Podcasts about The Federalist Papers

This Day in Legal History: John Jay First SCOTUSOn November 6, 1789, John Jay was sworn in as the first Chief Justice of the United States, marking a foundational moment in the development of the federal judiciary. Appointed by President George Washington, Jay was a prominent figure in the American founding, having co-authored The Federalist Papers and served as President of the Continental Congress. His confirmation by the Senate came just weeks after the Judiciary Act of 1789 formally established the structure of the federal court system, including the Supreme Court. At the time of his appointment, the Court held limited power and prestige, lacking even a permanent home or a defined role within the balance of government.Jay's tenure as Chief Justice lasted from 1789 to 1795 and was characterized more by circuit riding—traveling to preside over lower federal courts—than by Supreme Court rulings. Nonetheless, he helped lay the procedural and institutional groundwork for the Court's future authority. One of his few significant decisions came in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which asserted that states could be sued in federal court, a holding that was quickly overturned by the Eleventh Amendment. Jay also took on diplomatic duties, most notably negotiating the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain in 1794, which aimed to resolve lingering tensions from the Revolutionary War.Though his judicial legacy on the bench was modest, Jay's influence as the Court's inaugural leader was crucial in legitimizing the judiciary as a coequal branch of government. He later declined a reappointment to the position in 1800, citing the Court's lack of power and institutional independence. The role of Chief Justice would eventually evolve into a central force in constitutional interpretation, but it was Jay who first gave the office its shape. This milestone in legal history underscores the slow and deliberate construction of American judicial authority, which did not arrive fully formed but was built case by case, institution by institution.The Supreme Court is currently reviewing Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, a case that raises major constitutional and statutory questions about the scope of presidential power—particularly in the context of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). At the heart of the dispute is whether the word “regulate” in IEEPA grants the president the authority to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval. The case touches on foundational issues in constitutional law, including statutory interpretation, the nondelegation doctrine, emergency powers, and the “major questions” doctrine. The Court must assess not just what the statute says, but also how to interpret the silence—IEEPA never mentions “tariffs” or “taxes”—in light of Congress's constitutional power to impose taxes and regulate foreign commerce.From a textualist standpoint, the omission of “tariffs” suggests Congress did not intend to delegate that taxing authority to the executive. From a purposivist view, the debate turns on whether Congress meant to arm the president with broad economic tools to respond to emergencies or to narrowly limit those powers to national security concerns. Additional arguments center on legislative history and the principle of avoiding surplusage, as opponents claim interpreting “regulate” to include “tariff” would render other statutes that explicitly mention tariffs redundant.The nondelegation doctrine also plays a key role. If IEEPA is read to permit the president to impose tariffs, critics argue it may represent an unconstitutional transfer of legislative power—particularly taxing power—absent a clear “intelligible principle” to guide executive discretion. The Court is also being asked to consider whether the president's determination of an “emergency” under IEEPA is reviewable and whether actions taken in response to such emergencies must still adhere to constitutional limits. The outcome of this case could significantly redefine the boundary between congressional authority and executive power in trade and economic policy.The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on November 5, 2025, in a case challenging President Donald Trump's use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether Trump had exceeded his authority by bypassing Congress to enact tariffs, which are traditionally under legislative control. The legal debate centered on whether IEEPA's grant of authority to “regulate importation” includes the power to impose long-term tariffs, and whether doing so constitutes a “major question” requiring explicit congressional authorization.Chief Justice John Roberts, among others, expressed concern that Trump's use of IEEPA effectively allowed the executive to impose taxes—a core congressional function. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether there was any precedent for interpreting “regulate importation” as tariff-imposing authority, while Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that IEEPA was designed to limit, not expand, presidential power. Some conservative justices, like Brett Kavanaugh, were more receptive, referencing historical precedents like Nixon's use of similar powers.The administration argued the tariffs were necessary to respond to trade deficits and national security threats and warned that removing them could lead to economic harm. But critics, including business representatives and Democratic-led states, warned of a dangerous shift in power toward the executive. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested such an interpretation of IEEPA could permanently shift trade powers away from Congress, violating constitutional checks and balances.Lawyer for Trump faces tough Supreme Court questions over legality of tariffs | ReutersThe U.S. Senate confirmed Eric Tung to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a 52-45 party-line vote, making him President Donald Trump's sixth appellate court appointee in his second term. Tung, a former federal prosecutor and Justice Department lawyer, most recently worked at Jones Day, where he focused on commercial litigation and frequently represented cryptocurrency interests. His confirmation came over the objections of California's Democratic senators, who criticized his past statements and writings on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and gender roles.Tung has been a vocal legal advocate for controversial positions, including support for the independent state legislature theory and the argument that stablecoin sales fall outside SEC regulation. While he pledged to follow Supreme Court precedent, critics raised concerns about his originalist approach to constitutional rights. He faced intense scrutiny during his confirmation hearings for remarks made at a Federalist Society event and earlier in life, including statements about gender roles that drew fire from Senator Alex Padilla.Despite these concerns, Tung's legal career earned strong endorsements from colleagues and conservative legal allies. He clerked for Justices Antonin Scalia and Neil Gorsuch and has experience handling judicial nominations from within DOJ. Tung fills the seat vacated by Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta, a fellow conservative, ensuring ideological continuity on the Ninth Circuit.Former DOJ, Jones Day Lawyer Confirmed as Ninth Circuit JudgeThe California Republican Party filed a federal lawsuit against Governor Gavin Newsom, seeking to block the implementation of new congressional maps approved by voters just a day earlier via Proposition 50. The measure, backed by Newsom and passed by wide margins, suspends the state's independent redistricting commission