rapid rates, meaning generally when someone gets diagnosed with a dementia, whether it's frontal temporal dysplasia, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, any disease like that usually has a prodrome that takes, you know, a couple of decades to go. These people are getting going from like mild cognitive delay to serious neurodegeneration. Many of the stories that you you hear in Australia, Canada, Europe, where people call it long COVID, it doesn't stay long COVID forever. Certain people get it, certain people don't. Our belief right now has to do with the changes in the lots that are there. So that means we need to start testing every single lot that's out there. Do you think that that kind of issue is gonna happen in the United States where big pharma sits at the Cantillon effect? The answer is no. In fact, here's the real joke of the situation. Big pharma, those medicines haven't even withdrawn from the market here yet. At least, you know, the crown got rid of the AstraZeneca one. There was enough for NHS to say, okay, enough of this shit. Dr Jack Kruse (35:38.672) And Johnson & Johnson in the United States was really smart because they pulled their drug off the market themselves. I think they realized that this is a can of worms that nobody really wants to go through. And Johnson & Johnson has a very different vaccine than everybody else. They used an adenovector virus. They're not polluted with a lot of the same things that Pfizer and Moderna are. But Pfizer's risk right now, in my opinion, off the chain. I really think that while we may not be able to get them by lawfare in the United States, even by some of the things that Bobby Kennedy will probably do in HHS, because of the vaccine law, because of the Dole Buy Act, which you may not know about, but that allowed guys like Fauci to profit off of taxpayer funded research, that's actually the incentive that dictate the outcome why Fauci Stuart Cooke (36:15.822) Hmm. Dr Jack Kruse (36:37.794) you know, was so incentivized to work with gain-of-function people and move it offshore because he made a lot of money. And we now know about a year ago, we found out that he got $440 million in royalties through the NIH and CDC. That money was then redeployed to other scientists that supported his criminality. So you can see that this is a giant conspiracy and we have a law that actually Bobby Kennedy's father was important in writing. It's called the RICO statute. And when Bobby Kennedy Sr. was our attorney general when his brother was president before the government killed him, he's the one that came up with the RICO statute. It turns out, even with this 1986 law that's on the books in the states with the Bayh-Dole Act, there's no protection for these people from a RICO case. So guess what may happen? What may happen? And I think this is where Bobby's going to go in HHS. And this is the reason why I think he's going to have a really tough confirmation process in the United States, even though the Senate is now, you know, weighted to the Republicans. You have to realize in the United States, there's a uniparty problem, meaning the DNC and the RNC has a lot of people that are being paid off by Big Pharma, kind of like what I told you happened in New South Wales. And I'm sure there's many people. and many politicians in Australia, Canada, and Europe, who often has been paid off. We'll find out about this eventually, but that's not my current focus. My current focus really is what can we do to help these people that have been harmed by the vaccine? And that's really my focus, you know, in the future, because I'm the guy that understands the interplay between the nuclear genome and the mitochondrial genome. And that's what decentralized medicine really focuses in on. And you have to realize Stuart that the system that you have in Australia, the system they have in Canada and the system in the UK and in the United States is centralized, meaning that no one will ever get to the point that these people are going to need who've been harmed by this bio weapon. And while I would love to jump into the fray on the medical legal side of things, that's not Uncle Jack's expertise. My expertise is understanding how do we keep Dr Jack Kruse (39:04.098) the genetically modified people in the world, how do we silence that DNA? There's no way we're gonna be able to get it out of our DNA. Like a lot of people are gonna tell you you can detox from it. That is absolute pure insanity. That's the kind of thinking that comes from not understanding truly the science behind it. That's what Kevin McKiernan is really good at explaining. So my goal is to teach people the science that I've been developing over 20 years so we can help people. Now, do I think we're going to come up with new treatments down the road? Yes. So what would I like to maybe end this so you can ask me your next question? It's this is going to be much like the AIDS virus. When AIDS came out, it was a death sentence for everybody who got it. And then magically, slowly over time, We did come up with something called protease inhibitors that actually has now made, you know, AIDS almost a non-issue for most people. But the problem is we had 20 years, 25 years of people dying from it before we came up with the answer. I think that we have a duty as decentralized clinicians to help the people in that 25 year span that's gonna happen between now and then. So that really is my focus. And I think The focus that I brought to the table, at least in the United States, the last 12 months is I went from being apolitical to political. Why? Because I believe this story needs to get out. I believe people like you in Australia, the people in the UK and the people in Canada need to know the truth from the United States because guess what? We made you sick and you bought our bullshit story, hook line and sinker. So I believe that my government has a duty to all of you to tell you the truth. And since my government is not telling you the truth, I'm going to come on podcasts and I'm going to fucking light their house on fire. Stuart Cooke (41:08.482) Boy boy boy. So much to unpack and I think we'll get lots of people scrabbling for the show notes as well to cut and paste names into browsers and to follow this path a little bit further. I just want to share a little bit of a story that happened to me last night in as much as I have had internet problems at home and I'm looking for a new internet service provider and I actually signed up with the same one again but for a faster plan and I had to go through and enter credit card details and give them all of my details. And right at the very end of the conversation with the agent on the phone, she said, I'm gonna send you a link and this link will be for you just to finalise your digital ID. And I said, I'm not sure what you mean. I was expecting to give you my bank. my bank details and my personal details, et cetera. And she said, no, no, you need to take a picture of yourself on your mobile phone. You need to scan some documents, your driver's license, your Medicare number, and that will play a part of your digital ID. And I said, well, no, I'm not very comfortable with that. I don't want to do it. So I think I'll just end. I'll end this. Don't worry about that at all. And she rushed off and went to her manager and came back and said, Well, you don't actually have to give us your digital ID right now. You can go into the store afterwards. And I said, well, I don't want to go into the store afterwards. I'm not very comfortable with me giving you my details and building up a digital profile. I'm not going to do that. Does that mean I won't be able to access the service? And she said, no, no. You will be able to access the service. Perhaps you can do it in the future if you like. So hence, I have my new internet plan, at least I will do at the end of the week. I don't have a digital ID. But that's just an example of a curveball that's thrown out perhaps to me as an unsuspecting and law-abiding citizen as part of the plan that I'm sure will develop into something much bigger down the line. So my question to you is that if we've been following the advice of the government and all the powers that be, and we're guided to what we put in our mouths, which typically will be... Stuart Cooke (43:15.713) a low-fat diet, lots of healthy whole grains. We go out into the sunshine. We're taught in Australia to slip, slap, slop, so hatch, sunscreen, avoid the sun at all costs. And now we seem to be in a little bit of a mess where we are getting sicker, we're getting fatter, children have diabetes, obesity, every autoimmune condition. Dr Jack Kruse (43:38.456) You also have the highest skin cancer rate in the world, just so you know that. No, it's not bizarre to me. It makes total sense to me. It's bizarre to you guys. Turns out the sun doesn't give you cancer. It's all the artificial light around you that does. Stuart Cooke (43:42.357) It's bizarre, isn't it? Stuart Cooke (43:49.72) But what if... Stuart Cooke (43:54.446) Well, I'm a British citizen, so I've lived for 21 years of my life under doom and gloom. So there was no sun. You may get a week in the summer, of which we called our heat wave. But now living in Australia, And I've been in this health and wellness sphere for best part of a decade and a half, doing the complete opposite of what I've been told, in terms of what I'm eating and how I'm exposing myself to the sun. I'm drawn to it like a magnet every day and we get plenty of it. No burns, nothing of any of that sort. I've managed to dodge the medical system for best part of 25 years. I've only been into the doctors to get tests that I've wanted to, bloods and things like that. So my question to you is, It seems almost impossible for Joe Public to be able to even conceptualise doing the right thing because they think they're doing the right thing, because they're following all the roles that we are told that the science and the doctors and the powers that they tell us to do. So where do we go? Dr Jack Kruse (44:58.25) everything they say you do the opposite. If you go and look at my Twitter, what does it say in the little circle? Do not comply. And I got news for you. Every, I famously said this to Rick Rubin and Andrew Uberman on a Tetragrammaton podcast that 99.9 % of things that I learned in medical school and residency are pretty much wrong. And there's a lot of reasons why they're wrong. Stuart Cooke (45:00.279) Yeah. Yeah. Stuart Cooke (45:06.202) Yeah. Stuart Cooke (45:15.673) Hmm. Dr Jack Kruse (45:28.002) But you have to realize that incentives dictate outcomes. The reason why you're told to do many of these things, like I've said this in the United States, I haven't said it too much in Australia, but I'll say it to you. Ask yourself this question, why do Bill Gates, ophthalmologist and dermatologist all want to block the sun? Because it's a great business model for them to be profitable. That's exactly the answer. And it turns out if you are not a dumbass Australian, Stuart Cooke (45:51.416) Yeah. Dr Jack Kruse (45:56.554) and you go out to the bush and you see, you know, the kangaroos running around and you see the birds out there. Notice they don't have sunglasses and sunscreen on, right? They go under a tree. mean, the kangaroos really smart. They actually lick their arms to cool themselves off. But they don't, they don't run away from the sun. And the interesting thing is even when you're under a tree, you still have all the light around you. problem is most people in Australia now they go inside under these fake lights and you don't realize it turns out there's no light controls in any of the dermatologist studies. Like for example, when a dermatologist tells you that UV light causes cancer, you're actually allowed to believe that. You know why? You have a duty that the doctor didn't tell you that the study was done with UV light by itself. Let me ask you this question. Does UV light ever show up from the sun by itself? Or does it have six other colors with it? Turns out it's got six other colors. And you told me you're a British guy, so you know the whole famous story about Newton and the prism, right? He's the guy that created the Pink Floyd album cover so that everybody knows there's seven colors from the sun. Well, it turns out, if you take UV light by itself, yeah, that's a problem. That's what the dermatologists hitched their wagon to. But here's the thing. They didn't tell you that red light is the antidote to purple and to blue. Stuart Cooke (47:08.216) That's right. Dr Jack Kruse (47:22.488) And here's the funny part. Anytime the sun's up, anytime the sun sets, red light's always present. And guess what? It's the most dominant part of the solar spectrum, of terrestrial sunlight. 43 % is infrared A or near infrared light. So when you begin to realize that nature has got the antidote for you and you have a government or a doctor or Bill Gates telling you... No, no, no, we want to geoengineer our skies, want to geoengineer your eyes, and we want to geoengineer your skin. It shouldn't be shocking to you why they're telling you to do it. But I would fully agree with you. When I've been to Australia, I look at them and I think they are the dumbest asses in the world to not figure this out. Why? Because even in the dermatologist's literature that's published in Australia, it shows people that have all the skin cancers have the lowest vitamin D level. If they dermatologists are right, it should be exactly the opposite. People that have the highest vitamin D levels, because you can only make vitamin D from UVB light, right? You know that. They should be the ones that have all the skin cancer. And it turns out every single paper that looks at this shows the lower your vitamin D is, the worse your skin cancer is. How do you like that? So when you think about that and you're wearing sunglasses and slip slather and... Stuart Cooke (48:27.812) Mm-hmm. Stuart Cooke (48:41.262) Yeah. Dr Jack Kruse (48:45.91) all that other bullshit's on the side of your buses. It's no shock to me, actually the reason why you guys have that, but it's also the reason why you were very compliant with the government. Because guess what? What's the part of the story that no one in Australia has heard yet? It's what I talked to Danny Jones about. Turns out when you block the sun, you change the orbital frontal gyrus in your brain, dopamine levels drop, and you become more suggestible. That is a program that started back in the United States, but really started in Nazi Germany called MKUltra. Then MKUltra was graduated to the Stanford Research Institute. Then it was graduated to the Brain Health Initiative. In other words, this is how the bioweapons program in DARPA, part of the DOD that also made the jab, how this all links together. And when you begin to realize that these ideas that you have in Australian medicine actually link to why you guys all rolled up your sleeves and took the visor jab, then you begin to understand why Uncle Jack, know, 20, 25 years ago, everybody thought I was a crazy sob on the internet. I got news to you. It's amazing to me how less crazy I've gotten and how brilliant everybody thinks I am in the last four years because guess what? Just about everything I told people was coming, came and it happened. And right now, Uncle Jack's not just talking to Stuart. Cook on the internet. He's talking to Bukele. He's talking to Nicole Shanahan. He's talking to Bobby Kennedy. And he's talking to Donald Trump. I'm also talking to people in different states about taking this law and putting on the books. Why? Because through the lawfare that's happened with Big Pharma, we've created a big mess in the United States. And as I told you before about going into the Death Star in the Pentagon or Washington, DC, I don't believe that Trump and Bobby are going to be able to fix all the problems. Like, I know that most of you guys in the free world now are hoping that Trump and Bobby can do a lot so that that tsunami wave will come to Australia, come to UK, come to Europe and come to Canada to try to help you. I'm going to be, I'm probably going to be the bearer of bad news to you, my friend. I don't think that's going to happen. And I think Bobby is going to be hamstrung by Dr Jack Kruse (51:14.258) some of the powers that be that are linked to the bankers and Big Pharma. And we probably don't have a long enough podcast for me to explain how all these things link, but I can promise you that Big Pharma was the reason why the First Amendment was destroyed in the United States. Why? Because the money that they were able to use, were, Obama