Podcasts about filburn

Episode 295-Bang and Bong… You just got Both Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 295 SUMMARY KEYWORDS Supreme Court ruling, Second Amendment, marijuana prohibition, gun rights, NRA, ACLU, Justice Thomas, Commerce Clause, firearm regulation, self-defense, Bruen framework, gun violence, international gun laws, warning shots, New Jersey gun law. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, just now we just got word of the Supreme Court handing down the ruling in the Hemani case, and this is really quite a startling win. (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1234_g2bh.pdf) Not necessarily because it was a win, but because it was a unanimous win! What we have is the U.S. Supreme Court in a nine to zero opinion essentially determining the unconstitutionality of marijuana creating a gun prohibitor under federal law. So, for these years you’ve had issues, and we’ve talked about it on the show, where folks that had even a medical marijuana weed card, or they used, or they had any kind of history of prior possession/conviction for misdemeanor marijuana. All that has caused just a lot of folks to not be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In the past, we actually coined the term from the show, “Bang or Bong, you can’t have both”. Because of how they, they being the Government, how the Government was interpreting this. To the degree where federal dealers were issued memoranda from ATF telling them that they could not sell to these folks that admitted to using all this regarding marijuana and laid out this as enforceable prohibition. Evan Nappen 02:15 And by the way, this is also the thing that Hunter Biden was prosecuted for. Hunter Biden’s gun case is essentially this issue as well. So, we’re happy to say, and not necessarily for any reason because of Hunter Biden, but because it is a win for the Second Amendment. To see a unanimous decision. Let that sink in, folks. Every judge on the Supreme Court agreeing with an enforcement of the Second Amendment. Just that alone, regardless of the issue, is really great to see. Just that. Here there were interesting bed fellows, as they say. We had the lawsuit challenge, etc., the legal action, joined the NRA and the ACLU on the same side. So, we had both the NRA and the ACLU on the same side arguing for this. To not prohibit individuals from Second Amendment rights. So, this is very significant, and it’s interesting. Page – 2 – of 12 Evan Nappen 03:39 Judge Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court. In the facts of this case, Hemani used marijuana a few times a week, and because of that the Government claimed that he’s automatically banned from possessing a firearm under federal law. And because Hemani admitted that he owns a gun, despite the ban, the Government was now seeking to prosecute him. To imprison him for up to 15 years and disarm him for life. This case here posed that question, whether the Government’s prosecution of Hemani is consistent with the Second Amendment. A unanimous decision found that it was not consistent with the Second Amendment. So, Teddy, what do you think about this decision? Teddy Nappen 04:40 Well, for me, as soon as this case came out, I had to look. What did Judge Thomas say? Because he’s the funniest of them all. Evan Nappen 04:49 Well, that’s true. Teddy Nappen 04:50 I had to go right to his opinion. And of course, Justice Thomas, being the greatest justice to have ever lived, and the fact that he is an originalist to perfection. Of course, he said we did not go far enough! Particularly, and I love how he writes this. “I agree with the Court that 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent Ali Hemani, and I join it’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to another issue: As a matter of both original meaning and this Court’s precedents . . .” It appears to exceed Congressional enumerated power and regulate interstate commerce. He attacks the commerce clause throughout this. He even highlights the fact that the Government, if the firearms possession by the drug user had previously traveled through interstate commerce, the commerce clause does not authorize Congress to regulate or ban possession of any item that has ever been offered for sale or cross state lines. He cites Alderman. His dissent is on the denial of certiorari, where this conversion of congressional authority under the commerce clause to a general police power is sort retained by the states. Evan Nappen 06:12 You see, this is really important, Teddy. Because what Judge Thomas is doing there is he’s going beyond. He’s looking at the power grab, the overreach of the power of interstate commerce. And ever since the expansion of that Wickard versus Filburn. (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/) Ever since the expansion of that, it basically empowered the Government, the federal Government, to