and installs a Democratic-leaning map that could endanger five Republican-held congressional seats. Newsom has framed the move as a direct response to Texas' mid-cycle redistricting, which is expected to boost Republican power in the 2026 midterms.The GOP lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, argues that the new maps violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by using race as the primary factor in redrawing districts to favor Hispanic voters. The plaintiffs, represented by attorney Mike Columbo of the Dhillon Law Group, claim the state legislature lacked sufficient justification to use race in this way and failed to meet the legal standards required under the Voting Rights Act.Republicans also contend that Proposition 50 diminishes the political voice of non-Hispanic groups and constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The suit, Tangipa v. Newsom, is backed by the National Republican Congressional Committee and includes Republican lawmakers and candidates as plaintiffs. It mirrors legal challenges in Texas, where courts are evaluating claims of racial bias in redistricting. The outcome of these cases could significantly affect congressional control heading into the latter half of President Trump's second term.California Republicans Sue to Block New Congressional Maps (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Newt discusses the life and contributions of John Jay, a pivotal figure in American history. Born in 1745 in New York City, Jay's early life was shaped by his family's quest for religious freedom and his education at King's College. Initially advocating for reconciliation with Britain, Jay's political journey saw him evolve into a staunch supporter of American independence. As a member of the Continental Congress, he contributed to the Olive Branch Petition and played a significant role in drafting the New York State Constitution. Jay's diplomatic efforts included serving as an ambassador to Spain and negotiating the controversial Jay's Treaty with Britain. His legal acumen was evident during his tenure as the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, notably in the Chisholm v. Georgia case. Jay's political career also included serving as the Governor of New York, where he enacted the gradual abolition of slavery. Despite facing challenges and controversies, Jay's legacy as a founding father is marked by his dedication to establishing a robust and balanced government, as reflected in his contributions to the Federalist Papers and his advocacy for the separation of powers. His life exemplifies the complexities and commitments of the early American statesmen in shaping the nation.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chuck Todd breaks down the ongoing government shutdown and the deep dysfunction gripping Washington. With the shutdown dragging into late October, Trump is reportedly tapping private donors to pay the military, while Speaker Mike Johnson keeps the House out of session — a move Chuck calls a major political blunder. As Trump consolidates control over both the presidency and Congress, Republicans appear more focused on shielding him than exercising oversight. Meanwhile, the Oversight Committee under James Comer has devolved into partisan theater, investigating the Bidens while ignoring blatant corruption in Trump’s orbit. Chuck argues that without real congressional checks, America risks drifting toward the kind of pre-revolutionary rot the Founders warned about — where power, privilege, and impunity rule unchecked. Then, filmmaker Raoul Peck joins Chuck to discuss his powerful new documentary Orwell: 2+2=5 — an exploration of truth, propaganda, and power in the age of Trump. Peck, whose work often examines systems of control and colonialism, draws from Orwell’s life and letters to reveal how 1984 was never just a warning about the future — it was a reflection of the present. He and Chuck unpack how doublespeak, “alternative facts,” and the rewriting of history have crept into modern democracies, from the U.S. to Russia, and what Orwell’s insights reveal about the fragility of truth today. Peck also reflects on his own Haitian roots and how the legacy of colonialism still shapes global politics, from America’s interference in Haiti to its uneasy role as an arbiter of democracy abroad. The conversation turns to the media’s complicity in enabling authoritarian narratives, the dangers of AI-driven misinformation, and why reclaiming truth — and teaching future generations to defend it — may be the defining struggle of our time. Finally, he hops in the ToddCast Time Machine to revisit the publication of the Federalist Papers and why their lessons are extremely pertinent in the Trump era, answers questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment and gives his college football recap. Got injured in an accident? You could be one click away from a claim worth millions. Just visit https://www.forthepeople.com/TODDCAST to start your claim now with Morgan & Morgan without leaving your couch. Remember, it's free unless you win! Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 06:00 The government shutdown continues into the end of October 06:45 Trump tapping private donor to pay the military 07:45 Democrats have earned the leverage to reopen the government 08:15 Mike Johnson making a huge mistake by keeping House out of session 10:00 Voters want Congress to serve as a check on an unpopular president 11:45 House Republicans look like they’re out to lunch & on vacation 12:45 Trump says he’s both the speaker and the president 15:30 Sen. Lankford admits R’s would be furious if Biden was doing what Trump is 16:30 Everything now is viewed or ignored through a partisan lens 18:45 Without congressional oversight, we lose our founding framework 19:30 Qatari jet gift was the type of bribe our founders warned about 20:30 Republicans in charge of oversight ignoring plane bribe 21:30 Trump using coin scheme to build international bribery racket, R’s ignore it 23:00 The oversight committee under Comer has become a partisan weapon 23:45 Trump is ordering the DOJ to compensate his own business 25:15 Trump is using his power to direct money to his companies 26:00 The double standard from Republicans is insulting to the American people 28:45 Trump’s orbit is giving pre-revolutionary France vibes 29:30 Oversight is still investigating the Biden family 30:15 Democrats aren’t on moral high ground after Biden’s family pardons 31:15 If the Bidens were doing anything Trump was doing, R’s would impeach 32:00 Oversight has become partisan entertainment 32:45 Democrats weren’t interested in Epstein until it entangled Trump 33:30 Trump’s desperation to hold the house is to avoid oversight 34:15 Trump could stonewall oversight, but private companies can’t 35:00 Private companies can’t go to law enforcement when extorted 35:45 Mike Johnson is the weakest speaker in the modern era 37:45 Raoul Peck joins the Chuck ToddCast 39:15 How did you end up directing Orwell 2+2=5? 