Podcasts about federalists

"How can you not be a populist in this day and age?" — Hélène LandemoreIn February 2020, The New Yorker profiled a Yale professor making the case for citizen rule. Six years later, that political scientist, Hélène Landemore, has a new book entitled Politics Without Politicians arguing that politics should be "an amateur sport instead of an expert's job" and that randomly selected citizen assemblies should replace representative democracy. Landemore calls it "jury duty on steroids."Landemore draws on her experience observing France's Citizens' Conventions on both climate and end-of-life issues to now direct Connecticut's first state-level citizen assembly. We discuss why the Greeks used lotteries instead of elections, what G.K. Chesterton meant by imagining democracy as a "jolly hostess," and why she has sympathy for the anti-Federalists who lost the argument about the best form of American government to Madison. When I ask if she's comfortable being called a populist, she doesn't flinch: "If the choice is between populist and elitist, I don't know how you can not be a populist." From the Damon Wells'58 Professor of Political Science at Yale, this might sound a tad suicidal. At least professionally. But Landemore's jolly argument for a politics without politicians is the type of message that will win elections in our populist age.About the GuestHélène Landemore is the Damon Wells'58 Professor of Political Science at Yale University. She is the author of Politics Without Politicians: The Case for Citizen Rule (2026) and Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century (2020).ReferencesThinkers discussed:●      G.K. Chesterton was the British essayist who defined democracy as an "attempt, like that of a jolly hostess, to bring the shy people out"—a vision Landemore finds more inspiring than technical definitions about elite selection.●      James Madison and the Federalists designed a republic meant to filter popular passions through elected representatives; Landemore has sympathy for their anti-Federalist opponents who wanted legislatures that looked like "a mini-portrait of the people."●      Alexis de Tocqueville warned about the dangers of trusting ordinary people—a caution Landemore pushes back against, arguing that voters respond to the limited choices they're given.●      Max Weber wrote "Politics as a Vocation" (1919), arguing that politics requires a special calling; Landemore questions whether it should be a profession at all.●      Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his concept of the general will has been blamed for totalitarian impulses; Landemore rejects the comparison, insisting her vision preserves liberal constitutional frameworks.●      Joseph Schumpeter defined democracy as "a method for elite selection"—precisely the technocratic framing Landemore wants to overturn.Citizen assembly experiments mentioned:●      The Irish Citizens' Assembly on abortion (2016-2017) is often cited as proof that randomly selected citizens can deliberate on divisive issues and reach workable conclusions.●      The French Citizens' Convention on End-of-Life (2022-2023) found common ground between pro- and anti-euthanasia factions by focusing on palliative care—a case Landemore observed firsthand.●      The French Citizens' Convention for Climate (2019-2020) brought 150 randomly selected citizens together to propose climate policy; participants were paid 84-95 Euros per day.●      The Connecticut citizen assembly on local public services, planned for summer 2026, will be the first state-level citizen assembly in the United States. Landemore is directing its design.Also mentioned:●      Zephyr Teachout is the left-wing populist who called Landemore a "reluctant populist."●      Oliver Hart (Harvard) and Luigi Zingales (Chicago) are economists working with Landemore to apply the citizen assembly model to corporate governance reform.●      The Council of 500 was the Athenian deliberative body whose members were selected by lottery, with a rotating chair appointed daily.●      John Stuart Mill is the liberal theorist whose emphasis on minority rights raises the question of whether Landemore's majoritarianism is illiberal. She says no.About Keen On AmericaNobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States—hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,800 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting.WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotifyChapters:(00:00) - Chapter 1 (00:00) - Six years from New Yorker profile to book (01:14) - Politics as amateur sport (02:08) - What the Greeks got right (04:03) - Citizen assemblies: jury duty on steroids (06:21) - The Yale professor who speaks for ordinary people (07:11) - Rousseau and the age of innocence (08:41) - The gerontocracy problem (09:33) - Do we need a communitarian impulse? (11:30) - Experts on tap, not on top (15:15) - The reluctant populist (17:01) - Can we trust ordinary people? (19:11) - How it works at scale (23:14) - Why professional politicians are failing (26:15) - Max Weber and politics as vocation (29:08) - Leaders who emerge organically (30:04) - Rejecting Madison and the Federalists (32:26) - Finding common intere...

In the latest episode of The Line Podcast, recorded on February 6th, 2025, Matt Gurney and Jen Gerson begin with another close look at separatist pressures in Alberta and the political forces forming around them. Jen spends considerable time unpacking how the various players are organizing and aligning, and both hosts admit they're surprised the federalist side isn't better coordinated. That said, they do have a few thoughts about who could step in to do that work, if anyone is willing to take it on.From there, the conversation turns to the 20th anniversary of the election of Stephen Harper. Both Matt and Jen reflect on how early they were in their careers at the time, assuming they'd even started yet. They discuss Harper's legacy and the conservative movement he shaped, noting that in some ways the party has remained adrift since his departure (though that might be changing a bit). At the same time, they point out that Harper has been sending unusually clear signals, by his own standards, about his views on current political events — including a striking and heartfelt declaration in favour of a strong, united Canada.Finally, the hosts take a quick look at recent developments in the crypto space. Jen approaches the topic from a political angle, while Matt looks at it through a more sociological lens. Whether it's Bitcoin, AI tools, or the next new technological obsession, both agree there's always room for responsible and productive use. The problems start when disaffected people wrap their entire identities around these tools and turn them into substitutes for meaning.All that and more in the latest episode of The Line Podcast. Check out our website at ReadTheLine.ca, and as always like and subscribe.

Support Us: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://libri-vox.org/donateThe Anti-Federalist Papers (Pt. 2)During the period of debate over the ratification of the Constitution, numerous independent local speeches and articles were published all across the country. Initially, many of the articles in opposition were written under pseudonyms, such as "Brutus", "Centinel", and "Federal Farmer". Eventually, famous revolutionary figures such as Patrick Henry came out publicly against the Constitution. They argued that the strong national government proposed by the Federalists was a threat to the rights of individuals and that the President would become a king. They objected to the federal court system created by the proposed constitution. This produced a phenomenal body of political writing; the best and most influential of these articles and speeches were gathered by historians into a collection known as the Anti-Federalist Papers in allusion to the Federalist Papers. (Summary by Ticktockman)Genre(s): *Non-fiction, Philosophy, Political ScienceLanguage: EnglishKeyword(s): ⁠literature⁠ (1957), ⁠philosophy⁠ (985), ⁠politics⁠ (208), ⁠government⁠ (43)Support Us: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://libri-vox.org/donate

Support Us: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://libri-vox.org/donateDuring the period of debate over the ratification of the Constitution, numerous independent local speeches and articles were published all across the country. Initially, many of the articles in opposition were written under pseudonyms, such as "Brutus", "Centinel", and "Federal Farmer". Eventually, famous revolutionary figures such as Patrick Henry came out publicly against the Constitution. They argued that the strong national government proposed by the Federalists was a threat to the rights of individuals and that the President would become a king. They objected to the federal court system created by the proposed constitution. This produced a phenomenal body of political writing; the best and most influential of these articles and speeches were gathered by historians into a collection known as the Anti-Federalist Papers in allusion to the Federalist Papers. (Summary by Ticktockman)Genre(s): *Non-fiction, Philosophy, Political ScienceLanguage: EnglishKeyword(s): literature (1957), philosophy (985), politics (208), government (43)Support Us: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://libri-vox.org/donate

The Bill of Rights transformed the Constitution from one of supreme and total national power to a partially mixed polity where the liberal anti-nationalists at least had a fighting chance.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/why-federalists-hated-bill-rights

The Bill of Rights transformed the Constitution from one of supreme and total national power to a partially mixed polity where the liberal anti-nationalists at least had a fighting chance.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/why-federalists-hated-bill-rights

Blake Seitz, Content Strategist at Palantir Technologies, and Mike Watson, Executive Director at The Alexander Hamilton Society, join the show to discuss America's relationship with the world at the time of the Founding Fathers. ▪️ Times 02:45 18th Century geopolitical landscape 06:25 Yorktown 11:17 Diplomacy of the Founders  16:23 Bold rhetoric  19:37 Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists 25:45 Washington's legacy  32:42 The roots of isolationism  36:38 Parallels and changes 44:16 What does it mean to be an American?  47:20 A grounding in history Read more - 1776: The Beginnings of American Exceptionalism Abroad Follow along on Instagram, X @schoolofwarpod, and YouTube @SchoolofWarPodcast Find more content on our School of War Substack

King Hancock: The Radical Influence of a Moderate Founding Father (Harvard UP, 2023) is a rollicking portrait of the paradoxical patriot, whose measured pragmatism helped make American independence a reality. Americans are surprisingly more familiar with his famous signature than with the man himself. In this spirited account of John Hancock's life, Brooke Barbier depicts a patriot of fascinating contradictions--a child of enormous privilege who would nevertheless become a voice of the common folk; a pillar of society uncomfortable with radicalism who yet was crucial to independence. About two-fifths of the American population held neutral or ambivalent views about the Revolution, and Hancock spoke for them and to them, bringing them along. Orphaned young, Hancock was raised by his merchant uncle, whose business and vast wealth he inherited--including household slaves, whom Hancock later freed. By his early thirties, he was one of New England's most prominent politicians, earning a place on Britain's most-wanted list and the derisive nickname King Hancock. While he eventually joined the revolution against England, his ever moderate--and moderating--disposition would prove an asset after 1776. Barbier shows Hancock appealing to southerners and northerners, Federalists and Anti-Federalists. He was a famously steadying force as president of the fractious Second Continental Congress. He parlayed with French military officials, strengthening a key alliance with his hospitable diplomacy. As governor of Massachusetts, Hancock convinced its delegates to vote for the federal Constitution and calmed the fallout from the shocking Shays's Rebellion. An insightful study of leadership in the revolutionary era, King Hancock traces a moment when passion was on the side of compromise and accommodation proved the basis of profound social and political change. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