changed the law in the United States. It used to be against the law to actually have Big Pharma ads on TV. He changed that. It's called the month act and it was changed I believe in 2008. Soon as they were able to do that, what did that do? Pharma started paying for all the ads on news media and that means the news media was incentivized to tell the propaganda story of Big Pharma on there. And if they didn't, they would just defund them and not pay him. So it turns out all the news anchors and everybody on those places, they all became shills for Big Pharma. In other words, they were just like the drug dealers on the street for the Colombian drug cartel. That's exactly what happened. And this slowly happened from 2008 to 2024. So now when you put on like Fox News or ABC or NBC in United States, all you see is stuff for this drug, that drug, the other drug, you don't see like, you know, advertisements for kiddie food, because kiddie food can't pay their salaries. Okay. But Big Pharma can. And this is why I don't think you guys, you know, across the pond. Stuart Cooke (52:34.593) You Dr Jack Kruse (52:42.124) really understood how important Elon Musk was for the political process in the United States. Why? Because when he bought Twitter from Jack Dorsey, that actually, remember the first thing he did, he got rid of advertising, right? The advertisers all boycotted him. That was the biggest mistake ever because then Twitter or X, however you want to call it, became truly the town square in the United States. That's where people who were canceled under the previous regime, actually got a voice back. And unfortunately, I've told people this and I don't think you know this and probably the people in Australia do. I was one of the few doctors that weren't canceled on Twitter. Why? Because Jack Dorsey was one of my friends and one of my patients. He followed all of my stiff. Why? Because he was a big technologist. You know that he owned Twitter from the beginning and he got sick from his own tech and he came to me to get better. This is the reason why he lives now in a place with a lot of sun. and he does many of the things that Stuart, you do, and you understand the reason why, but what most of you don't understand in Australia and I think UK and Canada, and this is important for you here, this is gonna be a tough swallow for you. If you go look at the last Jason Bourne movie that was made in 2016, do you know why that Hollywood, the Harvey Weinstein and his friends made that movie? That was a direct threat. to Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg, either you're gonna play ball with us or we're gonna kill you. So guess what? Go look at the storyline. I'm telling you, I knew that. And how can I tell you that I knew? At the Bitcoin Miami event in 2021, Dorsey came to meet with some of my VIPs and told us then that he was gonna sell Twitter. Why? Because at that time he was getting called up in front of Congress all the time and they were talking about section 230 and all this and that. And he said, look, I'm done playing ball with these assholes. you look at just what happened in the United States, did you hear Jack Dorsey say anything about Kamala or Trump? No, he was totally out the mix. He washed his hands of all that. But guess what? Elon Musk knew everything directly from Dorsey. See, many people think Jack's a bad dude. He wasn't a bad dude. Remember, he's 100 % Bitcoin maxi. He's just like what I told you about Boo Kelly in the beginning of this. Dr Jack Kruse (55:07.532) He believes in freedom of money and he realized that Twitter was a bad experiment gone wrong because his board was filled with all those assholes from Silicon Valley that I told you were behind the jab. Those were all the bankers that were tied to this. Like A16Z, these guys are the worst of America. Like we create really amazing products, but you have to realize there's a dystopian side of this side of business. Stuart Cooke (55:20.185) Hmm. Dr Jack Kruse (55:37.66) And this was really why I give Elon a lot of credit, because there's a lot of things about Elon I don't like. I don't like Neuralink. I don't like Starlink. I don't like being controlled from above, because I think DARPA is going to use that technology to do that to all of us eventually. They just haven't got to that point in the game yet. But what Elon did is he gave Americans that had different ideas the opportunity to speak. And I can tell you that's the reason why the election went the way it went. I got news for you guys in Australia think that this was a landslide. I think it was even bigger than that. Why? Because we know that the Democrats did a ton of cheating and even with their cheating they couldn't overcome this because guess what? Americans are truly fed up with what went on. Like you guys think you're a little bit mad? Dude, you have no idea how pissed off. people are here because we understand the scale. And most people are waking up to the stuff that I shared with you here about SV40 and the DNA plasmids and the 60 billion per shot. Dude, that's not even why Trump really won. He won because of all the shit with inflation, the open borders, and the global socialism that the people who are behind the jab, the people in the Department of Defense, they're all in cahoots with each other. That's the stuff that you're dealing with right now with the world economic forum and the people that are in charge in Australia. All of these people got their marching orders from King Charles. Remember, King Charles has been, when he was the prince, he was up Klaus Schwab's ass from almost 50 years ago. And who was their best friend in the United States? Henry Kissinger. He's another guy that's tied to the Council of Foreign Relations. How far does this go back? mean, look, you're a UK guy. You remember the whole story about the Pilgrim Society and the Rhodes Scholars. This all was stuff that came out after Queen Victoria died and the new monarch came in, which was King George, who was Queen Elizabeth's grandfather. His brother, you know this story very well. His brother, Edward VIII, abdicated because everybody wanted to talk about Wallace Simpson. No, he abdicated because the royal family Dr Jack Kruse (58:02.156) was part of propping up Hitler with their bankers, the Rothschilds. And we now know that. It's very obvious. And that's the reason why the king really had to step down. It got so bad in World War I that the king had to change their name from Saxe, Coburn, Gotha to Windsor. They took it off a castle. Wasn't even, you know, didn't even think about it good. And why did they do that? They had to do that because one of the guys from Russia, who took over their land, shot and killed the Romanovs, which was the cousin of the king in England, also the cousin of Wilhelm in Germany. Well, they didn't plan on that. They didn't plan on killing him. But we now know that the Rothschild bankers at the time were the ones with the king that wanted the Romanovs put in jail in Siberia. Why? Because people always forget this. This Bolshevik revolution happens in the middle of World War I. It's the craziest thing ever that you can have a revolution in a royal family and they were worried. But it turned out one of the guys of the three in Russia, that's Trotsky. Trotsky is the one that made the decision to kill the Romanovs. Guess what? Lenin and Stalin didn't want that to happen. They knew that that was going to create a huge problem down the road. When you think about this as a Briton now, now I'm talking to you as a Brit and not as an Australian. Remember what the British Empire is all about. They're all about that imperialism and you are part of the Commonwealth. Well, in one stroke, you lost Russia. You lost the United States in 1774. So what was really World War II all about? It was about setting up a bad deal for the Germans in the Treaty of Versailles so you can guarantee a second world war. That's really what happens. Why? Because the king wanted to bring the United States and Russia back into a war so they could regain a loyal title. And let me just tell you something. There's one thing you're going to learn about the royal family from this midfit who came from you in England, is that the royal family and their bankers Dr Jack Kruse (01:00:23.82) have screwed up the 20th and 21st century more than you can ever imagine. Most of the things that we're all dealing with now are because they want to recapture the lands that they lost and bring them back under British rule. And it turns out the one thing they've done, they've infiltrated a lot of the United States government with people who are still loyal. That's what the Council of Foreign Relations is. And who is the main group in the United States that the Royal Family and the Rothschilds partner with. It's the Rockefellers. Rockefellers were richer than the Rothschilds and the Royal Family. So guess what? They brought them in. And then, magically, we got the Council of Foreign Relations. They're tied to Tavistock. They're tied to the Committee of 300. You got this whole story. And then, magically, we get the Federal Reserve, which is basically all of the families that were in Europe, now the big ones in the United States, who are also all ex-Britain. Now they're all in bed together and go, hey, let's start this process in the United States to see if we can get back to the Middle Ages where everybody's on a feudal plantation and they're working for us and they're happy about it. That's just the marketing slogan that changed from the 1920s to 1973 and 71 when Kissinger and Schwab start the world economic forum. The process for the last 50 years, slow incremental changes to get us back. to the one world government idea. That's all the stuff that we're talking about, all the health stuff, all the COVID stuff. That is the true metastatic cancer that sits at the base of this shit sandwich. Stuart Cooke (01:02:13.032) I think you're like the modern day magnum PI on steroids. What is it we don't know? Dr Jack Kruse (01:02:18.956) Well, just think, well, Stuart, this is what I will say to you, and hopefully this resonates with you and resonates with the audience. There's two type of people in the world, those that believe the government and then those that know the history. And it turns out when you know the history, you have to have one caveat. The victors write the history books, but it turns out the real history is still discoverable if you know what rocks to look under. And when Stuart Cooke (01:02:46.328) Yeah. Dr Jack Kruse (01:02:48.286) I started this whole process because people have asked me, how did you figure a lot of this stuff out? Well, it turned out my mentor in this whole thing, which is Robert O. Becker, who's a doctor in the United States who was canceled by the Industrial Military Complex over the effect of non-native EMF. Turned out when I saw how he was canceled, it was tied to the same story. And when he got canceled in 1977, I met with him in 2007. He had 30 years to figure out who really did him wrong. And let me tell you something, if you think Uncle Jack is salty, you should have met this cat. He was truly pissed off. This guy was twice nominated for the Nobel Prize. So when I sat down with him and we shared notes, he casually warned me. He said, don't do anything crazy like I did and go on 60 minutes and try to tell the world the truth. because the world will never believe the truth because they're in a propaganda of lies. And those lies were set up by the architects that I just told you about, the bankers, Big Pharma, all the corporations, all the people that BlackRock own in the United States, those are all the people that you guys are affected by too. BlackRock affects Australia, UK, everybody else. And the idea of BlackRock... is you only have to have 5 % ownership in a company. Everybody else has fractional ownership. So effectively, this is the same idea that the Rothschilds used in 1812 at the Battle of Waterloo when they took over the banking situation. You they had better information than anything else. You don't have to own a company 100 % or 51 % to control it. If you control the finances, you control the country. And that's actually what Thomas Jefferson warned. are people about in 1774. This is the reason why Thomas Jefferson was absolutely adamant that the Bank of England was filled with a bunch of criminals. And he was right. I mean, I hate to tell you this, but this problem has now persisted on for 250 years in United States. And I would love to tell you that we were smarter than the Britons, but we weren't. We use their system. And now the system is so broken. Dr Jack Kruse (01:05:09.622) and it's so slated to them, they're going, they think we're complete idiots. So they're trying to, you know, completely go back to the way it used to be. And that makes King Charles very happy. Makes the Rothschilds happy, makes the Rockefellers happy. Why? Because they're able to recapture everything. If they can get the United States, they believe they can eventually get Russia back. That should make you realize truly what's going on with NATO, the Ukraine and Putin right now. It completely gives you a different spin on things when you look at what's happened in European, you know, world history here lately. And I just want to be the guy to tell you that I think if you focus on the history here, you'll understand more of the biology and why decentralized medicine is really important for you to follow from this point forward. Like the story that you told me about the digital ID. I really appreciate it because it definitely ties into the story. I think every resident of the UK, every resident of Australia needs to follow your model. think what you said and that you weren't going to comply with this level of intrusion and surveillance is absolutely it. mean, look, we got a guy in the United States right now, Edward Snowden, who warned us about this and he's sitting in in Russia being protected. If you don't think that this story resonates with people in the United States, you're crazy. And look, you guys have a guy that just got out of jail for WikiLeaks. And you forget what WikiLeaks was about. It was about turning all the state's evidence through WikiLeaks of all these connections that I'm telling you about now. And the crazy thing is they treated D platform, right? Through the bank. They got rid of his bank accounts through the Bank of England and all the banks in Australia. Stuart Cooke (01:06:37.123) Yeah. Stuart Cooke (01:07:03.097) Hmm. Dr Jack Kruse (01:07:06.808) So what did he do to continue to do it? He used Bitcoin. Bitcoin actually allowed us to realize that John Podesta, the Clintons, Jeffrey Epstein, all these people were all linked together. This is how a lot of this story started to come out, Stuart, so that the regular folk on the people in Main Street could start talking about it on Twitter. That people like Matt Taibbi, you know, dropped the Twitter files and everybody in the world was like, holy shit, Snowden was right. You know. Julian Assange was right. Like this is no more, this is not a mystery Stuart. You know what the mystery is? Is that people all over the world are too busy watching Netflix, rugby games, soccer games, and doing Circus Maximus. It's the same story that we were told in Plato's Allegory of the Cave, that even when the slave is shown the truth, they're like, I'm gonna go back in the cave, just put my cuffs back on and I'm good. Most of you probably won't like to hear, Stuart Cooke (01:08:02.956) Yeah Dr Jack Kruse (01:08:06.038) of just how much disdain I have for you. But that's the truth. I told the people the same thing in the United States before the election. I said, if you vote for Kamala Harris, you are the slave that's going back in the cave. And I'm not telling you that Trump's any prize package, but he's got less warts than the other person. And I think it's going to take a while for us to really get rid of this metastatic cancer. Organ by organ, we have to change it. But I'm hoping by doing a podcast like this with you, Stuart Cooke (01:08:17.401) Hmm. Stuart Cooke (01:08:23.501) Yeah. Dr Jack Kruse (01:08:36.29) that you can really understand how decentralized finance and decentralized health are linked together. This story is just like the medical caduceus that you look at. The two snakes are intertwined. And it's our job as the patient not to comply with fiat money, with bullshit CBDCs, when any kind of things are controlled, whether it's the internet company or your bank. Take all your money out of the bank. Don't leave it in the bank. And I would tell everybody, I think