41:15 Coming from Haiti, you have a real understanding of abuse of power 42:45 Working with legendary documentarian Alex Gibney on the project 44:15 Would the film have been released if Kamala Harris had one? 45:45 Americans are becoming familiar with "doublespeak" under Trump 46:45 The contradiction of leading democracies being colonial 47:30 Orwell grew up in India, saw colonialism firsthand 48:45 Orwell joined Imperial Police Force in Burma 50:00 Orwell's letters revealed his inspiration and thought process 51:00 Orwell struggled to finish 1984 while very sick 52:00 Using historical media to create the documentary, no re-enactments 54:30 Why not tell this story in a movie? Does 1984 need to be re-made? 55:45 1984 was only a portion of the story 56:45 Orwell was writing about the present and warning about the future 58:30 US story starting with lies about the Iraq War using propaganda 1:00:00 Americans think authoritarianism only comes from "the other side" 1:00:45 Language sets the stage for the erosion of democracy 1:01:30 Authoritarians seek to remake and revise history 1:02:30 Russian citizens have basically given up on truth, don't believe anything 1:03:15 Trump's use of "alternative facts" is incredibly Orwellian 1:04:15 Trump accuses any negative coverage of being "fake news" 1:05:00 U.S. government purging certain words from their websites 1:07:00 Authoritarian takeovers can move very quickly 1:07:45 Journalism and discourse are controlled by a few tech companies 1:08:30 Trouble distributing the documentary in the current political climate? 1:10:00 Documentary breaking records…. But what does that say? 1:11:30 Too many people are tuning out during Trump's second term 1:12:00 People take democracy and their freedoms for granted 1:13:15 Mike Pence saved democracy… temporarily 1:14:15 AI generated videos will make people questions everything 1:15:15 Most of the press is captive to a few billionaires 1:16:15 The technology isn't the problem, lack of regulation is 1:17:45 Humans will want interpersonal contact in AI era 1:19:45 There is no such thing as neutrality in politics 1:21:15 Beating authoritarianism will take a generation in America 1:23:00 Why have Haiti and the Dominican Republic gone so differently? 1:24:45 The slave rebellion caused the U.S. to treat Haiti as a pariah 1:26:15 Haiti suffered from "cannon diplomacy" from colonial powers 1:27:00 The U.S. meddling in Haiti has always caused problems 1:29:15 U.S. has always asserted control in the western hemisphere 1:30:45 Next project is doc about assasination of Haiti's president 1:31:45 Using AI as a tool in creating films? 1:33:45 Government has performed almost no oversight of AI 1:36:00 ToddCast Time Machine 1:36:45 This week, in 1787 was the initial publication of the Federalist Papers 1:37:30 The papers were America's first political blog 1:38:30 Hamilton began by debating whether reason or rage would win out 1:39:45 Federalist #51 argued ambition must be made to counteract ambition 1:41:00 America's biggest problem now is an extraordinarily weak congress 1:41:45 Hamilton warned of political parties & can't limit it to one or two 1:42:45 Federalist #70 warned against an overly powerful executive 1:43:45 Federalist #65 worried that impeachment would become a partisan exercise 1:45:45 Federalist #78 argued that judges should never be elected 1:47:00 Madison argued in favor of slow deliberation 1:48:30 Founders warned that too few representatives breeds corruption 1:50:00 Hamilton argued that rights are only guaranteed by people enforcing them 1:52:00 Ask Chuck 1:52:15 Should Democrats flip the script and use "America First" messaging? 1:54:45 Should Democrats reign in ActBlue for advertising? 1:58:45 Why are there no consequences for cabinet members lying to congress? 2:00:45 Will Trump governing only for supporters backfire in the midterms? 2:04:15 College football updateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chuck Todd breaks down the ongoing government shutdown and the deep dysfunction gripping Washington. With the shutdown dragging into late October, Trump is reportedly tapping private donors to pay the military, while Speaker Mike Johnson keeps the House out of session — a move Chuck calls a major political blunder. As Trump consolidates control over both the presidency and Congress, Republicans appear more focused on shielding him than exercising oversight. Meanwhile, the Oversight Committee under James Comer has devolved into partisan theater, investigating the Bidens while ignoring blatant corruption in Trump’s orbit. Chuck argues that without real congressional checks, America risks drifting toward the kind of pre-revolutionary rot the Founders warned about — where power, privilege, and impunity rule unchecked. Finally, he hops in the ToddCast Time Machine to revisit the publication of the Federalist Papers and why their lessons are extremely pertinent in the Trump era, answers questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment and gives his college football recap. Got injured in an accident? You could be one click away from a claim worth millions. Just visit https://www.forthepeople.com/TODDCAST to start your claim now with Morgan & Morgan without leaving your couch. Remember, it's free unless you win! Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 02:00 The government shutdown continues into the end of October 02:45 Trump tapping private donor to pay the military 03:45 Democrats have earned the leverage to reopen the government 04:15 Mike Johnson making a huge mistake by keeping House out of session 06:00 Voters want Congress to serve as a check on an unpopular president 07:45 House Republicans look like they're out to lunch & on vacation 08:45 Trump says he's both the speaker and the president 11:30 Sen. Lankford admits R's would be furious if Biden was doing what Trump is 12:30 Everything now is viewed or ignored through a partisan lens 14:45 Without congressional oversight, we lose our founding framework 15:30 Qatari jet gift was the type of bribe our founders warned about 16:30 Republicans in charge of oversight ignoring plane bribe 17:30 Trump using coin scheme to build international bribery racket, R's ignore it 19:00 The oversight committee under Comer has become a partisan weapon 19:45 Trump is ordering the DOJ to compensate his own business 21:15 Trump is using his power to direct money to his companies 22:00 The double standard from Republicans is insulting to the American people 24:45 Trump's orbit is giving pre-revolutionary France vibes 25:30 Oversight is still investigating the Biden family 26:15 Democrats aren't on moral high ground after Biden's family pardons 27:15 If the Bidens were doing anything Trump was doing, R's would impeach 28:00 Oversight has become partisan entertainment 28:45 Democrats weren't interested in Epstein until it entangled Trump 29:30 Trump's desperation to hold the house is to avoid oversight 30:15 Trump could stonewall oversight, but private companies can't 31:00 Private companies can't go to law enforcement when extorted 31:45 Mike Johnson is the weakest speaker in the modern era 34:00 ToddCast Time Machine 34:45 This week, in 1787 was the initial publication of the Federalist Papers 35:30 The papers were America's first political blog 36:30 Hamilton began by debating whether reason or rage would win out 37:45 Federalist #51 argued ambition must be made to counteract ambition 39:00 America's biggest problem now is an extraordinarily weak congress 39:45 Hamilton warned of political parties & can't limit it to one or two 40:45 Federalist #70 warned against an overly powerful executive 41:45 Federalist #65 worried that impeachment would become a partisan exercise 43:45 Federalist #78 argued that judges should never be elected 45:00 Madison argued in favor of slow deliberation 46:30 Founders warned that too few representatives breeds corruption 48:00 Hamilton argued that rights are only guaranteed by people enforcing them 50:00 Ask Chuck 50:15 Should Democrats flip the script and use "America First" messaging? 52:45 Should Democrats reign in ActBlue for advertising? 56:45 Why are there no consequences for cabinet members lying to congress? 58:45 Will Trump governing only for supporters backfire in the midterms? 1:02:15 College football updateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John Hancock and Michael Kelley join Chris and Amy in-studio. Discussions this hour include the Blues lackluster home performance; Trump's trade policy changes on a whim; the Federalist Papers and the White House ballroom.