King Hancock: The Radical Influence of a Moderate Founding Father (Harvard UP, 2023) is a rollicking portrait of the paradoxical patriot, whose measured pragmatism helped make American independence a reality. Americans are surprisingly more familiar with his famous signature than with the man himself. In this spirited account of John Hancock's life, Brooke Barbier depicts a patriot of fascinating contradictions--a child of enormous privilege who would nevertheless become a voice of the common folk; a pillar of society uncomfortable with radicalism who yet was crucial to independence. About two-fifths of the American population held neutral or ambivalent views about the Revolution, and Hancock spoke for them and to them, bringing them along. Orphaned young, Hancock was raised by his merchant uncle, whose business and vast wealth he inherited--including household slaves, whom Hancock later freed. By his early thirties, he was one of New England's most prominent politicians, earning a place on Britain's most-wanted list and the derisive nickname King Hancock. While he eventually joined the revolution against England, his ever moderate--and moderating--disposition would prove an asset after 1776. Barbier shows Hancock appealing to southerners and northerners, Federalists and Anti-Federalists. He was a famously steadying force as president of the fractious Second Continental Congress. He parlayed with French military officials, strengthening a key alliance with his hospitable diplomacy. As governor of Massachusetts, Hancock convinced its delegates to vote for the federal Constitution and calmed the fallout from the shocking Shays's Rebellion. An insightful study of leadership in the revolutionary era, King Hancock traces a moment when passion was on the side of compromise and accommodation proved the basis of profound social and political change. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

King Hancock: The Radical Influence of a Moderate Founding Father (Harvard UP, 2023) is a rollicking portrait of the paradoxical patriot, whose measured pragmatism helped make American independence a reality. Americans are surprisingly more familiar with his famous signature than with the man himself. In this spirited account of John Hancock's life, Brooke Barbier depicts a patriot of fascinating contradictions--a child of enormous privilege who would nevertheless become a voice of the common folk; a pillar of society uncomfortable with radicalism who yet was crucial to independence. About two-fifths of the American population held neutral or ambivalent views about the Revolution, and Hancock spoke for them and to them, bringing them along. Orphaned young, Hancock was raised by his merchant uncle, whose business and vast wealth he inherited--including household slaves, whom Hancock later freed. By his early thirties, he was one of New England's most prominent politicians, earning a place on Britain's most-wanted list and the derisive nickname King Hancock. While he eventually joined the revolution against England, his ever moderate--and moderating--disposition would prove an asset after 1776. Barbier shows Hancock appealing to southerners and northerners, Federalists and Anti-Federalists. He was a famously steadying force as president of the fractious Second Continental Congress. He parlayed with French military officials, strengthening a key alliance with his hospitable diplomacy. As governor of Massachusetts, Hancock convinced its delegates to vote for the federal Constitution and calmed the fallout from the shocking Shays's Rebellion. An insightful study of leadership in the revolutionary era, King Hancock traces a moment when passion was on the side of compromise and accommodation proved the basis of profound social and political change. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

King Hancock: The Radical Influence of a Moderate Founding Father (Harvard UP, 2023) is a rollicking portrait of the paradoxical patriot, whose measured pragmatism helped make American independence a reality. Americans are surprisingly more familiar with his famous signature than with the man himself. In this spirited account of John Hancock's life, Brooke Barbier depicts a patriot of fascinating contradictions--a child of enormous privilege who would nevertheless become a voice of the common folk; a pillar of society uncomfortable with radicalism who yet was crucial to independence. About two-fifths of the American population held neutral or ambivalent views about the Revolution, and Hancock spoke for them and to them, bringing them along. Orphaned young, Hancock was raised by his merchant uncle, whose business and vast wealth he inherited--including household slaves, whom Hancock later freed. By his early thirties, he was one of New England's most prominent politicians, earning a place on Britain's most-wanted list and the derisive nickname King Hancock. While he eventually joined the revolution against England, his ever moderate--and moderating--disposition would prove an asset after 1776. Barbier shows Hancock appealing to southerners and northerners, Federalists and Anti-Federalists. He was a famously steadying force as president of the fractious Second Continental Congress. He parlayed with French military officials, strengthening a key alliance with his hospitable diplomacy. As governor of Massachusetts, Hancock convinced its delegates to vote for the federal Constitution and calmed the fallout from the shocking Shays's Rebellion. An insightful study of leadership in the revolutionary era, King Hancock traces a moment when passion was on the side of compromise and accommodation proved the basis of profound social and political change. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

King Hancock: The Radical Influence of a Moderate Founding Father (Harvard UP, 2023) is a rollicking portrait of the paradoxical patriot, whose measured pragmatism helped make American independence a reality. Americans are surprisingly more familiar with his famous signature than with the man himself. In this spirited account of John Hancock's life, Brooke Barbier depicts a patriot of fascinating contradictions--a child of enormous privilege who would nevertheless become a voice of the common folk; a pillar of society uncomfortable with radicalism who yet was crucial to independence. About two-fifths of the American population held neutral or ambivalent views about the Revolution, and Hancock spoke for them and to them, bringing them along. Orphaned young, Hancock was raised by his merchant uncle, whose business and vast wealth he inherited--including household slaves, whom Hancock later freed. By his early thirties, he was one of New England's most prominent politicians, earning a place on Britain's most-wanted list and the derisive nickname King Hancock. While he eventually joined the revolution against England, his ever moderate--and moderating--disposition would prove an asset after 1776. Barbier shows Hancock appealing to southerners and northerners, Federalists and Anti-Federalists. He was a famously steadying force as president of the fractious Second Continental Congress. He parlayed with French military officials, strengthening a key alliance with his hospitable diplomacy. As governor of Massachusetts, Hancock convinced its delegates to vote for the federal Constitution and calmed the fallout from the shocking Shays's Rebellion. An insightful study of leadership in the revolutionary era, King Hancock traces a moment when passion was on the side of compromise and accommodation proved the basis of profound social and political change. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

King Hancock: The Radical Influence of a Moderate Founding Father (Harvard UP, 2023) is a rollicking portrait of the paradoxical patriot, whose measured pragmatism helped make American independence a reality. Americans are surprisingly more familiar with his famous signature than with the man himself. In this spirited account of John Hancock's life, Brooke Barbier depicts a patriot of fascinating contradictions--a child of enormous privilege who would nevertheless become a voice of the common folk; a pillar of society uncomfortable with radicalism who yet was crucial to independence. About two-fifths of the American population held neutral or ambivalent views about the Revolution, and Hancock spoke for them and to them, bringing them along. Orphaned young, Hancock was raised by his merchant uncle, whose business and vast wealth he inherited--including household slaves, whom Hancock later freed. By his early thirties, he was one of New England's most prominent politicians, earning a place on Britain's most-wanted list and the derisive nickname King Hancock. While he eventually joined the revolution against England, his ever moderate--and moderating--disposition would prove an asset after 1776. Barbier shows Hancock appealing to southerners and northerners, Federalists and Anti-Federalists. He was a famously steadying force as president of the fractious Second Continental Congress. He parlayed with French military officials, strengthening a key alliance with his hospitable diplomacy. As governor of Massachusetts, Hancock convinced its delegates to vote for the federal Constitution and calmed the fallout from the shocking Shays's Rebellion. An insightful study of leadership in the revolutionary era, King Hancock traces a moment when passion was on the side of compromise and accommodation proved the basis of profound social and political change. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

King Hancock: The Radical Influence of a Moderate Founding Father (Harvard UP, 2023) is a rollicking portrait of the paradoxical patriot, whose measured pragmatism helped make American independence a reality. Americans are surprisingly more familiar with his famous signature than with the man himself. In this spirited account of John Hancock's life, Brooke Barbier depicts a patriot of fascinating contradictions--a child of enormous privilege who would nevertheless become a voice of the common folk; a pillar of society uncomfortable with radicalism who yet was crucial to independence. About two-fifths of the American population held neutral or ambivalent views about the Revolution, and Hancock spoke for them and to them, bringing them along. Orphaned young, Hancock was raised by his merchant uncle, whose business and vast wealth he inherited--including household slaves, whom Hancock later freed. By his early thirties, he was one of New England's most prominent politicians, earning a place on Britain's most-wanted list and the derisive nickname King Hancock. While he eventually joined the revolution against England, his ever moderate--and moderating--disposition would prove an asset after 1776. Barbier shows Hancock appealing to southerners and northerners, Federalists and Anti-Federalists. He was a famously steadying force as president of the fractious Second Continental Congress. He parlayed with French military officials, strengthening a key alliance with his hospitable diplomacy. As governor of Massachusetts, Hancock convinced its delegates to vote for the federal Constitution and calmed the fallout from the shocking Shays's Rebellion. An insightful study of leadership in the revolutionary era, King Hancock traces a moment when passion was on the side of compromise and accommodation proved the basis of profound social and political change. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

Derek Fildebrandt, Nigel Hannaford, and Cory Morgan are joined by Alise Mills to dissect Ford's costly U.S. ad blunder, the Alberta teachers' strike, and how a group of die-hard federalists may have accidentally sparked an independence vote.

The Anti-Federalist vs Federalist debate you were never taught. It wasn't about checks and balances. It was about one word: TRUST. The Anti-Federalists said you can NEVER trust the man. The Federalists countered - maybe so, but you CAN trust the PLAN. It was a core conflict over ratification - and an ironic twist that tells us which side was right. The post It Wasn't Checks and Balances. It Was Trust. first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

This is the third in a series of six episodes regarding America's fallen founder, Aaron Burr.  This episode tells the story of the infamous duel between Aaron Burr, the vice President, and Alexander Hamilton, the leader of the Federalists.  The code duello and its inscribed rules are given a detailed treatment in preparation for what goes down in New Jersey. Contact the show at resourcesbylowery@gmail.com or on Bluesky @EmpiresPod If you would like to financially support the show, please use the following paypal link. Or remit PayPal payment to @Lowery80.  And here is a link for Venmo users. Any support is greatly appreciated and will be used to make future episodes of the show even better.   Expect new shows to drop on Wednesday mornings from September to May. Music is licensed through Epidemic Sound