His writings had far more influence on the debates over the Constitution than the Federalist Papers we hear so much about today. In this episode, learn his top-4 arguments for ratification, including a clear line in the sand on delegated and reserved powers, the true source of government power, the militia, and much more. The post Forgotten Founder Tench Coxe: The “Other” Federalist Papers Revealed first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

As Trump assembles his cabinet of dangerous cranks and far-right extremists—Tulsi Gabbard, Matt Gaetz, Pete Hegseth, Tom Homan, RFK Jr., Mike Huckabee, Chris Wright—his election is being openly celebrated by reigning fascists and arch-reactionaries from Russia to Hungary to Bosnia. The fascist world order that began to consolidate under his first term is poised to be cemented under a global triumvirate of tyranny—Trump, Putin and Xi. In this light, Biden's cooperation in the transfer of power is a shameful betrayal not only of the nation but of humanity—and Trump has still failed to sign the ethics pledge mandated by the protocol of presidential transition, making clear his ill intent. He has clearly stated his intention to set himself up as president for life. And evidence that the Kremlin directly hacked the vote on behalf of Trump (rather than merely using disinformation propaganda, as in 2016) warrants investigation. Furthermore, the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment, under which Trump was impeached, should be invoked to bar him from office. There is still time to stop the fascist takeover of the United States through the Electoral College or in the certification process. Despite the Supreme Court decision upholding state laws against "faithless electors" who refuse to vote for the candidate they pledged for, this is by no means equivalent to the "fake electors" contrived by Trump's team to try to throw the 2020 election. On the contrary, it is a constitutional mechanism, as outlined by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers—and not explicitly barred (at least) in Article II, Section 1. It should also be noted that Trump himself is not cooperating in the legal protocols for the presidential transition, giving the forces of democracy an airtight position for non-cooperation with his ascendance to power. In Episode 252 of the CounterVortex podcast, Bill Weinberg makes the case for mass pressure to demand nullification of the election. The protests against Trump since Election Day are a good start. But a mass movement on the scale of the post-electoral protests now seen in the Republic of Georgia and Ecuador is urgently mandated. Listen on SoundCloud or via Patreon. https://www.patreon.com/countervortex Production by Chris Rywalt We ask listeners to donate just $1 per weekly podcast via Patreon -- or $2 for our new special offer! We now have 69 subscribers. If you appreciate our work, please become Number 70!