A Igreja Adventista do Sétimo Dia é uma organização global única, que combina um sistema de governo representativo com uma missão profética que desafia as estruturas políticas e culturais do mundo. Seu modelo de governança, cuidadosamente balanceado entre a autoridade central da Associação Geral e a autonomia das igrejas locais, reflete de maneira surpreendente os ideais do federalismo estadunidense do século XIX, particularmente como formulado por Alexander Hamilton e James Madison nos Federalist Papers. No entanto, como todo modelo político, o federalismo carrega em si ambivalências. É tanto instrumento de equilíbrio como armadilha de dominação; protege contra o autoritarismo, mas pode cristalizar desigualdades; promove a unidade, mas pode anestesiar o profetismo. Neste episódio, propomos não apenas compreender o funcionamento do modelo federalista adotado pela IASD, mas avaliá-lo criticamente à luz da teologia bíblica, do ideal escatológico e da necessidade contínua de reforma. Propomos, enfim, uma análise profunda sobre como o pensamento de Hamilton e Madison inspira, orienta e ao mesmo tempo ameaça a vitalidade espiritual, a missão profética e a fidelidade à ordem divina estabelecida.

Ο Αλεξάντερ Χάμιλτον, ο Τζέιμς Μάντισον και ο Τζον Τζέι έγραψαν, μέσα σε λίγους μήνες, 85 κείμενα για να πείσουν τους συμπολίτες τους να δεχτούν το νέο Σύνταγμα.Ήταν ένα στοίχημα: μπορούσε ένα κράτος να στηριχθεί όχι στη βία ή στο αίμα, αλλά στη λογική; Μπορούσε η εξουσία να χωριστεί, για να μην γίνει ποτέ απόλυτη;Αυτό είναι το Federalist Papers: το πρώτο πολιτικό podcast της Ιστορίας, γραμμένο με φτερό και μελάνι.Στο δεύτερο επεισόδιο των «Βιβλίων της Ελευθερίας» μιλάμε για το πιο συναρπαστικό πείραμα του 18ου αιώνα — το πείραμα της Αμερικής.Πώς μια ιδέα έγινε Σύνταγμα, και πώς η ανάγκη για ελευθερία έγινε το πιο επίμονο όνειρο του ανθρώπου.