This Day in Legal History: Judiciary Act of 1789On September 24, 1789, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, formally titled An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States. This foundational statute created the structure of the federal judiciary as we know it today, establishing a three-tiered court system consisting of district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court. At the top sat a six-member Supreme Court, with one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices. The Act also created 13 district courts and three circuit courts, aligning largely with state boundaries, and assigned federal judges to serve on both district and circuit courts—a practice known as “circuit riding.”The Act gave federal courts jurisdiction over a wide range of cases, including those involving federal law, disputes between states, and cases between citizens of different states. It also authorized the Supreme Court to review decisions from state courts when federal law was at issue, a power that would later be affirmed in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816). The Act created the office of the Attorney General, tasked with representing the United States in legal matters, and laid the groundwork for the U.S. Marshals Service.One of the most controversial provisions was Section 25, which allowed the Supreme Court to overturn state court decisions that conflicted with federal law or the U.S. Constitution—an early assertion of federal supremacy. The Act was largely the product of compromise, balancing the concerns of Federalists, who favored a strong national judiciary, and Anti-Federalists, who feared centralized power.The Judiciary Act of 1789 was signed into law by President George Washington on the same day he nominated the first justices to the Supreme Court. Chief among them was John Jay, who became the nation's first Chief Justice. The Act did not resolve all questions about federal judicial power, but it laid a durable foundation that, with amendments, remains in place more than two centuries later.The Justice Department's “weaponization” working group, led by controversial interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin, has launched an inquiry into alleged improper practices at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). In a June letter to then-Acting PTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart, Martin accused the agency of covertly targeting certain patent applications—especially those in the electrical and artificial intelligence fields—for secret scrutiny and delay. He alleged the existence of a Biden-era revival of the discontinued Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS), a program once used to quietly flag questionable applications without applicant knowledge. To be clear, these “questionable applications” were for things like free energy systems and so-called “miracle cures.”Martin, who framed his inquiry as part of enforcing President Trump's executive orders on transparency, claimed Stewart had uncovered and ended the secretive policy. The letter demanded records related to the review of AI-related patents and other complex applications. The investigation was triggered by a PTO presentation highlighting a study on “patent thickets,” or overlapping patent claims in large families, which revealed examiner challenges in identifying double patenting issues in up to 22% of cases.Critics argue that such behind-the-scenes programs lack transparency and due process for inventors. Veteran patent attorney Tom Franklin warned that any flagging system that denies applicants notice and opportunity to respond undermines legal fairness. However, some public interest advocates, like Alex Moss, defended the PTO's efforts to improve patent quality, dismissing claims of illegality as political posturing.Martin's involvement has drawn scrutiny given his record of dismissing January 6 prosecutions, purging prosecutors, and publicly airing inflammatory and racist remarks, including blaming “crazy Black ladies” for his firing from CNN. Now awaiting Senate confirmation for the U.S. Attorney role in D.C., Martin's actions at DOJ—and this patent investigation—are fueling growing opposition in Congress.DOJ ‘Weaponization' Leader Sought Info on Patent Office ProgramA federal judge has extended an injunction blocking the Trump administration from imposing political and ideological conditions on federal grant funding. The order, issued by Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, follows a previous temporary restraining order granted in August. The court found that cities and counties led by Fresno, California, are likely to succeed in their lawsuit, which argues the administration exceeded its legal authority and violated constitutional protections.The plaintiffs challenge a series of Trump executive orders, including one from August 7, which restricted federal funding from being used to support policies involving racial equity, environmental justice, transgender rights, immigration protections, and what it called “anti-American values.” Local governments say they were told to strip grant applications of any mention of “equity” or related concepts, or risk losing funding. Fresno reported receiving a letter from HUD on August 18, questioning its compliance with these mandates.Judge Seeborg agreed the orders may violate multiple legal provisions, including the Spending Clause, the Fifth and Tenth Amendments, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court found that the conditions were likely arbitrary, beyond the scope of the administration's statutory authority, and unconstitutional. The administration had asked that any injunction be narrowly tailored, but Seeborg extended the broader block on enforcing these grant conditions.Trump Further Blocked From Imposing Federal Grant ConditionsU.S. law schools are reporting record-breaking first-year enrollment in 2025, driven by an 18% surge in applicants—a sharp jump following an already strong admissions cycle in 2024. Elon University School of Law is among seven schools announcing their largest-ever incoming classes, while at least ten others, including Harvard, reported their biggest first-year cohorts in over a decade. Harvard Law School enrolled 579 students this fall, up 3% from its norm and the largest class since at least 2011.The full scope of national enrollment won't be known until the American Bar Association releases official numbers in December, but early reports suggest crowded campuses and logistical challenges like classroom capacity and student support services. The University of Hawaii, Liberty University, Rutgers, Pace, and several regional law schools also saw record or near-record first-year intake.While law school deans are celebrating the growth, some industry experts are cautious. Nikia Gray of the National Association for Law Placement warned that an influx of graduates in 2028 could saturate the job market, especially as law firms scale back entry-level hiring due to AI advancements. Still, others see opportunity—Southern Illinois Law Dean Hannah Brenner Johnson noted rising student numbers may help address access-to-justice issues in underserved regions, or “legal deserts.”The last major spike in law school enrollment came in 2021 amid COVID-19, but that cohort graduated into a strong job market. Whether the class of 2028 will enjoy similar employment success is uncertain, as economic conditions and tech disruption may shift in the coming years.Applicant boom drives record first-year law school classes | Reuters 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

Go behind the scenes and explore aftermath behind what Shays's Rebellion exposed the young United States to. Discover whether John Hancock was present in Philadelphia come year 1787 to attend Constitutional Convention. Learn which delegates from Massachusetts attended the convention in Philadelphia. Find out what post John Hancock got bestowed with come January 1788 involving U.S. Constitution. Get introduced to Delegate Rufus King of Massachusetts and learn what he accomplished during 1787 Constitutional Convention. Understand deep divisions between Federalists and Anti Federalists in Massachusetts regarding their outlooks on U.S. Constitution. Discover what monumental achievement occurred in Massachusetts come February 6, 1788. Learn exactly why number nine is so important regarding the U.S. Constitution along with getting a basic timeline of events which took place between December 7, 1787 to June 21, 1788. Discover if John Hancock was a strong advocate behind favoring fundamental liberties. Determine whether Hancock himself had other political aspirations. Go behind the scenes and learn how 1789 Presidential Election was conducted. Get an in depth analysis behind how John Hancock's strife over a national government had already taken place prior to his home state ratifying U.S. Constitution. Learn what practice method John Hancock engaged in regularly to better connect with people from different corners of life including a situation from 1792 where he did something very radical. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Clay's conversation with historian Louis Masur about his new book A Journey North: Jefferson, Madison, & the Forging of a Friendship. In 1791, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison went on a monthlong tour of New England. They were weary from their struggles with Alexander Hamilton for the soul of America. They needed a vacation, but as exemplars of the Enlightenment, they wanted to do some "botanizing," as they put it. They were interested in studying the Hessian Fly, which was devastating New England wheat production and seemed to be heading south to Maryland and Virginia. They wanted, like most tourists, to see American Revolution battlefields. They had been friends for more than a dozen years, but this journey deepened their political partnership. The Federalists accused them of making the journey to stir up political opposition to the Hamiltonian fiscal program; however, they were mostly exploring a part of America about which they knew little.

This is an X/Twitter space where I discuss Plutarch and his relevance for us today, particularly as Americans on the 4th of JulyThemes of the discussion:— Plutarch and the American Founding— Plutarch on “history” in relation to greatness, the beautiful, the heroic, the sacredI took 3 different approaches:1) Explaining why Plutarch is relevant for us via the tradition from Machiavelli to the Federalists and AntiFederalist (with hints at the much early sources than Machiavelli)2) What even is “history”?3) Simply opening Plutarch and readingSupport the show

Guest: LTC Lee Robinson, USA In this Crosspoint Highlight from July 2025, LTC Lee Robinson explores the delicate balance military leaders must strike between free exercise of religion and non-establishment under the First Amendment. He emphasizes that the amendment's brevity—and its ambiguity—stem from the compromises between Federalists and Anti-Federalists at the time of America's founding. Lee explains how the language evolved, rejecting broader proposals like prohibiting any laws “touching religion” to avoid overly limiting the federal government. He encourages military leaders to wrestle with the historical context and constitutional principles behind the First Amendment to better understand their own oath to support and defend the Constitution, particularly in gray areas where religion intersects with public duty. What do you think? How does understanding the historical compromise behind the First Amendment help shape your approach to religious liberty in leadership? What practical steps can you take as a military leader to uphold both the free exercise of religion and the principle of non-establishment?