The DharmaByte™ version of this segment will post in the STO newsletter the first week of November. This UnMind podcast will drop on Wednesday after election day, which is November 5th. The next segment of Election Year Zen will be posted on December 4th, barring unforeseen circumstances such as an outright armed revolution — or “the new civil war” as it has been billed in some quarters — an implied threat depending upon the outcome of the election. In Zen, of course, all future circumstances are unforeseen by definition. Unless you believe in prophecy. In this segment I will encourage you to vote, which I understand may not be necessary. Indeed, I have already voted. I have no desire to influence how you vote in terms of partisan politics, or in favor of which candidate or party conforms more closely to my own view. You should “vote your conscience,” in the current term of art. Or vote for the future — which seems contradictory to Zen's “being in the moment.” Remember, in Zen we do not deny the possibility of the reality of karmic consequences occurring over the “Three Times” of Buddhism — past, future, and present. Low voter turnout is a concern of the professionals in this election and has always troubled me somewhat. I mean, how important is all this political posturing, when a large segment of the populace does not even exercise their right to vote? I do not mean to suggest that 100% turnout would somehow cure the many ills that befall our system of elected government. For one thing the third or more eligible voters who fail to turn out are not likely to be informed on issues, or qualifications of candidates on the ballots, let alone cognizant of the long-term effects of their vote. I feel confident, however, that readers of my DharmaByte™ column and followers of my podcast share a significant enough degree of concern, and have a sufficient grasp of the stakes in the outcome, to make intelligent and caring choices. Otherwise, you probably would not be listening to this. As I mentioned in the last Election Year Zen segment, I believe the most important measure of merit for a party or candidate to take office is the degree of their conformance to the principles of buddha-dharma, as I understand them. Quoting myself: I leave it to you to decide whether or not, and to what degree, your candidate for the highest office in the land, the most powerful secular position on Earth, are in harmony with these compassionate aspirations. But remember that the teachings of Buddhism were never meant to be held up to criticize others, but to reflect back upon yourself and your own behavior. The “mirror of Zen reflects all” — the good, the bad, and the ugly — without discrimination. You and your behavior are also reflected in that Precious Mirror. President Jimmy Carter made news recently, first by surviving to his 100th birthday, then by declaring that he wanted to live long enough to vote, one supposes for the opportunity to elect a non-white non-male president for the first time in history. I met President Carter during his successful run for the presidency, when he visited the office of the consumer research company that I joined in moving to Georgia in 1970. What do you suppose is so important in his mind about this election, that he expressed his intent to vote for or against one of the candidates? As the former president most famous for his contributions to humanity after his term in office, what do you make of this kind of commitment to the democratic process? I think we can assume that he harbors a belief in the long-term viability of the benefits of the democratic republic for the future of the human race, on a larger timeline than the next four-year election cycle. Let us turn back to the acronym: V-O-T-E, with which I titled the opening haiku poem. One interpretation that came to me is: “Vote Once for Time Eternal.” At my age, it becomes obvious that however I vote, it will probably have little effect upon my personal sphere, with what little future time I have left. But it raises a question. What are we voting for, exactly? The current trope is, “for the children.” Commentators and candidates take up the theme, appealing to the sentiment or question of what kind of country we will leave for the next generations of children and grandchildren. I suggest that we expand our time horizon to a relatively infinite scale. In the Lifespan Chapter of the Lotus Sutra, on which I gave a dharma talk recently, the point is that Buddha's physical death, or Parinirvana, is only apparent. The truth is that Buddha is still here, forever, but cannot be seen by ordinary vision. Thus, what Buddha was, or is, has only a circumstantial and temporary connection to the person known as Siddhartha Gautama, the conditioned self of incarnation. Similarly, can we look at the act of voting in this election in a larger context? Not in the light of its connection to the short-term effects it may or may not have on the social sphere in the immediate aftermath, but more in line with the long-term vision expounded by Buddha, or at least attributed to him by his successors? That is, from the perspective of the natural and universal spheres, in which the personal and social are nested? From the “Loving Kindness” or “Metta” sutra, we find the following passage: Let no one deceive another nor despise any being in any stateLet none by anger or hatred wish harm to another Can there be any clearer directive than this as to how to conduct ourselves in the social sphere? Another pair of admonitions comes from the second Five Precepts we receive in the Soto Zen Discipleship ceremony: See only your own faults — Do not discuss the faults of othersKnow self and other as one — Do not praise yourself at others' expense Can we see the current campaign in these terms? Which of the protagonists — if either — is adhering most closely to these guidelines? Which is most blatantly violating them? If we interpret all political dialog as equally duplicitous, equally guilty of deceptive and despising attitudes and behavior, equally wishing harm to others, discussing their faults, and praising themselves at the expense of others, then we have no basis on which to make a choice. But abstaining from voting is, in itself, making a choice. We are all complicit in, if not responsible for, the result. This is not to put all our eggs in the one basket of the social sphere, and the limited sub-sphere of political opinion. We should not be distracted from the natural sphere, in which we are witnessing the long-term consequences of self-centered actions of the species for survival and comfort of an ever-expanding mass of humanity, particularly in the form of climate change. Nor from the universal sphere, where we face potential extinction in the context of the geologic time scale, wherein even the history of the human race appears as a blip on the screen. Why vote at all, when the forces shaping reality have so little regard for our place in it? Mother Nature is no respecter of persons, let alone political parties. Returning to the personal, we can detach, on the level of the absolute, from any implications of the present political climate, while engaging in action — voting, for example — on the level of the relative, understanding that our deeper aspirations may not work out in this lifetime. I think we can presume that Buddha's teachings were not meant solely to affect his followers at the time, but to set the bar for future generations as well. Even though the members of the original Order did not record them in written form for posterity, they went to great lengths to codify and chant them, enabling their memorization and preservation from one generation to the next over a period of four centuries or so. What we are doing in Zen today is, I believe, carrying on this tradition, in the modern milieu and vernacular. We are taking the long-term view. A careful reading of the founding documents of the American experiment, such as the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and its amendments, the Bill of Rights, et cetera, reveals a similar aspiration. Stated principles of freedom — the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — do not represent temporary expedients, but hopeful wishes for the future generations of people operating on their own free will. Notwithstanding the contemporaneous exclusion of slaves and women from the privileges enjoyed by white men of means, owners of private property. Like much of our retrospective reading of the history of Zen, we have to resist our penchant for interpreting cultures of a couple of centuries or millennia ago as if they were occurring in the light of modern social science. So vote. But I suggest doing so in the spirit of buddha-dharma. Realizing and embracing the reality that you may not see any beneficial effect on your personal life, at least not anytime soon. We take this approach to meditation, which is, after all, the inmost personal experience possible. We set aside expectations as to the positive effects it may bring about, while continuing to hold an aspiration to realization. We approach it with the famous “don't-know-mind” of Zen, assuming that whatever comes of it will be the natural consequence of the manifestation of our Original Mind. We sit not because we have to, but because we get to. We vote, not because we have to, but because we get to. Master Dogen said somewhere that at last, we are left with ambiguity. Enjoy the non-knowing.