Uncle Si is alive and well after a brief hospital stay, and Phillip was there to witness just how tough Si was when he woke up in a pool of blood one night. Martin declares that Si has officially reached Robertson family legend status, while John-David takes the death of Si's beloved cat, Sweet Pea, pretty hard. Martin proclaims that squirrels are, in fact, NOT cute, and Si proposes a plan to whip Congress back into shape. Duck Call Room episode #489 is sponsored by: https://helixsleep.com/duck — Get 27% off sitewide and make sure you enter our show name after checkout so they know we sent you! https://duckstamp.com/duck — Get your all-new digital duck stamp today. It's easier than ever! https://nutrafol.com/duck — Get $10 off your first month's subscription and free shipping! Hillsdale College offers more than 40 free online courses, including a course on The Federalist Papers. Go right now to http://hillsdale.edu/duck to enroll. There's no cost, and it's easy to get started. - Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Federalist Papers made the argument for ratification of the US Constitution.

In this episode we discuss the essays of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton compiled as the Federalist Papers. We talk about the philosophical justifications of the recently signed US Constitution, focusing especially on the tension between, on one hand, their passionate defense of republicanism against tyranny and despotism, and on the other, their hostility toward democratic forces. We place the problem of the durability of the republic at the core of their thought, and while noting the successes of their constitutional arrangement, ask about the costs of these successes.leftofphilosophy.comMusic:“Vintage Memories” by Schematist | schematist.bandcamp.com“My Space” by Overu | https://get.slip.stream/KqmvAN