do anything it wants, as long as they can make some tenuous argument that it somehow affects interstate commerce. And I’m really glad to see that he’s out there, at least as a voice trying to pull back that insane power grab that occurred back under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Teddy Nappen 06:58 As you’re reading through his opinion, too, he takes a bat directly to the congressional authority. He bashes the commerce clause directly of how. How is it that something travels, like, how does that fall Page – 3 – of 12 under interstate commerce when it’s not traveling between the states? He is going at it hard, outlining each bit case by case, showing the abuse by it. He even highlights how, I love this line, the gun possession statute issues in Lopez is not a regulation of economic activity, but a law to combat “crime and violence”, even at the local level. Literally calls it out. How is this economic activity when you’re just doing this for regulating crime? Evan Nappen 07:48 Oh yeah. Well, you know, in the decision, this is very interesting, they, they being the Court, outline their ruling, and why. And I think you’ll find it very interesting here, where they talk about that Mr. Hemani. He admitted his use of marijuana, and he knowingly possessed the gun in his home, being an “unlawful user of the substance”. And if you look at that, it seems to fit exactly what the law is prohibiting. And what the actual holding of the Supreme Court held that the Government’s prosecution of Hermani under 922 unlawful user provision is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. And here in the holding it actually says the Second Amendment protects the rights of all Americans, but they had that in quotes to keep and bear firearms for self-defense. So, there’s even an affirmation of the right to self-defense. They are citing Heller with that. Evan Nappen 09:15 Though, like most individual rights, it has its limits to determine when the Government infringes on the Second Amendment. The court begins by asking whether the amendment’s terms cover the conduct in question. If so, the Constitution presumptively protects it. That’s citing Bruen. To overcome the presumption, the Government bears the burden. The Government bears the burden of showing its regulatory efforts are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. That is the test, and the burden is on the Government to have to show it. The Government need not point to a historical twin or precise historical precursor that’s from Rahimi, that’s the Rahimi case. Instead, the appropriate analysis involves considering whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition. The government may reason by analogy. This is where the battle comes in, in our fight for our Second Amendment rights Evan Nappen 10:35 Now, it says further, the Government accepts this framework, and they proceeded to argue from it. So, this is very exciting in terms of the test being applied. The court looking at the Government’s argument of traditional habitual drunkards losing their rights, and the court, through the opinion, just absolutely distinguishes between this marijuana ban and historical precedent concerning habitual drunkards. Then they also put into play about the decision being narrow. And here’s where, Teddy, what you just said about Justice Thomas, he wants it to be broad. But the decision itself says it’s narrow. It does not address efforts to ban addicts or those presently intoxicated from possessing a firearm. Then it also talks about whether individuals convicted of felonies could be prosecuted. So, they tried to contain it narrowly. But if you step back and just look at the big picture in regards to a nine to zero opinion on a gun rights issue, that to me is probably the most outstanding thing about it. We got the whole Court on board. Page – 4 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 12:21 I will say, if you go to Jackson’s “concurrent opinion”, she doesn’t even talk about the case. She literally spends the entire thing bashing Bruen. I was reading through it, and she literally just spends the entire thing in full. She says I write to emphasize my scrutiny. The court applies to the, we adopted Bruen be his “history and tradition metric”, which more rational way of assessing the Constituent’s regulations. Bruen is unworkable, and it creates such a vulnerability of inconsistent, arbitrary application. Oh, like most gun laws? Evan Nappen 13:01 Yeah. Well, keep in mind the politics here. She’s purposely trying to attack Thomas over Bruen. And yet, what she can’t stand is that she’s ruling in favor of the Second Amendment. But in so doing, it means that Bruen is being empowered here. She’s like the computer on Star Trek. She’s going to explode that it’s now affecting the issue of marijuana, and the ACLU is on this side. Yet, how could she actually use, you know, Thomas’s brilliance