This Day in Legal History: Sedition Act PassedOn this day in legal history, July 14, 1798, the United States Congress passed the Sedition Act, one of the most controversial laws in the nation's early political history. Part of the broader Alien and Sedition Acts, this law made it a crime to publish “any false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the federal government, Congress, or the President with the intent to defame or bring them into disrepute. Ostensibly aimed at quelling foreign influence and internal subversion during the quasi-war with France, the Act was also a clear weapon against domestic political opposition—particularly the Democratic-Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson.Federalist lawmakers, who dominated Congress and the presidency under John Adams, justified the law as necessary for national security. However, it was widely criticized as an assault on First Amendment rights and a means of silencing dissent. The law resulted in the prosecution of several Republican editors and even members of Congress, including Representative Matthew Lyon of Vermont, who was sentenced to four months in jail.The Sedition Act provoked a fierce backlash and spurred Jefferson and James Madison to draft the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which introduced the doctrine of nullification—the idea that states could declare federal laws unconstitutional. Public outrage over the Act played a significant role in the Federalists' defeat in the election of 1800 and the subsequent repeal or expiration of most provisions of the Alien and Sedition Acts.The Sedition Act expired on March 3, 1801, the day before Jefferson assumed the presidency. Its legacy remains a cautionary tale about the tension between national security and civil liberties, and it is frequently cited in debates over the limits of free speech in times of political crisis.California tax authorities have flagged over 1,500 high-end vehicles sold by 500 dealerships as likely being registered through Montana LLCs in an attempt to avoid California sales tax and vehicle registration fees. These vehicles—worth more than $300 million collectively—are tied to a long-running strategy used by buyers of luxury assets like exotic cars, yachts, and RVs to exploit Montana's zero percent sales tax and minimal registration costs. Dealers and buyers now face possible penalties, audits, and investigations as California intensifies enforcement.The scheme works like this: a buyer sets up a Montana LLC, purchases and registers the vehicle under that entity, and keeps the car out-of-state on paper—even if it's garaged and driven daily in a state like California. That regulatory fiction is precisely what states are cracking down on. Bloomberg Tax recently highlighted the scale of the problem, noting that more than 600,000 vehicles are likely registered in Montana but used elsewhere, costing states billions annually in uncollected taxes.Montana LLCs have become a go-to workaround for the wealthy looking to sidestep their home-state tax obligations. While technically legal under Montana law, when the vehicle is used in another state without proper registration or tax payment, it becomes a form of tax evasion. States like Illinois and Utah are following California's lead, passing laws to “look through” LLCs and hold in-state beneficial owners accountable.This isn't just a niche tax dodge—it's a broader challenge to state tax enforcement. As wealthier individuals increasingly exploit differences between state tax codes, it's prompting legal reforms and inter-agency cooperation to close loopholes once thought too obscure or dispersed to address. California's latest enforcement push suggests these Montana LLC schemes are no longer flying under the radar—and that other states may soon follow with penalties and structural reforms of their own.California Finds 1,500 Vehicles Linked to Montana Tax SheltersNearly two-thirds of the U.S. Department of Justice's Federal Programs Branch—the unit charged with defending Trump administration policies in court—has resigned or announced plans to leave since Donald Trump's reelection. Out of roughly 110 attorneys, 69 have exited, according to a list reviewed by Reuters. The exodus includes nearly half the section's supervisors and is far greater than typical turnover seen in prior administrations. While the Trump administration maintains its legal actions are within constitutional bounds, current and former DOJ lawyers cite an overwhelming workload and ethical concerns as key drivers of the departures.Many career lawyers reportedly struggled to defend policies they saw as legally dubious or procedurally flawed, including efforts to revoke birthright citizenship and claw back federal funding from universities. Several feared they'd be pressured to make misleading or unethical arguments in court. In some cases, lawyers were expected to defend executive orders with minimal input from the agencies involved. A recent whistleblower complaint even alleged retaliation against a supervisor who refused to make unsupportable claims in immigration cases.Despite the mass departures, the Trump administration continues to rely heavily on the unit as it seeks to expand executive power following favorable Supreme Court rulings. The DOJ has reassigned attorneys from other divisions, brought in over a dozen political appointees, and exempted the unit from the federal hiring freeze to keep up with litigation demands. Critics argue the changes undermine DOJ independence, while supporters claim the administration is merely ensuring its policies get a fair defense in court.Two-thirds of the DOJ unit defending Trump policies in court have quit | ReutersAn $8 billion trial kicks off this week in Delaware where Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and several current and former Facebook leaders are accused by shareholders of knowingly violating a 2012 FTC consent decree aimed at protecting user privacy. The lawsuit stems from the 2018 revelation that Cambridge Analytica accessed data from millions of Facebook users without their consent, ultimately leading to billions in fines and costs for Meta—including a $5 billion penalty from the FTC in 2019. Shareholders, including union pension funds like California's State Teachers' Retirement System, want Zuckerberg and others to reimburse the company, alleging they operated Facebook as a law-breaking enterprise.Defendants in the case include Sheryl Sandberg, Marc Andreessen, Peter Thiel, and Reed Hastings. While Meta itself is not a defendant, the case focuses on the board's alleged failure to oversee privacy practices and enforce the 2012 agreement. The plaintiffs must prove what legal experts call the most difficult claim in corporate law: a total failure of oversight by directors. Delaware law gives leeway for poor business decisions—but not illegal ones, even if they're profitable.Zuckerberg is expected to testify, and plaintiffs argue he personally directed deceptive privacy practices and tried to offload stock ahead of the Cambridge Analytica scandal to avoid losses, allegedly netting $1 billion. Defendants deny wrongdoing, claiming the company took privacy seriously by investing in compliance and being deceived by Cambridge Analytica.Meta investors, Zuckerberg to square off at $8 billion trial over alleged privacy violations | Reuters 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's that old saying: two's company and three's a crowd? I suppose that's the way you could view American politics and our two-party system. The Democrats and Republicans have done all they can to minimize any other parties coming to predominance. As you know, it wasn't always Democrats and Republicans. Initially, there were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. Plus, later, we had the Whig party. However, throughout generations, we have evolved into the two parties we have today. But if Elon Musk has his way, we're going to become a multiparty system with his new America party, And that could shake up politics as we know it... Click Here To Subscribe Apple PodcastsSpotifyAmazon MusicGoogle PodcastsTuneIniHeartRadioPandoraDeezerBlubrryBullhornCastBoxCastrofyyd.deGaanaiVooxListen NotesmyTuner RadioOvercastOwlTailPlayer.fmPocketCastsPodbayPodbeanPodcast AddictPodcast IndexPodcast RepublicPodchaserPodfanPodtailRadio PublicRadio.comReason.fmRSSRadioVurblWe.foYandex jQuery(document).ready(function($) { 'use strict'; $('#podcast-subscribe-button-13292 .podcast-subscribe-button.modal-687478b889ef6').on("click", function() { $("#secondline-psb-subs-modal.modal-687478b889ef6.modal.secondline-modal-687478b889ef6").modal({ fadeDuration: 250, closeText: '', }); return false; }); });

This Day in Legal History: Alien ActOn June 25, 1798, the United States Congress passed the Alien Act, one of the four laws collectively known as the Alien and Sedition Acts. Signed into law by President John Adams, the Alien Act authorized the president to order the deportation of any non-citizen deemed "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States." This law emerged during a time of heightened political tension and fear of foreign influence, particularly as hostilities with France escalated during the Quasi-War. The Federalist-controlled government promoted the act as a necessary measure to protect national security, but it quickly drew criticism from the rival Democratic-Republican Party.Critics argued the act violated fundamental principles of due process and civil liberties, granting the executive branch unchecked power over immigration and expulsion. The law did not require a criminal conviction or even a hearing, allowing deportation based solely on presidential discretion. Although the Alien Act had a two-year sunset clause and was never directly enforced through mass deportations, its passage contributed to a growing divide between Federalists and Jeffersonians.The broader set of Alien and Sedition Acts also targeted political dissent, with the Sedition Act criminalizing speech critical of the government. These laws played a central role in the 1800 presidential election, fueling opposition that ultimately helped Thomas Jefferson defeat John Adams. In the long run, the Alien Act became emblematic of federal overreach and was widely viewed as an overreaction to perceived threats. It underscored early challenges in balancing national security with individual rights and helped lay the groundwork for later debates on immigration and executive authority.A decade after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, a Christian legal group is preparing to challenge the decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The move comes amid broader conservative momentum, including a Southern Baptist Convention resolution calling for the ruling's repeal and a recent Supreme Court decision upholding Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Despite these developments, legal experts, including conservatives, see little chance the Court will take up the challenge. John Bursch, a former Obergefell litigator, noted that overturning such a major precedent typically requires both time and significant public advocacy—Roe v. Wade, for instance, remained in force for nearly 50 years before being overturned in Dobbs.Nonetheless, Liberty Counsel is moving forward with a Supreme Court appeal on behalf of Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple just days after Obergefell. Davis was found liable for $100,000 in emotional distress damages, and the group will argue that her actions were protected by the First Amendment. The Sixth Circuit rejected that argument, stating that Davis acted as a public official and thus could not claim constitutional protection for her refusal. Liberty Counsel also intends to ask the Court to reconsider the core ruling in Obergefell, comparing their strategy to how Dobbs upended abortion rights.Legal observers remain skeptical. The Supreme Court already declined to hear Davis's earlier appeal, and while Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito expressed concerns about the scope of Obergefell, they said Davis had not properly raised the issue in lower courts. That procedural misstep could again doom her case. Meanwhile, political efforts are mounting in conservative states, with resolutions and bills promoting "covenant marriage" that excludes same-sex couples. Still, critics such as the ACLU see these moves as largely symbolic and lacking real legal traction.Same-Sex Marriage Challenge Seen as Long Shot at Supreme CourtA new ruling in the case Bartz et al v. Anthropic PBC has provided the first major legal decision on whether training generative AI models qualifies as fair use under U.S. copyright law. District Judge William Alsup concluded that using legitimately purchased books to train AI models like Anthropic's Claude counts as transformative fair use, as long as the books are bought for training and then destroyed afterward. This decision gives AI developers a tentative legal framework, or “roadmap,” for creating compliant large language models, though the ruling is not without limits. Alsup allowed separate claims involving pirated training materials to proceed to trial, drawing a sharp line between lawful acquisition and copyright infringement.The court's ruling highlights the four traditional fair use factors, placing significant weight on the transformative nature of AI training while minimizing the importance of its commercial impact on the original market. Alsup asserted that the use was transformative enough to outweigh concerns over licensing markets, suggesting that AI training doesn't necessarily harm authors' ability to profit from their work. This view diverges from recent interpretations emphasizing market harm, such as the Supreme Court's 2022 Warhol decision. While this reasoning favors developers, it also creates tension with copyright owners, who argue the ruling downplays existing licensing practices.The decision notably distances itself from claims involving pirated materials. Alsup treated the copying and use of pirated books as a separate issue that may still result in substantial liability, including statutory damages. This split decision—approving the use of lawfully acquired materials but scrutinizing pirated content—offers a compromise approach that courts in similar cases might adopt. With multiple lawsuits against OpenAI and Meta pending, Alsup's ruling could influence upcoming decisions, though judges in other districts may interpret the law differently. The opinion suggests that training can be transformative and lawful under certain conditions but reinforces that AI companies must source training data responsibly.Mixed Anthropic Ruling Builds Roadmap for Generative AI Fair UseAnthropic wins key US ruling on AI training in authors' copyright lawsuit | ReutersKilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national previously deported under the Trump administration despite a court order barring his removal, is set to appear in a Nashville court to determine the terms of his release from jail. A U.S. magistrate judge ruled that Abrego could not be detained pending trial, citing insufficient evidence that he poses a danger. Abrego has pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiring to smuggle migrants into the U.S., accusations his legal team argues were intended to justify his unlawful deportation. His case has drawn attention as a symbol of the Trump administration's controversial immigration policies and has sparked civil rights concerns.The court noted that even if Abrego is released from criminal custody, immigration authorities may still detain him. The judge questioned the reliability of the government's witnesses, many of whom are convicted smugglers or deportees seeking leniency. Prosecutors allege Abrego transported migrants, including minors, on over 100 trips between Texas and Maryland, often accompanied by his own children to avoid suspicion. However, the court viewed these claims skeptically due to the witnesses' motivations and criminal backgrounds.U.S. officials initially labeled his deportation an “administrative error” and resisted calls to return him, raising further due process concerns. Another judge is investigating whether the administration violated court orders related to his removal. Ultimately, the Justice Department brought Abrego back to face charges, but the judge's recent ruling underscores the court's commitment to ensuring his constitutional rights are respected.Returned deportee Abrego due in US court over bail conditions | Reuters 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

Trump has Elon Musk back in the oval office to announce they are going to make the DOGE cut permanent plus the Presidents attack on the Federalist Society i just way off base. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Trump has Elon Musk back in the Oval Office to announce they are going to make the DOGE cut permanent. Plus, the president's attack on the Federalist Society is just way off base.