Guests: Scott and Sharayah Colter, The Danbury Institute: A Coalition for Life and Liberty   If you'd like to watch this podcast, check out the PCA YouTube page.   This will be a two-week conversation with Scott and Sharayah Colter, founders of The Danbury Institute. Week one will be a conversation about America's Godly heritage - the influence of God's Word on the Framers and the ideas that led to our Constitutional Republic. I asked Scott and Sharayah for additional resources that they would recommend for those wanting to take a deeper dive into this topic and they recommended resources from the following:   Hillsdale College - which offers free online classes on the Constitution, Marxism/Socialism/Communism, American heritage, etc.   WallBuilders - David Barton and his son Tim have some outstanding resources including America's Godly Heritage (book, CD, or DVD) and The American Story series.   Sharayah also encourages you to read the words of the Framers - George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and many others - go online and read some of their letters and speeches and learn more about this incredible period of world history from those who were there. I would also recommend reading The Federalist Papers, written by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison as well as the original text of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Special shout out to Jared Wood for allowing us to use his music - check him out at JaredWoodMusic!

The Federalist Papers, a series of essays written in the late 18th century, advocated for the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and promoted the idea of a nation designed by intent rather than by accident.  On Tuesday, September 24th, 2024 at 12:00 PM PT, Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence celebrated the launch of the Digitalist Papers, which seek to inspire a new era of governance, informed by the transformative power of technology to address the significant challenges and opportunities posed by AI and other digital technologies.  This event was held at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, featuring presentations and dynamic discussions with the authors—experts in economics, law, technology, management, and political science—who have contributed essays to this newly edited volume. These essays explore how the intersection of technology with each of these fields might lead to better governance. By assembling these diverse voices and releasing these essays ahead of the November election, we aimed to shift the conversation toward designing a more transparent and accountable system of governance. Our goal is to impact the development and integration of digital technologies and transform social structures for the digital age. Join us as we embark on this pivotal journey to redefine the future of governance. This was an in-person event open to the public. Authors include: John H. Cochrane (Stanford), “AI, Society, and Democracy: Just Relax” Sarah Friar (OpenAI) and Laura Bisesto (OpenAI), “The Potential for AI to Restore Local Community Connectedness, the Bedrock of a Healthy Democracy” Mona Hamdy (Anomaly and Harvard University), Johnnie Moore (JDA Worldwide and The Congress of Christian Leaders), and E. Glen Weyl (Plural Technology Collaboratory), “Techno-ideologies of the Twenty-first Century” Reid Hoffman (Greylock) and Greg Beato, “Informational GPS” Lawrence Lessig (Harvard), “Protected Democracy” James Manyika (Google and Alphabet), “Getting AI Right: A 2050 Thought Experiment” Jennifer Pahlka (Niskanen Center and the Federation of American Scientists), “AI Meets the Cascade of Rigidity” Nathaniel Persily (Stanford), “Misunderstanding AI's Democracy Problem” Eric Schmidt (Former CEO and Chairman of Google), “Democracy 2.0” Divya Siddarth (Collective Intelligence Project), Saffron Huang (Collective Intelligence Project), Audrey Tang (Collective Intelligence Project), “A Vision of Democratic AI” Lily L. Tsai (MIT) and Alex Pentland (Stanford), “Rediscovering the Pleasures of Pluralism: The Potential of Digitally Mediated Civic Engagement” Eugene Volokh (Stanford and UCLA), “Generative AI and Political Power”