This Day in Legal History: John Jay CommissionedOn September 26, 1789, John Jay was commissioned as the first Chief Justice of the United States, marking a foundational moment in the establishment of the American judiciary. Nominated by President George Washington and swiftly confirmed by the Senate, Jay took the helm of the newly formed Supreme Court just one day after the Judiciary Act of 1789 was signed into law. His appointment signaled the beginning of the federal judiciary as a coequal branch of government under the U.S. Constitution.Jay was already a prominent figure in American political life, having served as President of the Continental Congress, co-author of The Federalist Papers, and Secretary for Foreign Affairs under the Articles of Confederation. As Chief Justice, he led a court that initially had little authority or docket, with its first session delayed until February 1790 due to logistical difficulties and lack of cases.Despite the Court's limited power at the time, Jay helped lay the groundwork for its future role. In Chisholm v. Georgia(1793), Jay authored an opinion asserting federal judicial authority over state governments, a controversial stance that ultimately led to the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment. His tenure also saw diplomatic service; while still Chief Justice, he negotiated the Jay Treaty with Great Britain in 1794 to resolve lingering post-Revolutionary War disputes.Jay resigned in 1795 after being elected Governor of New York and declined a later offer from President John Adams to return to the bench. His brief but influential time as Chief Justice helped define the legitimacy and independence of the U.S. Supreme Court.The U.S. Department of Justice indicted former FBI Director James Comey, escalating what critics describe as President Donald Trump's campaign of retribution against political adversaries. Comey faces two charges: making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding, stemming from his 2020 Senate testimony in which he denied authorizing anonymous leaks related to an FBI investigation. The indictment claims he actually did authorize such disclosures. However, the charges are notably sparse, lacking detailed supporting facts or corroborating evidence typically included in indictments of this gravity.The case has drawn intense scrutiny within the Justice Department. Prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia reportedly advised against filing charges due to insufficient evidence, and the district's top prosecutor resigned last week after expressing concern about political interference. Tensions escalated when U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan—formerly Trump's defense attorney—personally presented the case to the grand jury, an unusual move suggesting top-level involvement. Notably, the grand jury declined to indict Comey on a third proposed charge, highlighting doubts about the prosecution's strength.Legal experts and former officials, including Obama-era ethics advisor Norm Eisen, have condemned the indictment as politically motivated. Comey maintains his innocence and says he welcomes a trial. Members of his family, including his son-in-law and daughter, have faced professional consequences, which Comey's supporters view as further evidence of political targeting. The charges represent a sharp departure from norms intended to shield law enforcement from partisan use.Former FBI chief Comey charged as Trump ramps up campaign against critics | ReutersA federal judge in California has preliminarily approved a $1.5 billion class action settlement between authors and the AI company Anthropic, marking a major development in the legal battles over generative AI's use of copyrighted materials. U.S. District Judge William Alsup described the agreement as fair during a Thursday hearing, though final approval is still pending. Authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson brought the lawsuit, accusing Anthropic of training its AI assistant Claude using millions of pirated books without permission.This settlement is the first in a growing wave of lawsuits targeting companies like OpenAI, Meta, and Microsoft for allegedly infringing on creators' rights through large-scale data scraping to train AI models. Although Alsup had previously ruled that some of Anthropic's training practices fell under fair use, he determined the company crossed the line by storing more than 7 million pirated books in a centralized database not strictly tied to AI training.The judge had initially hesitated to approve the deal and demanded further clarification from both sides, but now appears inclined to allow it to proceed to the notification stage for affected authors. If finalized, the agreement could signal a broader shift toward holding AI developers financially accountable for unauthorized content use. Publishing industry leaders have praised the development as a step toward curbing what they see as systemic, unchecked copyright violations in AI development. Anthropic, meanwhile, emphasized its commitment to safe and responsible AI.US judge preliminarily approves $1.5 billion Anthropic copyright settlement | ReutersKathryn Nester, a seasoned Utah criminal defense attorney and former top federal public defender, has been appointed to represent Tyler Robinson, the man accused of fatally shooting conservative activist Charlie Kirk during a Utah Valley University event on September 10. The state is seeking the death penalty against Robinson, who faces a charge of aggravated murder.Nester has a history of representing clients in high-profile and controversial cases. She previously defended Lyle Jeffs, a fugitive leader of a polygamous sect convicted of food stamp fraud, and John Earnest, the gunman in the 2019 Poway synagogue shooting, before stepping down due to a conflict of interest. She also defended a Utah doctor accused of destroying COVID-19 vaccines—a case later dropped—and is currently representing Kouri Richins, a children's author now charged with poisoning her husband.Her firm, Nester Lewis, has strong ties to Utah's federal public defense system. Her partner, Wendy Lewis, once represented Brian David Mitchell, the man convicted in the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart. Robinson's case is expected to cost Utah County at least $750,000 for the defense alone, with over $1.3 million budgeted for the total prosecution and defense efforts.Robinson's next court appearance is scheduled for Monday. Nester has declined public comment on the case.Attorney representing Charlie Kirk's accused killer is former top public defender | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by George Gershwin.Born on September 26, 1898, George Gershwin occupies a unique place in American music history—standing at the intersection of classical composition, jazz improvisation, and Broadway flair. Raised in Brooklyn to Russian-Jewish immigrant parents, Gershwin began his musical life on the piano and quickly showed an uncanny ability to absorb and reshape the sounds of his time. Though he composed everything from operas to show tunes, it was Rhapsody in Blue, written in 1924 when he was just 25, that cemented his legacy.Commissioned by bandleader Paul Whiteman for a concert intended to bridge classical and popular music, Rhapsody in Blue was composed in a rush—famously sketched out on train rides and completed with the help of orchestrator Ferde Grofé. The piece opens with its iconic clarinet glissando, a spontaneous flourish during rehearsal that Gershwin decided to keep, and unfolds into a sweeping blend of jazz rhythms, bluesy melodies, and symphonic ambition. It captured something distinctly American—urban, restless, full of promise.Rhapsody in Blue premiered at Aeolian Hall in New York on February 12, 1924, with Gershwin himself at the piano. The audience included titans like Sergei Rachmaninoff and Jascha Heifetz, and the piece earned immediate acclaim. Though critics at the time debated whether it was truly “serious” music, it has since become a cornerstone of 20th-century composition and a symbol of American cultural identity.For Gershwin, Rhapsody in Blue was not a departure from classical form but a statement that American music—jazz, blues, Tin Pan Alley—deserved a place in the concert hall. More than a century later, it remains as fresh and vibrant as the city that inspired it.Without further ado, George Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue, the first movement–enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