In our divided world we face or avoid conflicts on a frequent basis. I turned to Bob Bordone and Joel Salinas to find out the best strategies to deal with these, including having them take on a mock conflict between each other on the merits of Covid research.Audio fileYou can also find this on Spotify and Apple podcasts with Ground Truths.The video is also posted on YouTubeTranscript with Audio LinksEric Topol (00:06):Well, hello. It's Eric Topol with Ground Truths, and we're going to get into a new book called Conflict Resilience: Negotiating Disagreement Without Giving Up or Giving In, and we're lucky to have its two authors, Bob Bordone, who is a Senior Fellow at Harvard Law School, and Joel Salinas, who is a physician, neurologist, a clinician scientist at NYU. So welcome both Bob and Joel.Bob Bordone and Joel Salinas (00:34):Thank you for having us. Yeah, looking forward to the conversation.Eric Topol (00:37):Yeah. So first, how did you guys get together? This is a pretty diverse, you got law and medicine, usually they don't talk to each other very much.Bob Bordone (00:46):Well, we were very fortunate. I mean, we basically were friends, but part of that friendship, I think emerged from work that I do around conflict issues in the Mass General system and then just the larger, bigger Mass General, Harvard community. Yeah, so this began really as a friendship where we were each swimming in very different waters, but then as we would start to talk, we realized there was a lot of connection and maybe the possibility to bring two different disciplines together in a way that might be practically useful and make an impact. And even when we started writing this, which was during Covid, what seemed to be some pretty polarizing times that were unlikely to resolve by the time the book would come out.Eric Topol (01:44):Yeah, well you sure hit it with the divisiveness and the polarized world that we live in is perhaps worse than ever, certainly in all my years, and probably long before then as well. So this topic of resilience, it's a very interesting concept because some people might think of resilience as just being tough. So go into a conflict and just go heavy tough. That obviously is not what you're writing about. And I guess maybe we can start off, what was the goal here? Obviously, there's other books that have addressed this topic, I'm sure, but yours is somewhat unique in many respects because it brings in the science of it and many strategies perhaps that have never been developed. But when you got together, what was the mission that you set out to do?Joel Salinas (02:38):Yeah, well maybe I can start out and then you can add on. So my research has been all around understanding how social relationships influenced brain health, and one of the things that I was seeing was social isolation and loneliness had been steadily increasing. Want to figure out what kind of interventions or what are the factors that are involved here? And I think one of the things that has stood out is just the difficulty with being able to navigate conflict in different contexts. And so, the idea around conflict resilience is really, even though there's been lots of books on what to say and what specific tactics to use, I think that there was this skillset around just being able to sit with the discomfort of that disagreement, which will ultimately help make it much more useful to take on those tactics. One way to think about it, if it's like all these tactics are like learning how to cook with a set of recipes in the kitchen, what we're really proposing here is that you also need to be able to stand the heat of the kitchen to even be able to cook.Eric Topol (03:47):Okay. Go ahead, Bob.Bob Bordone (03:49):Yeah, and I would say I was starting to write about my first kind of piece on this topic where I use the word conflict resilience was in 2018, and it really came from an observed dynamic that I was seeing in my teaching of Harvard Law School students. I was on the admissions committee, I'd been on the admissions committee for many years. I knew that we worked very hard and were quite successful in fact, at bringing together a very diverse student body, including politically. And people sometimes maybe think of elite law schools as being very progressive. But Harvard Law School, the biggest student organization is actually the Federalists, which is the conservative students. And despite that effort, what I noticed in the classroom was a reduction in conversation, diversity of viewpoint across the board, interesting classrooms became boring. And even though I was teaching around conflict and negotiation and difficult conversations, I would read in students' journals things like, I want to avoid conflict or I don't want to get into it.Bob Bordone (04:59):And so, it occurred to me that quite a part, as Joel said, from any skills, if we don't develop this capacity to sit with disagreement, then we will never get to problem solving. I'm in favor of problem solving. But this paper on conflict resilience, its original title was called Against Problem Solving. Mostly because I thought that if we had opened the possibility of problem solving as a precondition for entering the room, then we might never enter the room, particularly if we've told the demonized and dehumanized story about them. And so, that somehow we had to make the case that sitting with the discomfort of the disagreement, even if it didn't mean problem solving, although we hope for that, even if we didn't mean that it was worthwhile and it was important. And so, part of what was really attractive to me about joining up with Joel is that he just brought all of this brain science aspect to it that I had this kind of teaching and kind of academic in the negotiation and dispute resolution research experience, but couldn't bring to bear the kind of brain science parts of, well, what is going on in our brain when we do want to run or when we get into that really unproductive battle.Eric Topol (06:27):Yeah, I agree that the unique part here is that whole scaffolding with the neuroscience, the behavioral science, and those five Fs that you mentioned. You alluded to fight, flight, freeze, fawn, or fester. Yeah, so avoidance of conflict has kind of been the default for many people now because we have political divides, we have anti-science versus pro-science divides and on and on. There's a quote in the book that I thought we'd start off with because it really lays the groundwork from you both. “The biggest hidden barrier to being conflict resilient stems from the inability or unwillingness to face and sit with our own internal conflicts - the negotiations between our divided and sometimes contradictory “selves.” Even more surprising is that although there are dozens of self-help books on negotiation and conflict resolution, almost none of them spend any meaningful time on this critical intrapersonal barrier to handing conflict.” So maybe Joel, maybe start you off here. I guess you were bullied as a kid, and maybe that gives you a little background here. Joel, tell us about that if you would.Bob Bordone (07:46):Hey, Eric. On our bad days sometimes I probably inadvertently bully Joel still today, but he's pretty resilient now.Joel Salinas (07:53):Yeah, I'm a Teflon. So I think I am generally conflict of what an individual, and I think a lot of listeners and viewers can relate with that experience. And I think that also kind of speaks to some of the neuroscience that comes into this, which is that our brain has really evolved to be a fortune telling machine. It takes all of our past experiences, turns them into memories, and then makes projections about what's going to happen. And this projection or prediction of what's going to happen might as well be reality for our brain's sake. And so, if we had really negative experiences with conflict in the past growing up, whether through our families or the schoolyard or others, there'll be likely a very negative charge of negative emotional charge that comes with that. And what that does is that it increases the chances that you'll trigger this system for salience and arousal, which then sets off the alarms essentially in your body that then creates these fight or flight type responses where you're more likely to fall back on these really reflexive behaviors to make the bad thing less bad.Joel Salinas (09:08):And when you do that, whether it's through avoiding or to blowing through conflict like a battering ram that then trains your brain to assign some kind of a reward using the orbital frontal cortex, a system that kind of keeps tabs over how much reward you get for a behavior, it makes it much more likely that you'll do it again. And so, we from a very young age, develop a propensity to either avoid conflict or tackle it. And it varies depending on the context and how you're feeling, but it just makes it much, much harder to be able to bring on a much more thoughtful and deliberative approach to conflict.Eric Topol (09:49):Yeah, I mean, I think one of the salient points is that avoiding the conflict can make things worse. And as you described that it's not, I would've thought that there are some people who are just innately gifted to being diplomatic and artful about having to deal with the conflict issue and others, there's just no hope. But in fact, it can be acquired. And you alluded to this kind of neuroplasticity, the brain and you advocate for chair work. Can you tell us about chair work, because that's something I wouldn't have thought would help in this manner.Bob Bordone (10:30):Sure. I mean, I'll say a little bit work about that. A big part of this chair work idea, frankly, is influenced by work in internal family systems. And I was very fortunate early in my career, even though I was at teaching at law school to start partnering with some folks who did IFS work, they call it peace work often. But the chair work is really identifying some of these conflicted sides of ourself, right? The side of ourself that maybe feels like it's important and okay to raise this issue because it's something that matters to me and maybe the side of ourself that feels like it's pointless and it will hurt the relationship and maybe the side of ourself that's fearful and to name each of them. And then to actually give each in preparation a physical chair where we sit in that chair and give voice to each of those sides.Bob Bordone (11:32):And I'm imagining that at least some people listening to this will say, this sounds very hokey, and does he really mean going to the chairs? And the answer is, yes, I do mean that because there is something about the physicality of it that forces you to give voice to something that is true and real in you. And the chair work is very helpful to set up what an opening might be into a hard conversation, meaning that all of the chairs are real and authentic and okay, they're worthy of getting some voice. So as someone who teaches in a law school, it's all about advocacy. And you would find students who would be very good at advocating on behalf of a client would be incredibly poor at advocating on behalf of themself. And so, separating out the side that maybe has a little bit of feeling, it's selfish, but actually giving it a legitimate voice, help them when they get to the table to be able to say, I'm worried about this, or I realize I may be wrong about this, or it might be upsetting. And also, it's important and deserves to be heard because one of the things around avoidance is we often do avoidance in service of preserving the relationship or not disrupting. And we do maybe preserve the relationship for the time being of the person across the table, except we go home and there's still the side of us that is not feeling good about it, and the person we're not preserving the relationship with is that side, then we just get to have a sleepless night. And so, that's really the kind of idea behind the chair work.Eric Topol (13:22):That's helpful, Bob. I guess managing conflict, of course, I think we know you don't get emotional. Okay, sure. But yeah, there's three parts of that, three components, self-awareness. We've been talking about that deep listening, which of course when you're engaging in a discussion that's potentially leading to escalation of a conflict or the amplification that is really important. And then effective assertion. Now, that's where it seems to me things fall apart. If you're making effective assertion, then everything kind of blows up. So tell us about how you can be assertive and still, you're not trying to win the argument. I get that, but how can you be assertive and still come out in a positive way?Joel Salinas (14:16):Maybe I can start, Bob.Joel Salinas (14:19):I think one of the things that really is a good predictor of how effective you'll be at effective assertion is how good you were at the deep listening part. So the more genuine you are and curious you are about the perspective of the other person, really understanding what are the set of facts, experiences, beliefs that eventually lead up to that headline of what their position is or what their interests are. The better you'll be able articulate your own perspective while still engaging in the conversation. And the other thing that's really important here is that in that listening piece, it's really essential to be able to bring in tenets of really great listening that includes eliminating distractions, both