In this episode, we discuss the sixty-seven possible question on your U.S. Citizenship Civics Test, The Federalist Papers supported the passage of the U.S. Constitution. Name one of the writers. In addition to the question and answer, Andrea will provide a brief history lesson as well to help you understand the question and answer.As you prepare for your U.S. Citizenship Test, you can download my "Audio Pack", which includes all 100 civics lessons, a Citizenship Guide, and Audio Flash Cards for easy memorization of all 100 questions & answers at StudyWithAndrea.com/USASupport the show

With the Federalist #85 We have completed the entire FEDERALIST PAPERS! Authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay to appear anonymously in New York papers under the pseudonym "Publius" in 1787 and 1788, the Federalist Papers aimed to rally public support for the proposed Constitution of the United States. As such, it is one of the most important sources for understanding the original intent of the US Constitution by those who participated in its construction. In Federalist number one Alexander Hamilton sets forth the ambition of arguing the following positions in favor of the adoption of the Constitution: "I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars: THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY." Articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the collective pseudonym "Publius" to promote the ratification of the Constitution of the United States.   If you enjoy our content, consider donating through PayPal via https://ko-fi.com/thechristianatheist   Take a moment to enjoy our weekly Photos of the Day videos here - short slideshows with relaxing music ...https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_9GPi4HTqoZ8xFgTldbBaA   https://www.youtube.com/c/TheChristianAtheist/featured https://www.facebook.com/JnJWiseWords https://wisewordsforyouroccasion.wordpress.com   #thechristianatheist #drjohndwise #drjohnwise #johnwise #christian #atheist #christianity #atheism #jesus #jesuschrist #god #bible #oldtestament #newtestament #nocompromise #rationality #faith #philosophy #philosopher #culture #society #hegelism #hegelianism #hegel #reason #incarnation #history#psychology #theology #literature #humanities #hardquestions #postmodernism #woke #wisdom #ethics

Authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay to appear anonymously in New York papers under the pseudonym "Publius" in 1787 and 1788, the Federalist Papers aimed to rally public support for the proposed Constitution of the United States. As such, it is one of the most important sources for understanding the original intent of the US Constitution by those who participated in its construction. In Federalist number one Alexander Hamilton sets forth the ambition of arguing the following positions in favor of the adoption of the Constitution: "I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars: THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY." Articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the collective pseudonym "Publius" to promote the ratification of the Constitution of the United States.   If you enjoy our content, consider donating through PayPal via https://ko-fi.com/thechristianatheist   Take a moment to enjoy our weekly Photos of the Day videos here - short slideshows with relaxing music ...https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_9GPi4HTqoZ8xFgTldbBaA   https://www.youtube.com/c/TheChristianAtheist/featured https://www.facebook.com/JnJWiseWords https://wisewordsforyouroccasion.wordpress.com   #thechristianatheist #drjohndwise #drjohnwise #johnwise #christian #atheist #christianity #atheism #jesus #jesuschrist #god #bible #oldtestament #newtestament #nocompromise #rationality #faith #philosophy #philosopher #culture #society #hegelism #hegelianism #hegel #reason #incarnation #history#psychology #theology #literature #humanities #hardquestions #postmodernism #woke #wisdom #ethics

Authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay to appear anonymously in New York papers under the pseudonym "Publius" in 1787 and 1788, the Federalist Papers aimed to rally public support for the proposed Constitution of the United States. As such, it is one of the most important sources for understanding the original intent of the US Constitution by those who participated in its construction. In Federalist number one Alexander Hamilton sets forth the ambition of arguing the following positions in favor of the adoption of the Constitution: "I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars: THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY." Articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the collective pseudonym "Publius" to promote the ratification of the Constitution of the United States.   If you enjoy our content, consider donating through PayPal via https://ko-fi.com/thechristianatheist   Take a moment to enjoy our weekly Photos of the Day videos here - short slideshows with relaxing music ...https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_9GPi4HTqoZ8xFgTldbBaA   https://www.youtube.com/c/TheChristianAtheist/featured https://www.facebook.com/JnJWiseWords https://wisewordsforyouroccasion.wordpress.com   #thechristianatheist #drjohndwise #drjohnwise #johnwise #christian #atheist #christianity #atheism #jesus #jesuschrist #god #bible #oldtestament #newtestament #nocompromise #rationality #faith #philosophy #philosopher #culture #society #hegelism #hegelianism #hegel #reason #incarnation #history#psychology #theology #literature #humanities #hardquestions #postmodernism #woke #wisdom #ethics

Tune in here to this Tuesday's edition of the Brett Winterble Show!     Brett kicks off the program by talking about We learned that the FBI knew about him in 2019, stemming from an illegal firearm possession case. The Wall Street Journal has a lengthy piece about how numerous people who encountered Routh were unnerved by him and his antisocial tendencies, warning higher-ups about this individual. In short, US authorities were warned multiple times about Routh. Still, first, Larry Provost had an excellent piece about an ex-CIA     and Official Lebanese Health Ministry figures are that nine people were killed in the simultaneous pager explosions, including a young girl, and some 2,750 wounded. The Lebanese government has identified "Israeli aggression" as being behind the attack, while Hezbollah also says it holds Israel "fully responsible". Israel has yet to issue official comment, but there are several reports from the region that war preparations are underway. There are reports of evening Israeli shelling of Hezbollah positions in south Lebanon.    We're joined by Father Bill Nicholas to talk about the current political chaos in the U.S. following a recent debate between former President Trump and Vice President Harris. Father Bill emphasizes that many people, including political leaders, have forgotten how the government is supposed to function, as outlined in the Constitution and Federalist Papers. He criticizes the expansion of executive power and the belief that the president can act without Congress, warning against the dangers of extremist rhetoric.    Bo Thompson from Good Morning BT is also here for this Tuesday's episode of Crossing the Streams. Brett and Bo talk about he unusual dynamics of political discourse, contrasting the harsh rhetoric on the campaign trail with behind-the-scenes civility. They reference recent events where President Trump received well-wishes from Vice President Kamala Harris and President Biden after a potential assassination threat, despite the heated public exchanges between them. Brett likens the situation to professional wrestling (WWE), where opponents appear fierce but may share a more cordial relationship off-stage.     and They also reflect on past moments of levity in politics, such as Reagan's famous debate line in 1984, and discuss the current lack of such moments in today's political climate. The two suggest reforms for political debates, proposing topic-focused debates with experts rather than media personalities. Lastly, they touch on the evolving campaigns of candidates like Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley as they reposition themselves ahead of 2024. Bo also shares what he and Beth Troutman have coming up Wednesday on Good Morning BT!    Listen here for all of this and more on The Brett Winterble Show! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay to appear anonymously in New York papers under the pseudonym "Publius" in 1787 and 1788, the Federalist Papers aimed to rally public support for the proposed Constitution of the United States. As such, it is one of the most important sources for understanding the original intent of the US Constitution by those who participated in its construction. In Federalist number one Alexander Hamilton sets forth the ambition of arguing the following positions in favor of the adoption of the Constitution: "I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars: THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY." Articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the collective pseudonym "Publius" to promote the ratification of the Constitution of the United States.   If you enjoy our content, consider donating through PayPal via https://ko-fi.com/thechristianatheist   Take a moment to enjoy our weekly Photos of the Day videos here - short slideshows with relaxing music ...https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_9GPi4HTqoZ8xFgTldbBaA   https://www.youtube.com/c/TheChristianAtheist/featured https://www.facebook.com/JnJWiseWords https://wisewordsforyouroccasion.wordpress.com   #thechristianatheist #drjohndwise #drjohnwise #johnwise #christian #atheist #christianity #atheism #jesus #jesuschrist #god #bible #oldtestament #newtestament #nocompromise #rationality #faith #philosophy #philosopher #culture #society #hegelism #hegelianism #hegel #reason #incarnation #history#psychology #theology #literature #humanities #hardquestions #postmodernism #woke #wisdom #ethics #science #poetry #paradox #oxymoron

Authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay to appear anonymously in New York papers under the pseudonym "Publius" in 1787 and 1788, the Federalist Papers aimed to rally public support for the proposed Constitution of the United States. As such, it is one of the most important sources for understanding the original intent of the US Constitution by those who participated in its construction. In Federalist number one Alexander Hamilton sets forth the ambition of arguing the following positions in favor of the adoption of the Constitution: "I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars: THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY." Articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the collective pseudonym "Publius" to promote the ratification of the Constitution of the United States.   If you enjoy our content, consider donating through PayPal via https://ko-fi.com/thechristianatheist   Take a moment to enjoy our weekly Photos of the Day videos here - short slideshows with relaxing music ...https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_9GPi4HTqoZ8xFgTldbBaA   https://www.youtube.com/c/TheChristianAtheist/featured https://www.facebook.com/JnJWiseWords https://wisewordsforyouroccasion.wordpress.com   #thechristianatheist #drjohndwise #drjohnwise #johnwise #christian #atheist #christianity #atheism #jesus #jesuschrist #god #bible #oldtestament #newtestament #nocompromise #rationality #faith #philosophy #philosopher #culture #society #hegelism #hegelianism #hegel #reason #incarnation #history#psychology #theology #literature #humanities #hardquestions #postmodernism #woke #wisdom #ethics #science #poetry #paradox #oxymoron

Summary Alex speaks with Jacob Levy about the concept of a liberal party, exploring its philosophical foundations, historical context, and touch on all of these points within the context of Jacob's article "The Liberal Party Idea" (2024). References The Liberal Party Idea by Jacob Levy: Link:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381323406_The_liberal_party_idea_and_American_ideology "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Liberty-John-Stuart-Mill/dp/1505851210 "The Constitution of Liberty" by Friedrich Hayek Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Constitution-Liberty-Friedrich-Hayek/dp/0226320847 "The Federalist Papers" by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Federalist-Papers-Alexander-Hamilton/dp/0486496363 "Reflections on the Revolution in France" by Edmund Burke Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Reflections-Revolution-France-Edmund-Burke/dp/0199539022 "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Tocqueville Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Democracy-America-Alexis-Tocqueville/dp/0140447601 "Two Treatises of Government" by John Locke Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Two-Treatises-Government-John-Locke/dp/1532846815 "Political Liberalism" by John Rawls Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Political-Liberalism-John-Rawls/dp/0231130899 Thanks to our patrons including: Amy Willis, Kris Rondolo, and Christopher McDonald. To become a patron, go to patreon.com/curioustask

Authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay to appear anonymously in New York papers under the pseudonym "Publius" in 1787 and 1788, the Federalist Papers aimed to rally public support for the proposed Constitution of the United States. As such, it is one of the most important sources for understanding the original intent of the US Constitution by those who participated in its construction. In Federalist number one Alexander Hamilton sets forth the ambition of arguing the following positions in favor of the adoption of the Constitution: "I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars: THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY." Articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the collective pseudonym "Publius" to promote the ratification of the Constitution of the United States.   If you enjoy our content, consider donating through PayPal via https://ko-fi.com/thechristianatheist   Take a moment to enjoy our weekly Photos of the Day videos here - short slideshows with relaxing music ...https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_9GPi4HTqoZ8xFgTldbBaA   https://www.youtube.com/c/TheChristianAtheist/featured https://www.facebook.com/JnJWiseWords https://wisewordsforyouroccasion.wordpress.com   #thechristianatheist #drjohndwise #drjohnwise #johnwise #christian #atheist #christianity #atheism #jesus #jesuschrist #god #bible #oldtestament #newtestament #nocompromise #rationality #faith #philosophy #philosopher #culture #society #hegelism #hegelianism #hegel #reason #incarnation #history#psychology #theology #literature #humanities #hardquestions #postmodernism #woke #wisdom #ethics #science #poetry #paradox #oxymoron

Common ground is hard to find in today's politics. Many people, frustrated with a system demanding constant compromise, blame the Constitution for the discord. However, conservative scholar Yuval Levin argues that the Constitution is not the problem but the solution. In American Covenant, Levin blends engaging history with lucid analysis to reveal the Constitution's true genius and its power to facilitate constructive disagreement, negotiate resolutions, and forge unity in a fractured society. He also offers practical solutions for reforming malfunctioning aspects of the constitutional order. Hospeful and insightful, American Covenant celebrates the Constitution's remarkable power to unite a diverse society, reassuring us that a less divided future is possible. Levin's work is rooted in the best of our political tradition, highlighting the framers' sophisticated grasp of political division and the Constitution's exceptional ability to foster unity. Yuval Levin is the director of social, cultural, and constitutional studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). He is the founder and editor of National Affairs and a senior editor at The New Atlantis. Levin's previous books include The Fractured Republic and A Time to Build. A former member of the White House domestic policy staff under George W. Bush, he lives in Maryland. Shermer and Levin discuss: Trump assassination attempt: conspiracy or incompetence? • Biden cognitive infirmities and why the party can't replace him • Out of 340 million Americans why did we end up with these two guys? • why the country is more polarized than ever before • the unique genius of the founding fathers • The Federalist Papers • why the three branches of government—legislative, executive, judicial—were established • what the founders got right and what they got wrong.

Almost totally ignored today, Tench Coxe was famous at the time of the Founding. And his essays of “A Pennsylvanian” in support of the Constitution were actually far more widely read and influential during the debates over ratification than today's far more famous Federalist Papers. Learn about his essays where he came down in favor of the individual right to keep and bear arms, religious liberty - and a clear line in the sand between federal and state power. The post Forgotten Founder Tench Coxe: Ignored Federalist Papers first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

In this episode I am joined by journalist and labor activist Joe Mayall to take a deep look at and discuss solutions for the current state of American domestic politics. We discuss relevant and important questions such as: Why do conservatives fetishize debate? What is the difference between people like Ben Shapiro that use debate for social media clicks and politicians that use the same strategy to change policy and laws? We also take a trip down history lane to explain how James Madison and the Federalist Papers laid the groundwork for dividing the working class to preserve wealth and power for the elite. Joe breaks down how dividing the working class has become a modern tactic, what can be done about this phenomenon, and why volunteering and human contact is one of the best strategies to stay positive in the midst of challenging times. 