“What Killed Charlie Kirk” by Liel Leibovitz at Tablet magazine. More listener call-in questions on The Federalist Papers and the change in the culture that is occurring as a result of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. The very real dangers of underage use of the social media platform TikTok. Producer David Doll is very confused.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Martin comes up with a wild idea for Si's ashes someday, and Si calls it the coolest thing he's ever heard. Jacob lobbies for a life-size wax figure of Si, though the price tag is a little steep. John-David highlights the hilariously random beef Si has with Shaquille O'Neal, and the boys cap it off by dreaming of a Robertson takeover on “Family Feud”—all while admitting they're not exactly the sharpest tools in anyone's shed. Duck Call Room episode #481 is sponsored by: https://duckstamp.com/duck — Get your all-new digital duck stamp today. It's easier than ever! https://donewithdebt.com — Start building the life you deserve and talk with one of their strategists today. It's FREE! Hillsdale College offers more than 40 free online courses, including a course on The Federalist Papers. Go right now to http://hillsdale.edu/duck to enroll. There's no cost, and it's easy to get started. Go to https://drinkag1.com/duck to get a FREE Frother with your first purchase of AGZ. - Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What happens when law firms, universities, and elections come under fire—and how we can all help hold the line for democracy.

What happens when law firms, universities, and elections come under fire—and how we can all help hold the line for democracy.

Professor Kozlowski finally reaches the American Experiment. Today we discuss the Declaration of Independence, several of the Federalist Papers (and the response by the mysterious "Brutus"), the American Constitution, and the legend of Hiawatha the Unifier*. Along the way we will discuss the current state of the American Experiment and how the decisions of the founders may have overlooked potential abuses or exploits, as well as the concerns and preoccupations of the founders in their own time.*(I include the link to the Erdoes and Ortiz book where I found the myth; it's not in the public domain, and the downloads I found were pretty dodgy)EDIT: The doctrine of Judicial Review (i.e. the Supreme Court determining that laws are unconstitutional) is NOT originally laid out in the Constitution, but is a product of the landmark case Marbury v. Madison. As expected, I've already been corrected by more knowledgeable scholars of American History.Additional Readings include: Common Sense by Thomas Paine, the other writings of Thomas Jefferson (I don't have a specific collection or writing in mind, though...), and "What is the Slave to the 4th of July?" by Frederick Douglass. And today you get a double game recommendation: A Few Acres of Snow (board game - good luck finding it, though...), and Assassin's Creed III.If you're interested in Professor Kozlowski's other online projects, check out his website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠professorkozlowski.wordpress.com

Willie Robertson fills in for Johnny D and ends up acting as his assistant's assistant while swapping fast-food secrets and behind-the-scenes stories with Uncle Si. Willie relives his on-set scooter crash, the gender reveal that rattled Christian, and the $1,000 Chick-fil-A bet Si never saw coming. Rucker shares how he may not be alive today without the Robertsons and their TV show, and Martin reveals who he thinks has changed the most from the original series to ‘The Revival.' Duck Call Room episode #471 is sponsored by: https://nutrafol.com — Get $10 off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you use promo code DUCK! Hillsdale College offers more than 40 free online courses, including a course on The Federalist Papers. Go right now to https://hillsdale.edu/duck to enroll. There's no cost, and it's easy to get started. https://donewithdebt.com — Start building the life you deserve and talk with one of their strategists today. It's FREE! https://puretalk.com/duck — Get a FREE Samsung Galaxy phone with qualifying plan when you switch to Pure Talk! - Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is America approaching the point where peaceful reform is no longer enough? In this powerful episode of The P.A.S. Report Podcast, Professor Nick Giordano responds to a listener's bold question: do the government's abuses rise to the level the Founders warned about? Drawing from the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the Founders' own words, Professor Giordano separates policy disagreements from true tyranny. He also explains how we can still fight back using the tools built into the Constitution. From censorship and lawfare to the Chevron ruling and the rise of the Fourth Branch, this episode is a wake-up call for every American who senses something is deeply wrong. Episode Highlights: A listener's powerful question sparks a deep dive into whether America's government abuses justify revolution or demand reform How the Founders defined tyranny, what "a long train of abuses" really means, and how modern examples like the CIA spying on Congress and the Russia hoax measure up Why the Supreme Court's reversal of the Chevron doctrine marks a historic turning point in reining in the unelected Fourth Branch of government