external and internal. It involves having a nonjudgmental position toward the other person and being able to reflect an understanding of what the other person is saying. But all of that does not mean that you are endorsing their point of view. And I think that's really essential. It's really about getting as clear as you can about where the other person is coming from. So that way when you have an opportunity to share your perspective, you're able to really speak to the concerns of the other person and your own.Eric Topol (15:46):Yeah. Well, in reading the book, it took me, interestingly to an evening discussion I had with a very close friend.Eric Topol (15:56):And he was saying, we do need a randomized trial of the measles vaccine, MMR for autism. And I said, what? And I started thinking about, well, I'm going to hear him out because there's so much evidence now that you would think this has been totally debunked. And his view is, well, it can't hurt. And I'm thinking, well, so in that discussion, a lot of these points that you've been raising help me to come not to a point where basically I was trying to put a bow on it, as you said, or trying to externalize or abstract it. But to have a happy ending with him about this saying, okay, well it's never going to get done, but if you want to get it, I'm supportive of that. We don't do enough of this. I had to listen to what he had to say. I had to deal with my own confirmation biases and not get emotional and all that stuff, right. Now, I'd like the two of you to role play on something like that if you would. And let me just give you an example. Maybe you can run with it. Let's go to Covid, okay?Eric Topol (17:14):So one of you will take the side that we shouldn't do any more Covid research because the pandemic is over and we need to be efficient and not use these funds for other things. Covid is over, Long Covid is a hoax, and the other person will take the side that, no, this is a really big deal because Covid has not gone away and there's still a endemic of the virus, Long Covid in millions of people. Who wants to take away the funds? Would that be you, Bob?Bob Bordone (17:52):As a lawyer, I am happy to take any side.Eric Topol (17:55):Okay. You are the one to be on that side. Okay. And Joel, you are going to be the pro science side, if you will. Can you start that argument?Bob Bordone (18:05):Eric, can I make a suggestion? Yeah, but I'm happy to. It might be fun if one of us tries to be a person who hasn't read the book and the other person maybe tries to actually model the skills. What do you think about that?Eric Topol (18:18):Sure. Yeah, that's fine.Joel Salinas (18:19):Bob, I'll take on the unskilled position.Bob Bordone (18:22):Okay, fine.Joel Salinas (18:25):All right. So Bob, you know what? I keep hearing about people wanting to cut Covid funding and just really, I just can't believe it. It just makes me want to throw up because there's such an important need to do this research. It's just critical to understand the long-term effects of it, and Covid even gone yet. So I just can't believe that people would even want to cut this research at all.Bob Bordone (18:50):Well, first of all, it sounds like you're stunned and surprised by this. Am I right about that?Joel Salinas (18:56):Yeah, I'm beyond stunned. I'm revolted by it.Bob Bordone (19:01):So you're pretty angry about it. And I'm curious if I can ask you, you said that the disease is still going on, and of course Covid still exists. I am curious from your perspective, what do you think the benefits of spending lots and lots of money on the diseases at this point, since it's not at that level where it's killing a lot of people?Joel Salinas (19:30):Well, I think that it is killing a lot of people. Still, the disease hasn't gone away and it has a huge impact on health. I think we're still feeling the impacts on that. So I think that being able to understand what the impact does require funding to be able to do the research. And if we don't do that research, then we don't understand what interventions there can be.Bob Bordone (19:51):And what are the impacts? I mean, clearly there's impacts of the pandemic broadly in our society, but what are the kinds of health impacts from your perspective that research would be helpful to from a medical perspective?Joel Salinas (20:05):Well, for sure it impacts cognition. We have people talking about brain fog and Long Covid, and that has a real societal impact on productivity and people's ability to engage in life. It affects people's mood. And then you've got the people who have respiratory symptoms from Covid that have continued to gone on, and that decreases their ability to do their day-to-day things. It's a real societal impact.Bob Bordone (20:28):And how would you think about balancing whatever impact Covid has from all of the other funding choices that need to be made given a shrinking research pool for funds?Joel Salinas (20:44):I don't know. I mean, I think it's an important priority, and I know that there's a lot of other priorities. I think it needs to be weighed against a lot of other big programs that are out there. I just want to make sure that it doesn't go away because it needs to happen.Bob Bordone (20:56):Yeah. No, it's helpful to hear that. And if we had more time, I'd ask you some more questions. I mean, one thing that, as I think about this is given just the number of priorities out there, I worry that because Covid was in the press so much and is so politicized that we overweight the importance of money in that direction. And I would say that there's probably other things if we have a fixed set of money that kills a lot more people and has a lot more health impact. And so, I'd rather see the funds get placed there than just satisfy some kind of highly salient political issue.Joel Salinas (21:40):And I just want to make sure that the funding happens. I mean, it should be to a level that it makes sense to continue the funding so that we get good results from it, that it can be applied. But yeah, I guess you're right that it needs to be weighed against other research priorities. I mean, that's a whole other topic that gets me upset, but I think I just want to make sure that this funding doesn't go away.Bob Bordone (22:03):Yeah. So it sounds like for you, the concern is less about reduction and more about moving it to zero?Joel Salinas (22:12):I think so, yeah.Bob Bordone (22:13):And if it did move to zero, what is the thing you'd be most worried about?Joel Salinas (22:18):I think we would lose out on this really unique opportunity after all these people had been affected by this condition to understand the long-term effects. So that way, if there's another resurgence, we'll understand what can we do about it to mitigate those effects. I mean, we're still trying to figure out what the effects of a lockdown were on people. I think that's something that needs to be better understood.Bob Bordone (22:40):So for you, the research is very forward looking about future pandemics that might come up.Joel Salinas (22:46):Absolutely.Bob Bordone (22:47):And that might be something that I'd be more interested in than how can we prevent future pandemics than I would worrying about. I mean, it's very regrettable what has happened to this set of people who have Long Covid, of course. I just think that that has happened, and I would almost rather see the funds move in the direction of how do we prevent another pandemic than how do we worry about a relatively small set of people, although it's tragic on them, a relatively small set of people who may still suffer those benefits.Joel Salinas (23:26):Yeah, I think we do want to focus on the prevention, definitely. I still just don't want to lose sight of making sure that we're getting the research done that needs to happen.Bob Bordone (23:38):Should we cut?Eric Topol (23:39):That's helpful. These are two experts in conflict resilience here. I mean, the only thing I'd add is that Long Covid is affecting millions of Americans, perhaps as many as 60 million people around the world, and we have no treatment for it. So it's a big deal.Bob Bordone (23:56):I just want to say for the record, I was just being an actor there.Eric Topol (24:03):Yeah, that's okay.Bob Bordone (24:04):I don't even know if my arguments on the other side were making sense, but I was trying.Eric Topol (24:08):I think you did a good job. I think both of you did a good job. I think the point here is that you were able to have a civil discussion, make your points, I forced you into it. You couldn't avoid it. You're in touch, obviously with your own innate issues. You kind of really emphasize that throughout the book, which is you got to be in touch with yourself, not just about your priors, but also your current, what you're feeling, your posture, your heart rate, all these other physical things. So you really got us queued into what's important when you're having a discussion that could lead to, it could exacerbate the conflict rather than help come to a happy mid stance or where both people feel that they've expressed themselves adequately. I really love the Frederick Douglass quote in your book, “if there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation…want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.” I think that is so rich. And before we wrap up, I just want to get your overall thoughts. What haven't we touched on in our brief conversation about the topic, about the book that we should before we close today? Maybe start with you, Bob.Bob Bordone (25:53):Yeah, I mean, in some sense, I think it connects to exactly that quote, which is that without conflict, we are not going to get the kind of changes and dynamism we would want in our organizations, whether it's a medical center, a country, a family, but also without the conflict, we don't get the deeper connection that is possible because it's not until the first, no, that all of the yeses actually have the meaning that they should. And so, even though it seems scary to go into conflict, what I would say is it offers opportunities maybe for agreement, but if not for agreement, for a deeper kind of more authentic and real relationship. And I would just say for me, part of this is inviting people to reframe the way they think about what conflict can do in their lives.Joel Salinas (26:58):Yeah. I think if there's one thing that listeners or viewers take from this is awareness is more than half the battle. So just really taking the time to become more aware of how you react to different disagreements with different conflicts, how you're responding to it physically and mentally, and what specific patterns might emerge in terms of whether it's with colleagues, with people with authority, with family members. And I think that alone begins to get you to pay more attention about how you can be more deliberate in your responses. And ideally, you can try out some of the skills from the book with those disagreements that are a little less stressful for you. Just like when you go to the gym, you don't start out by lifting the heaviest weights. You start out by getting the reps down with the good form, and then you build that muscle. And similar with building the brain programming wiring around it is to start low and build up from there.Eric Topol (27:57):Yeah. Well, I think what you have put forth in the book will go down anchoring such an important problem. It's magnified now than more than ever. People are socially isolated, not just in the pandemic, but post pandemic and the divisiveness is profound. So hopefully the tips that you've provided, the science behind it, the practical ways to navigate and deal with this will help people as we go forward. So thank you both for the work you did in putting together the book, and hopefully some of our listeners or viewers will use these tools in the future and will have much better exchanges with others who have different views, different what might be considered adversarial perspective, whatever. So thank you very much for joining today.Joel Salinas (28:58):Well, thank you.Bob Bordone (28:59):Thank you for having us. It's been a delight.********************************As you can imagine, I'm excited to get my new book out on May 6th. It's about extended our healthspan, and I introduce 2 of my patients (one below, Mrs. L.R.) as exemplars to learn from. My op-ed preview of the book was published in The NY Times last week. Here's a gift link. I did a podcast with Mel Robbins on the book here. Here's my publisher ‘s (Simon and Schuster) site for the book. If you're interested in the audio book, I am the reader (first time I have done this, quite an experience!)Here's the back cover to give you an idea of what some people had to say about it.Thanks for reading and subscribing to Ground Truths.If you found this interesting please share it!That makes the work involved in putting these together especially worthwhile.All content on Ground Truths—its newsletters, analyses, and podcasts, are free, open-access.Paid subscriptions are voluntary and all proceeds from them go to support Scripps Research. They do allow for posting comments and questions, which I do my best to respond to. Please don't hesitate to post comments and give me feedback. Many thanks to those who have contributed—they have greatly helped fund our summer internship programs for the past two years. Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