Happy Monday! Sam & Emma speak with author and historian William Hogeland, proprietor of the “Hogeland's Bad History” newsletter on SubStack, to discuss his recent book The Hamilton Scheme: An Epic Tale of Money and Power in the American Founding. First, Sam and Emma run through updates on México's election of Claudia Sheinbaum, Israel's rejection of what was supposedly their own peace proposal as they blast through Biden's Rafah red line, Hunter Biden's legal woes, Bibi's joint congressional address, reactions to Trump's conviction, Fauci's testimony, the Affordable Connectivity Program, climate change, the IRS' free tax-filing service, and Dinesh D'Souza's publisher issues an apology for publishing Dinesh D'Souza, before diving into Biden's absurd claim that Israel was the one pushing the ongoing peace negotiations with Hamas, and how Israel's offensive is likely to continue as Biden's “red lines” shift ever backward. William Hogeland then joins, first reflecting on the introduction of Alexander Hamilton into popular culture with the recent musical phenomena, and how that provides the opportunity to present a more three-dimensional view of Hamilton's political philosophy and impact. Now, Hogeland steps back to the inception of the US, and the central role Hamilton played in establishing a financial system that centered on the use of national debt to leverage the economic ambitions of the capitalist class in favor of a nationalist project by allowing them massive ownership stakes, while additionally reinforcing the elitist and anti-democratic makeup of the political class that Hamilton desired. After expanding on Hamilton's relationship to the US Constitution, including unpacking the relatively subdued role that the Federalist Papers played in the actual ratification, Hogeland walks Sam and Emma through the backlashed faced by the US Federal government due to Hamilton's wildly anti-democratic financial scheme, looking to both Shays' Rebellion in 1786 and the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791 as clear cut examples of a coherent dissent and attack on Hamilton's system of debt and regressive taxation, demanding follow through on the demand of “no taxation without representation” that Americans had fought for, also briefly touching on the greater makeup of this pro-democracy labor movement led by folks with Herman Husband and Thomas Payne. Next, Hogeland looks back to the enemies Hamilton had inside of the US political structures, from State Sovereigntists during the framing of the Constitution, to the Jeffersonian attempts to undermine and overturn his financial system throughout the start of the 19th Century, before wrapping up with the redemption of Hamilton's legacy over the last few decades, and the particular role his thought played in the US' response to the 2008 Financial crisis. And in the Fun Half: Sam and Emma watch an American nurse reflect on the harrowing experience of treating burn victims in Rafah, and discuss the myriad resignations-in-protests by Biden State Department officials, with the most recent accusing the agency of actively lying about Israel's role in blocking aid to Gaza. They also dive into the incredible aftermath of the conviction of Donald Trump, with everyone from the Donald on Fox & Friends, Maria Bartiromo, Benny Johnson, and Megyn Kelly pondering the backlash from a potential GOP regime. Lauren Boebert addresses her Beetlejuicing controversy, plus, your calls and IMs! Check out Bill's book here: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374167837/thehamiltonscheme Check out "Hogeland's Bad History" here: https://williamhogeland.substack.com/ Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Join Sam on the Nation Magazine Cruise! 7 days in December 2024!!: https://nationcruise.com/mr/ Check out the "Repair Gaza" campaign courtesy of the Glia Project here: https://www.launchgood.com/campaign/rebuild_gaza_help_repair_and_rebuild_the_lives_and_work_of_our_glia_team#!/ Check out StrikeAid here!; https://strikeaid.com/ Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: Cozy Earth: Remember to go to https://CozyEarth.com/MAJORITYREPORT to enjoy 30% off using the code MAJORITYREPORT. And after placing your order, select “podcast” in the survey and then select “Majority Report with Sam Seder'' in the dropdown menu that follows. Nutrafol: Take the first step towards achieving your hair growth goals. For a limited time, Nutrafol is offering our listeners ten dollars off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you go to https://Nutrafol.com/men and enter the promo code TMR.  Find out why over 4,500 healthcare professionals and stylists recommend Nutrafol for healthier hair. https://Nutrafol.com/men, promo code TMR. Manukora Honey: Now, it's easier than ever to try Manukora honey with the Starter Kit. Just head to https://Manukora.com/MAJORITY to get $25 off. The Starter Kit comes with an MGO 850+ Manuka honey, 5 honey travel sticks, a wooden spoon, plus a guidebook! Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

A Note from James:"The Year of Living Constitutionally." I mentioned this episode last week during our discussion with AJ Jacobs, but here we delve into his book, "The Year of Living Constitutionally." AJ not only researched and wrote about the Constitution, but he also spent a year living as if it were 1790, adhering to the U.S. Constitution literally. He even carried a musket and applied to be a pirate in Congress, referencing Article One, which grants Congress the power to commission pirates.The book is filled with facts, debates, and information about the newfound powers of the Supreme Court, Congress, and the President, as well as the pros and cons of states' rights versus federal rights. It covers the reasons behind various amendments and the ongoing debates about the Electoral College.AJ not only researched this; he lived it. I discussed his unique method of immersing himself in his subjects on last week's podcast, a method that has proven successful in creating bestsellers. With his humor, talent, and depth of information, AJ brings a fresh perspective to the U.S. Constitution in "The Year of Living Constitutionally: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Constitution's Original Meaning."And here's my good friend, AJ Jacobs.Episode Description:In this compelling episode of 'The James Altucher Show', James sits down with the endlessly curious and ever-experimenting AJ Jacobs, the author behind the intriguing ‘The Year of Living Constitutionally'. Delving into AJ's unique journey of trying to live by the U.S. Constitution's original tenets, this conversation unfolds a treasure trove of insights, historical quirks, and the profound impact of such an experiment on one's understanding of democracy and personal freedoms today.James and AJ unpack the myriad lessons learned from this year-long adventure, touching upon the original intent behind the Constitution's creation, the contemporary relevance of its mandates, and the often humorous, sometimes bizarre challenges of adhering to its original rules in the modern world. From carrying a musket in New York City to applying to become a legal pirate, AJ's experiences provide a unique lens through which we explore the founding document of the United States.Beyond the historical anecdotes and constitutional debates, this episode shines a light on the dynamic interplay between law, personal belief, and the evolving landscape of American democracy. James and AJ's dialogue ventures into the complexities of freedom of speech, the implications of the Electoral College, and the changing powers of the presidency, offering listeners a nuanced perspective on what the Constitution means in today's context.More than just a discussion, this episode is an invitation to reflect on the living spirit of the Constitution, encouraging us to consider how its foundational principles influence our lives and society at large.Episode Summary:00:00 Diving Into the Year of Living Constitutionally01:11 AJ Jacobs' Unique Method of Experiencing History02:56 Exploring the Original Meaning of the U.S. Constitution07:09 The Surprising Realities of Early American Laws15:26 The Evolution of Free Speech in America21:11 The Supreme Court's Role and the 14th Amendment23:37 The Growing Power of the Presidency24:21 Historical Debates and the Idea of Multiple Presidents26:04 The Evolution of Presidential Powers29:54 The Founders' Flexibility and the Constitution's Compromises37:49 The Challenges of Federal Regulation and Overregulation42:02 Reforming the Constitution for Modern Times45:42 AJ Jacobs on Writing and Future ProjectsAdditional ResourcesAJ Jacobs: https://ajjacobs.com/The Year of Living Biblically by AJ JacobsThe Year of Living Constitutionally (Link will be added once available)Federalist Papers - Authored by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James MadisonJames Altucher ------------What do YOU think of the show? Head to JamesAltucherShow.com/listeners and fill out a short survey that will help us better tailor the podcast to our audience!Are you interested in getting direct answers from James about your question on a podcast? Go to JamesAltucherShow.com/AskAltucher and send in your questions to be answered on the air!------------Visit Notepd.com to read our idea lists & sign up to create your own!My new book, Skip the Line, is out! Make sure you get a copy wherever books are sold!Join the You Should Run for President 2.0 Facebook Group, where we discuss why you should run for President.I write about all my podcasts! Check out the full post and learn what I learned at jamesaltuchershow.com------------Thank you so much for listening! If you like this episode, please rate, review, and subscribe to “The James Altucher Show” wherever you get your podcasts: Apple PodcastsiHeart RadioSpotifyFollow me on social media:YouTubeTwitterFacebookLinkedIn