On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show, Zohran Mamdani recently returned from a lavish, expensive wedding in Uganda featuring a walled estate and armed guards, funded by capitalists rather than the government. He portrays himself as the victim while yelling at Andrew Cuomo and Eric Adams. Don't believe a word Mamdani says, he would defund the police and disarm the citizen. Rep Mike Lawler calls in to discuss limousine liberal, trust fund baby Mamdani. Lawler warns that Mamdani becoming mayor of New York City would undermine safety and well-being, harming the city and country.  Later, in On Power there were early debates among Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson on interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Despite Hamilton's role in authoring the Federalist Papers to promote ratification and his advocacy for a strong national government, he proposed ideas like lifetime Senate and presidential terms, which were rejected. Afterward, David Friedman joins the show to express alarm at the unprecedented levels of anti-Semitism and hatred toward Israel, which is worsening monthly and fueled by media misinformation, such as the New York Times falsely portraying a congenitally ill child as starving due to Israel. Also, recognizing Palestine as a state incentivizes Hamas to continue without concessions, making hostage releases harder despite pleas from families. Finally, Steve Hilton calls in to discuss his run for California Governor and Kamala Harris' announcement that she won't run for Governor. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Federalist Papers, The Constitution and Supreme Court Wrap-Up 2024-2025 w/ Dorollo Nixon, Esq & Jesan Sorrells---00:00 Supreme Court's Role as Congressional Check09:44 "Executive Power and Accountability Debate"14:12 "U.S. Military Engagements: Then vs. Now"18:14 "Expanding Presidential Power Debate"24:47 Power Shifts in Digital Politics32:37 Judiciary's Role and Challenges34:01 Court Review: Judges Halting Exec Orders41:12 Hamilton's Dictator: Federalist 70 Insights49:52 Limits of Executive Action51:26 Judicial Rulings' Geographic Limits56:27 Originalism vs. Digital Future01:02:48 Youth Vote Shift Towards Socialism01:11:37 Supreme Court Law Limitations01:12:59 Constitutional Interpretation & 14th Amendment01:22:52 Critique of Unaccountable Governance01:23:50 "Dorollo Nixon Live Broadcast"---Opening and closing themes composed by Brian Sanyshyn of Brian Sanyshyn Music.---Pick up your copy of 12 Rules for Leaders: The Foundation of Intentional Leadership NOW on AMAZON!Check out the 2022 Leadership Lessons From the Great Books podcast reading list!--- ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ Subscribe to the Leadership Lessons From The Great Books Podcast: https://bit.ly/LLFTGBSubscribeCheck out HSCT Publishing at: https://www.hsctpublishing.com/.Check out LeadingKeys at: https://www.leadingkeys.com/Check out Leadership ToolBox at: https://leadershiptoolbox.us/Contact HSCT for more information at 1-833-216-8296 to schedule a full DEMO of LeadingKeys with one of our team members.---Leadership ToolBox website: https://leadershiptoolbox.us/.Leadership ToolBox LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ldrshptlbx/.Leadership ToolBox YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@leadershiptoolbox/videosLeadership ToolBox Twitter: https://twitter.com/ldrshptlbx.Leadership ToolBox IG: https://www.instagram.com/leadershiptoolboxus/.Leadership ToolBox FB: https://www.facebook.com/LdrshpTl

Join the #McConnellCenter as we welcome Steve Ealy as he attempts to convince us of the importance of reading the work of Dr. Seuss! 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

Uncle Si laughs at the pranks from the "Duck Dynasty: The Revival" film crew and Martin brings along his old friend and fellow Willie wrangler Chad Creel to back up every wild travel story John-David's ever told. Chad confirms it all: yes, Willie travels with 800 bags of beef jerky, and yes, he just bought Blake Shelton's old tour bus so he can go on a personal “Willie Tour” whenever the mood strikes. John-David laments being dragged into coffee dates by his wife and forced to confront the cold, watery reality of oat milk. Duck Call Room episode #467 is sponsored by: Hillsdale College offers more than 40 free online courses, including a course on The Federalist Papers. Go right now to http://hillsdale.edu/duck to enroll. There's no cost, and it's easy to get started. https://donewithdebt.com — Start building the life you deserve and talk with one of their strategists today. It's FREE! https://tecovas.com/DUCK — Get 10% off when you sign up for email and texts. - Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

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

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/

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.

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/