This week we open the Jefferson Administraion as he attempts to undo all the Federalists had done.

In the second of our two episodes about the American Revolution David talks to historian Eric Nelson about the ideas that shaped the US Constitution. Was the office of President a victory for the people who still wanted a king or for those who never wanted one again? What was old and what was new about the idea of the separation of powers? What really divided the Federalists and the Antifederalists? And how are these arguments still being played out in the early days of Trump 2.0? Out tomorrow: a special bonus episode for PPF+ subscribers on King Donald The First: David explores the arguments being made in 2025 for the restoration of monarchy in America. Who's making them and why? What on earth are they thinking? Sign up now to get this and all our bonus episodes plus ad-free listening https://www.ppfideas.com/join-ppf-plus Also sign up now for the latest edition of our free fortnightly newsletter out tomorrow https://www.ppfideas.com/newsletters Next time: French Revolution 1: Sieyes Past Present Future is part of the Airwave Podcast Network Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week we cover the constitutional crisis that was the Election of 1800, as Federalists ask the question "Jefferson or Burr?".

This Day in Legal History: Judiciary Act of 1801On February 13, 1801, the U.S. Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, a controversial law that reshaped the federal court system. Enacted in the final days of John Adams' presidency, the Act reduced the number of Supreme Court justices from six to five and created sixteen new federal judgeships. It also eliminated the justices' duty to "ride circuit" by establishing separate circuit courts with their own judges. The law expanded federal jurisdiction, making it easier for creditors to bring cases in federal courts and granting them broader enforcement powers. Federalists, who controlled Congress at the time, saw this as a way to strengthen the judiciary before Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson took office.Adams quickly filled the newly created judgeships with Federalist allies, leading to accusations of court-packing and what became known as the "Midnight Judges" scandal. Jefferson and his party viewed the Act as an illegitimate attempt to entrench Federalist power in the judiciary. In 1802, the newly elected Republican-majority Congress repealed the Act, effectively undoing the judicial restructuring. This marked one of the first major political battles over the structure and independence of the federal courts. It also set the stage for future conflicts over judicial appointments and reforms.The Judiciary Act of 1801 played a key role in shaping the relationship between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. It demonstrated how shifts in political power could influence the courts and foreshadowed later debates over judicial authority. The controversy surrounding the Act also contributed to the landmark 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, in which Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review. This episode remains a crucial moment in American legal history, illustrating the judiciary's evolving role in government.Cathy Harris, a Democratic appointee to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), has sued President Trump over her removal from office, arguing that the firing was unlawful. Trump also dismissed Ray Limon, the board's vice chair, and replaced Harris with Republican Henry Kerner as acting chair. The MSPB, an independent agency, hears appeals from federal workers who are fired or disciplined—a role that could become crucial as Trump pushes to shrink the federal workforce.Harris argues that her removal violates legal protections for independent agency officials, citing the Supreme Court's 1935 ruling in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which limits a president's ability to fire certain officials without cause. Trump's decision to involve Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency in identifying federal job cuts adds urgency to the case. The lawsuit is part of a broader legal battle, as Gwynne Wilcox, another Democratic official fired from the National Labor Relations Board, has filed a similar claim.A hearing is set for Thursday before U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, where Harris is seeking a temporary restraining order to regain her position. The White House defends Trump's authority to remove officials, setting up a potential Supreme Court fight over presidential power and the future of independent agencies.Member of US government employee appeals board sues over Trump firing | ReutersA federal court in Massachusetts has implemented new rules to curb "judge shopping" as lawsuits against President Trump's policies continue to mount. Chief U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor issued an order requiring that cases seeking to block federal laws or policies be randomly assigned across the entire district, preventing litigants from filing in single-judge courthouses in Springfield and Worcester to secure favorable rulings.This move aligns with a 2024 U.S. Judicial Conference policy aimed at discouraging strategic case filings, a practice criticized when conservatives challenged Democratic policies in Texas courts with Republican-appointed judges. Massachusetts, a frequent battleground for legal challenges to Trump's agenda, has seen its judges temporarily block his administration's efforts on government employee buyouts, research funding cuts, and prison transfers for transgender individuals.With most of Massachusetts' federal judges appointed by Democratic presidents, the concern was that plaintiffs could manipulate the system by filing in small courthouses with sympathetic judges. While some federal districts have adopted similar rules, others, including in Texas, have resisted. The issue remains contentious, with Senate Republicans and some conservative judges opposing the policy as unnecessary judicial interference.Massachusetts federal court curbs 'judge shopping' as Trump lawsuits mount | ReutersThe explosive growth of Bitcoin has brought with it a significant environmental toll, with mining now consuming up to 2.6% of U.S. electricity and producing emissions comparable to entire nations. Bitcoin's proof-of-work (PoW) system relies on energy-intensive mining, straining electrical grids, driving up prices, and using vast amounts of water for cooling. Despite these concerns, states like Texas have embraced miners, offering low-cost energy and deregulated markets.The Trump administration's January 2025 executive order on digital assets calls for “responsible growth,” but it remains unclear whether sustainability will be a priority. The order could enable states to integrate eco-friendly policies, such as tax incentives for green mining or licensing tied to renewable energy use. Addressing crypto's environmental impact could also be framed as an issue of energy independence and national security, potentially making it more politically viable.A carbon tax on PoW mining could be one way to push the industry toward cleaner energy, though it would be a tough sell under a deregulatory GOP administration. However, some conservatives, including economist Art Laffer, have supported carbon taxation in the past. If Bitcoin miners want to avoid future crackdowns, they may need to adopt sustainability measures before stricter policies are imposed. Whether the executive order leads to real change remains uncertain, but the environmental costs of crypto mining are only growing.Bitcoin's Boom Comes With Corresponding Booming Environmental Costs 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

Closing music courtesy of Banjo HangOut -- The William Tell OvertureThis podcast continues with a “Constitutional Minute”It escapes our notice that the election of Abraham Lincoln was a seminal event. Not just because it triggered secession.The election of Lincoln was the birth of political parties as we now know that term. The nation was emerging from what historians have labeled “the era of good feeling” a monumental misnomer if there ever was one. It earned its name because there were no political parties. The House of Representatives comprised Federalists and “Anti” Federalists with a smattering of Whigs (Anti-Jacksonian-democrats).There were no political parties in The Senate, there was no direct election of senators that had to wait for the 17th Amendment 1913.During this so-called era of “good feeling” it forced two presidential elections into the House of Representatives 1801 & 1824. Both times in a dispute over electoral ballots.

Season 8 Episode 3The true spirit of industry and capitalism is emblematic of choice and to reflect that idea means there must be a multiparty system in America and the world.The growth of special interests means there must be a counteracting force to serve the interests and grievances of everyday workers and taxpayers. This is the genesis of the need for new parties to come on the seen to serve the many different needs, perspectives, and ideologies of a diverse community of people. There must be a movement of organized labor to petition for not just for better standards of living and economic opportunity but also to secure our fundamental rights and liberties in every generation. Students of Indian, American, and other national histories know this too well.The problem in America, is that the average citizen not only does not know the essential importance of new parties throughout US history, but they have also been conditioned to believe and rely upon a lie; the two party system is the only means to achieving their fundamental needs and wants. Third parties have served essential functions in garnering support for new policy agendas and perpetuating them to the forefront of federal and local discourse. Like many social movements, they have shifted the moral narrative to include more and more people to get involved in the political process.Madison understood that party spirit would be inevitable, but he wasn't a fortune teller. Nonetheless, he was one of the only founders to be involved with both major parties during his day, the Federalists and the Democrat-Republican Party. He saw the necessity of parties to offer diffing points of views and emphasis on particular goals in what President Barack Obama calls the "arena of ideas" so as Madison understood the most popular ideas would come to the forefront. Many questions still remain. Did Madison believe such types of popular democracy were more effective than age old ideas of the primacy of aristocracy and oligarchies? Many people would say no; the founding fathers did not believe in such types of democracy, rather those most knowledgable and entrusted with the reigns of power should steer the course of a nation.That is for our generation to figure out: Does democracy function better when more people are involved or should those more "capable" decide how political decisions are made? I for one believe a multiparty system both gets more people involved while simultaneously, in President Obama's words, encourages more capable individuals to enter the political arena and discourse as too socially and culturally reform society for the better.

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.

Liberty is doomed where power is united - consolidated in the same hands. That's the warning Montesquieu gave us about separation of powers. This was one of the biggest battles between Federalists and Anti-Federalists But here's the twist: both sides used the exact same words to support opposite arguments. In this episode, we're diving into this critical debate over the ideas of the most-cited political writer of the ratification debates The post Anti-Federalist vs Federalist CLASH: Montesquieu and Separation of Powers first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Year(s) Discussed: 1814-1815 In the latter days of the War of 1812, President Madison had to rebuild a shattered administration and a decimated capital city while still working to bring the military conflict to a resolution. Meanwhile, in New England, the British took control of a large portion of Maine, and Federalists agitated against what they saw as a tyrannical Southern-dominated federal government. Also in this episode, we reach the end of the epic tale that is the long and scandalous career of General James Wilkinson. Source used for this episode can be found at https://www.presidenciespodcast.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Jay Treaty SignedOn November 19, 1794, the United States and Great Britain signed the Jay Treaty, formally titled the “Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation.” Negotiated by U.S. Chief Justice John Jay and British Foreign Secretary Lord Grenville, the treaty sought to resolve lingering tensions between the two nations following the American Revolutionary War. At its core, the agreement facilitated the withdrawal of British troops from forts in the Northwest Territory, a region that was still contested despite American sovereignty being recognized in the Treaty of Paris (1783).The treaty also addressed contentious issues such as British seizure of American ships and the debts owed by American citizens to British creditors. While the agreement provided for limited American trade rights in the British West Indies and a framework for resolving disputes over the U.S.-Canada border, it failed to stop British impressment of American sailors or guarantee broader trading rights. Domestically, the treaty sparked fierce political debate, with Federalists supporting it as a means of preserving peace and economic stability, while Jeffersonian Republicans decried it as overly conciliatory to British interests.The Jay Treaty is historically significant for establishing a precedent for diplomatic negotiation and emphasizing the importance of peaceful dispute resolution. While controversial at the time, it ultimately helped avert war with Britain and allowed the young United States to stabilize its economy and focus on internal growth. Its ratification in 1795 marked an important step in shaping U.S. foreign policy during its formative years. The treaty's mixed reception underscored the deepening political divisions in the United States, foreshadowing the partisan struggles that would define early American governance.Big Law firms are poised to see significant lobbying revenue gains under anticipated Republican control of the White House and Congress, as the GOP aims to advance a pro-business, “America First” agenda. Key areas of focus for lobbyists include revisiting elements of the 2017 tax law, reversing restrictions on fossil fuel development imposed by the Biden administration, and assisting with the confirmation of cabinet nominees. The Supreme Court's recent Loper Bright decision, which limits federal agencies' ability to interpret vague laws, adds another layer of legislative complexity, increasing demand for legal expertise in technical drafting.The potential uptick in lobbying activity echoes patterns seen in prior shifts of political power. Lobbying revenue rose sharply in 2017 and 2021 during transitions to unified party control. Firms like Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Akin Gump, Squire Patton Boggs, and K&L Gates are particularly well-positioned, with some deriving significant portions of their income from federal lobbying efforts. Brownstein Hyatt leads the pack, earning $50.9 million in lobbying revenue through the first three quarters of 2024.Major firms are already representing high-profile clients. For instance, Brownstein Hyatt has advocated for Apollo Global Management on portfolio-related issues, while Squire Patton Boggs has worked on food regulation for Mars Inc. Energy-related lobbying, such as advocating for liquefied natural gas export permits, is also expected to surge as Republicans aim to repeal Biden-era restrictions. Appropriations negotiations may further boost lobbying opportunities, as delayed bills give the GOP more leverage.Big Law Lobbyists See GOP Trifecta Haul Including Tax, EnergyThe State Bar of California has approved a proposal to expunge attorney discipline records from public view after eight years, provided the attorney has not faced subsequent disciplinary action during that time. This measure, which excludes cases of disbarment, aims to address racial disparities in the attorney discipline system. A 2019 study revealed that Black male attorneys in California were over three times more likely than their white counterparts to face probation, prompting a 2023 review committee to recommend changes to the system. The proposal now awaits approval from the California Supreme Court.The expungement policy is intended to balance accountability, transparency, and redemption opportunities, aligning California's attorney discipline practices with those in other states and professions like medicine and real estate. Critics, however, argue it could undermine transparency and public trust, with 74% of public comments opposing the plan. In contrast, a majority of attorney comments—69%—supported the change, noting it incentivizes maintaining clean records. If implemented, an estimated 2,353 attorneys would be immediately eligible for expungement. California, the second-largest state bar by membership, projects that this policy will reduce the long-term stigma attached to past disciplinary actions.California Bar aims to expunge attorney discipline records after 8 years | ReutersThe losing bidder for Alex Jones' bankrupt Infowars empire is challenging The Onion's winning bid, arguing it offered less cash and relied on questionable claim waivers. First United American Companies LLC (FUAC), which bid $3.5 million in cash, claims its offer was superior to The Onion parent company Global Tetrahedron LLC's $1.75 million bid. FUAC accuses The Onion of colluding with Sandy Hook families who supported the bid by waiving part of their claims against Jones.The bankruptcy trustee overseeing the sale, Christopher Murray, defended the auction as transparent and noted that the Sandy Hook families' waiver improved the overall value of The Onion's bid. The waiver was key in positioning The Onion's bid as the best-value offer, despite its lower cash amount. FUAC countered that these waivers are speculative and provide no real value to the bankruptcy estate, calling them akin to “monopoly” money.Judge Christopher M. Lopez, who previously raised concerns about the auction's transparency, is now considering the motion to disqualify The Onion's bid. The sale is part of an effort to liquidate Jones' estate and pay down the $1.5 billion in defamation judgments against him for spreading false claims about the Sandy Hook shooting. The trustee dismissed FUAC's accusations as baseless and an attempt to mislead the court.In case you haven't figured it out already, FUAC is a company affiliated with Alex Jones' snake oil sales. Obviously, Jones has an interest in seeing his assets purchased by a friendly company rather than The Onion which … is not friendly to Jones' interests. Infowars Bidder Moves to Disqualify The Onion's Winning OfferThe 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared likely to dismiss appeals by Amazon and SpaceX challenging the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), arguing the companies acted prematurely. Both companies sought to block NLRB cases alleging labor violations, with Amazon opposing a unionization case and SpaceX contesting claims of retaliatory firings. However, the appeals panel suggested that Amazon and SpaceX did not give lower court judges enough time to rule before filing their appeals.  Amazon's case, initially in Texas, was transferred to Washington, D.C., and SpaceX's to California, though these transfers are on hold pending appeals. The judges questioned whether the delays cited by Amazon and SpaceX constituted "effective denials," a standard necessary for appeals. Judge James Graves noted Amazon's unrealistic deadline demands, while Judge Irma Ramirez questioned SpaceX's assertion of deliberate judicial delay.  The NLRB argued that the companies imposed arbitrary deadlines to expedite decisions and delayed proceedings by resisting case transfers. Both companies face significant underlying NLRB cases, with Amazon fighting unionization at a New York warehouse and SpaceX denying allegations of retaliatory firings. If the appeals are dismissed, the companies could request a review by the full 5th Circuit, known for its conservative leanings.Amazon, SpaceX challenges to NLRB may be thrown out of appeals court | Reuters 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

The first US Presidential Elections were held in 1789 and George Washington was elected President. John Adams polled the 2nd highest electoral votes and became Washington's VP. A tie in the Election of 1800 brought in the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution, which established separate votes for the President and the VP from the election of 1804.  The Slavery debate dominated politics through most of the second half of the 19th Century, triggering the American Civil War as Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as the 16th US President.

Presented in Hilton Head Island, South Carolina on Saturday, October 12, 2024.Sponsored by Andy Hord.

Most of what they teach about the Bill of Rights completely skips over much of the real history. From the reason the Federalists opposed it, to Madison's flip-flop, and the totally ignored preamble - on this episode, I've got 5 key - and mostly hidden - truths about that just might change the way you view the Bill of Rights. The post Bill of Rights: 5 Hidden Truths They Never Teach first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Barry Shain talks about American Founding narratives. 00:00 American Visions02:13 The Declaration of Independence07:06 Equality10:00 Abraham Lincoln11:24 Victimology12:21 Self-Government14:26 Localism19:53 Lincoln Douglas Debates22:31 Civil, Natural & Inalienable Rights25:02 1619 Project27:34 Harry Jaffa32:26 Federalists and Nationalists37:01 The Federalist Papers39:02 ConservatismOur Sponsors:* Check out Express VPN: expressvpn.com/MATTER* Go to mymorningkick.com/HARRIS and watch Chuck Norris's video on how you can see incredible changes to your health. Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/conversations-that-matter8971/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

This is the sixth episode in an occasional series examining influential elections in U.S. history. The most recent episode, Election of 2000, was published on July 11. If you believe American society has never been as politically polarized as it is now, you may not be familiar with the late 1790s. Federalists and Republicans viciously attacked each other, trading accusations of frittering away the Constitution and imperiling the legacy of the American Revolution. The incumbent president John Adams was beset by a crisis with France verging on war. His vice president, Thomas Jefferson, was the leader of the political opposition. In this episode, historian Alan Taylor takes us back to a crazy time: the XYZ Affair, the Alien and Sedition Acts, and Aaron Burr! The election of 1800 had to be decided in the House of Representatives amid scheming to deny Jefferson the presidency. Jefferson's victory brought on the first peaceful transfer of power in the new republic, an important tradition that lasted until the election of 2020.

It almost seems like ancient history. But it was just seventeen days ago that the world watched as the opening ceremonies of the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris either baffled or offended pretty much ever one who isn't…. well… French. was it a parody of the Last supper painting – itself an inaccurate distortion of the actual Seder event. Or… was it a reenactment of several paintings of the behavior of the Greek god Dionysus? And if it was that, why did so many people not “get it?” while French people seemed to innately understand the whole thing.  In the aftermath of the Opening Ceremonies, Christians loudly objected while the Mayor of Paris blamed “far right reactionaries” for the outrage over what was, at best, confusing. So… is there any actual truth in any of this? Anything that we can learn from it all? Is there a cultural divide or was it just satanic Hollywood influence and art nouveau schtick? In the end, the idea that Americans are confused or have mixed reactions to the happenings in Paris is nothing new. This week in 1792, George Washington was just a few months from being unanimously elected as President. Things in American had stabilized after our Constitution had been at last ratified the year before. We had thrown off – or more accurately out – our own King. In the previous two years, newspapers had excitedly carried the reports of the French people, like us, rising up against the tyranny of the King. But this week in 1972, things would turn dark in Paris. King Louis XVI was arrested and declared an enemy of the people of France. Americans struggled to keep up with the happenings in Paris. Our focus was on our own mint and post office, politics, the new state of Kentucky, and indeed the first US Navy frigate began her construction. The New York Stock exchange was founded and the first true political party was formed, which strongly the policies of the Federalists. All those happenings in Paris were a long way off, across the Atlantic, and they were confusing. Weren't we anti-monarchial? wasn't one of the founding principles of the French revolutionaries “liberty,” just like our own revolution had been? Shouldn't we be supportive of the French people as they had supported us? Or was this French Revolution turning too dark, and apt to give rise to violence and instability – two things the Americans had all but eliminated? It may seem odd to us today, but this week in 1792, the French revolution was every bit as divisive and confusing to Americans as the Opening Ceremonies of the 2024 Olympics would be two hundred and thirty two years later. Almost to the day… “Claire… it's French…”

American presidents act almost like elected kings, with vast powers and very little accountability. But that wasn't the plan. Responding to anti-federalist warnings that presidents would eventually degenerate into a type of monarchy, Federalists like Tench Coxe, John Dickinson, James Iredell, and many others went into great detail explaining how the power of the executive branch would be extremely limited in comparison to the British Monarchy they fought a long, bloody war to free themselves from. The post Executive Branch: President, not a King (Federalist Arguments) first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Americans put up Liberty Poles to express political beliefs in the period of the Early Republic. These poles were massive, highly decorated, and highly contested. Both Federalists and Anti-Federalists used them to promote their ideas of what the new Republic should reflect in terms of “liberty.” Join us to discuss how different early American political life was compared to the romantic version in the movies! Episode 555.

Shays' Rebellion was repeatedly cited by Federalists as a primary reason to replace the Articles of Confederation with a Constitution with a stronger central government. But what if the threat was exaggerated? Anti-Federalists sure thought so. In this episode, we'll dive into the debate and explore James Madison's surprising later admission about this pivotal moment in American history The post Was the Constitution Sold on a Lie? Shays' Rebellion and Ratification first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

How did political parties come about in the early American republic? Dr. Lester Brooks, emeritus professor of American history at Anne Arundel Community College, explains how the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans came to be the first two political parties in the United States. Center for Civic Education

“If we lose the American Dream, we lose our country.” ~ Mike LindellSHOW NOTES: Website: MyPillow.comTwitter: @realmikelindellFacebook: RealMikeLindellInstagram: @michaeljlindellOrganizations Mentioned: MyPillow, MyStore, FrankSocial, FrankSpeech, Lindell Offense Fund, Election Crime Bureau, Lindell Recovery NetworkVerses Mentioned: Proverbs 13:7, Mark 9:43-48, Romans 10:10, Romans 10:13, Ephesians 2: 8-9, Hebrews 11 REMARKABLE LISTENER SPECIAL OFFER(S):Visit MyPillow.com and enter your email address to receive Mike's eBook, What are the Odds?, for free!Purchase a hard copy of Mike's book and receive $10 off AND Free Shipping with promo code, “REMARKABLE“Best Special Offer Yet!

America's top Covid vaccine skeptics are sounding the alert: New findings regarding DNA contamination of Covid mRNA shots might invalidate Big Pharma's liability shield and pave the way for major lawsuits. But will any lawyers or state AGs be brave enough to bring the case? And will any judges be brave enough to rule in their favor? Dr. Robert Malone helps guide Charlie through the findings. Plus, Margot Cleveland of The Federalists digests Chuck Grassley's new revelations of a widespread FBI cover-up to protect the Biden clan from investigation.Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.