here, even though it’s what she believes is the right thing to do, but can’t give credit. So, it’s like, you know, she’s just exploding over it. But she still has to side with the full unanimous majority, and that’s why it is that astounding. Because even a justice like her, who is so blatantly politically and hardly viewed as an educated jurist here by comparison to so many of the others on the Court. This is what you see happen. So, it’s pretty good there. Evan Nappen 15:19 Like applying the Constitution instead of, “It’s a living document”, which it isn’t, and start applying that whole. Teddy Nappen 15:41 Fine, just no, just no, fine, fine. No 19th Amendment, got it. Like it’s so ridiculous. So, they only apply it when they choose to. Evan Nappen 15:53 Hey, but even with all that said. It was still nine to zero, in favor of 2A. So, for that we can be happy to see. And of course, we’re now waiting for Wolford, and that is a “sensitive places” decision, which should also be very interesting on how they rule on “sensitive places”. Teddy Nappen 16:14 Do you remember the commemorative for the Heller? The revolver they did. Evan Nappen 16:19 Yes, I have one. Teddy Nappen 16:21 I want, whoever is the top AR maker, I want them to do a commemorative to the case when we finally get the constitutionality on the assault weapon ban, and finally getting those removed. That would be awesome. Like, just seeing that. Who do you think would be making that? Page – 5 – of 12 Evan Nappen 16:39 Yeah, I’m sure there’ll be all kinds of guns. Well, you know, that’s funny. You know I have that Smith & Wesson when Heller came out. Teddy Nappen 16:47 Yeah. Evan Nappen 16:47 And Smith did a limited run of the 38 J-frame Smith and Wessons, and they are engraved on the side with the Heller decision and scales and all. It’s a pretty cool gun, and they came out with it pretty fast, right after the Heller decision. But I actually got Dick Heller himself, the Heller of the Heller decision, to sign the gun. So, I have a Heller commemorative Smith signed by Heller himself. Teddy Nappen 17:23 Don’t you have one for McDonald too, as well? I could have sworn there was a commemorative for that also. Evan Nappen 17:30 Yeah, yeah. I do, yeah. McDonald. But I also have a very collectible commemorative knife, Teddy. It’s a full kitchen knife, and it’s actually signed by Bobbitt. Remember the Bobbitt case? I have a knife that is signed by John Bobbitt there. And what he wrote on the knife, in addition to his name, he wrote “always sleep on your stomach”. Pretty good. Always sleep on your stomach, you know. Signed by Bobbitt. So, it’s a big kitchen butcher-style knife, a big chef’s knife. It’s definitely a great collectible. Teddy Nappen 18:18 I wanted him to write “Mr. Happy Went Missing” from the Weird Al. Mr. Happy. Evan Nappen 18:33 But he wrote: always sleep on your stomach. Okay, if anyone could give that advice, I guess it’s him. So, yeah, well, getting these things signed. Well, Dick Heller signed the gun, Bobbit signed the knife, and I’m not.. Forget it. I’m not going, not doing it, not doing it. So, hey, by the way, Teddy, where’s our favorite ranger that we shoot at? Come on. Teddy Nappen 19:07 Of course it’s We Shoot, obviously. Evan Nappen 19:09 That’s right, we do. We go there. We have a blast, and so will you. WeShoot is an indoor range right in Lakewood, New Jersey. It’s conveniently right off the Parkway. A beautiful facility, top of the line, modern. A great place. Great training, great pro shop, great people. It’s where we got our certifications for our carry, our CCARE certifications, and other training as well. You need to check out WeShoot, WeShoot. It’s at wewhootusa.com. Their website is really great. They have beautiful photographs, and they pride themselves in their photography. Make sure you also check out the WeShoot girls. They always have fantastic firearms that they are displaying. And there are sales and specials and deals. Page – 6 – of 12 WeShoot is just great. So, check out weshootusa.com. You’ll be glad you did. It’s a superb resource, you know. We/ve got to really use and protect our ranges, especially in New Jersey, where it’s so crowded and it’s tough to find really great places to shoot. But WeShoot is there filling an important need in protecting our rights. What good is having a gun if you can’t shoot it, man? So, check out weshoot usa.com. Evan Nappen 20:52 Also, I want to shamelessly promote my book on New Jersey gun law, which, by the way, is called New Jersey Gun Law. You can find it at EvanNappen.com. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all question and answer. It is the guidebook, the key resource to helping you not become a GOFU. I’ve taken great pride in that, and I think you’ll enjoy it, too. Those that have it know its value. It’s designed as your easy-to-use reference to the insanity that is New Jersey gun law. Go to EvanNappen.com. EvanNappen.com. Get your copy today. Hey, Teddy, I know that you have Press Checks, and I think there’s a pretty fascinating Press Check story that you are going to share with us. What is this story? Tell me. Teddy Nappen 21:58 Well, we got our first from. Again, Press Checks are always free. This is from “Not the Bee.com”, Joel Abbott. (https://notthebee.com/article/babe-wake-up-british-tourists-are-starting-to-appreciate-the-second-amendment-?from_social=twitter) So, everyone’s been seeing the World Cup. I don’t typically follow soccer or anything on that, but you see all the Europeans coming in. I love that video of the Japanese tourist who brought trash bags and picked up their trash after their game. Evan Nappen 22:25 They’re very conscientious. That’s very, very good. Teddy Nappen 22:28 I know, as opposed to the Knicks fans who decided to burn down a bus, but whatever. Evan Nappen 22:34 Hey, listen. Mom would approve of the trash bag thing, you know that. Teddy Nappen 22:38 Oh, I know. Evan Nappen 22:40 Even just at our house, if we did that. Teddy Nappen 22:43 And the recycling. Can’t forget about that. Evan Nappen 22:44 That, too. Page – 7 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 22:46 But the one thing that seems to be catching on, because you have all the vloggers and people coming to want to experience America as they’re going to see. They’ve been going to gun ranges and to rent a gun places. Evan Nappen 23:00 I know. Isn’t that great? Teddy Nappen 23:01 They’re appreciating our Second Amendment. Evan Nappen 23:03 It’s actually spreading the understanding to these disarmed, oppressed peoples, and they’re suddenly seeing the light. Particularly, we see the UK folks. They’re like, wait a minute. How did we lose this right? Teddy Nappen 23:20 Yeah. Evan Nappen 23:20 How did this happen? Teddy Nappen 23:22 And it’s very interesting. It’s almost like those videos you always see where it’s the liberals going to the range, and they actually like, oh my right, yeah, you see all these people like, why were they’re waiting for, like, wait, you guys can just do this? They’re always shocked and awe from everything. But one in particular, this was a British guy, Spencer Towering. He does videos. We’ve been totally pacified in the U.K. through the removal of our arms, our right to bear arms. It’s caused a big problem for us. Now our Government is basically turning it into an absolute, tyrannical feminine leadership that is gradually eroding our rights, and there’s really not much we can do about it. Well, there’s one thing you can do. You know, just kind of look to the founding of our nation, and then get some ideas. Or they could look to the risings in Scotland, and try not to, you know, go with, try to not to put the Bonnie Prince on the throne. It didn’t work. Evan Nappen 24:22 You know, the British even went after an IT consultant. Teddy Nappen 24:28 Correct. Evan Nappen 24:29 Because he posed with a gun in the U.S. and posted it on LinkedIn. Page – 8 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 24:34 Yep, just for posing with it. Evan Nappen 24:36 For posint with a shotgun, an 870 shotgun. Teddy Nappen 24:40 Yep. Thirteen weeks of hell he went through for sharing a photo of something that wasn’t even taken in the U.K. This is why. Evan Nappen 24:54 This was pointed out by “Not the Bee”. So, “Not the Bee is a pretty cool aggregate on news sources. And this is. Teddy Nappen 25:06 Frankly, far funnier than the article. Evan Nappen 25:09 “Not the Bee” is real stuff that you can’t believe is actually true when it is. As opposed to the “Babylon Bee”, which is parody. “Not the Bee” has real stories in it that you think should be fake, but they’re not. It’s like unbelievable. But this one here is not as outrageous, to be honest, because this is what makes it so great about having rights, you know, and why we got to protect them. We see what it’s like for the folks that live in countries that they claim to make believe are free when they’re not. I mean, we’re still fighting for freedom here, but I mean to think that, you know, claim England is free. The U.K. is free? That’s a joke. Teddy Nappen 26:00 I’ll point it to you right now. The two you always hyped. I’ve got to highlight this to people all the time. Literally, arresting a woman for thought crime. Evan Nappen 26:09 Right! Teddy Nappen 26:09 Arresting a young girl for fighting off a pedophile with an ax and a knife. Going after her. Proven, by the way, that was another article that came out where he was in fact trying to go after minors. He had two prior accounts. But let’s just say the Labor Party didn’t want to mention that part. And the final bit, and I saw this one. For every officer, they’ve arrested like 20, done 20 arrests for hate speech online, whichever, whatever they make up. Like it’s they’re done. They are so gone. Evan Nappen 26:34 It’s a shame, the formerly Great Britain. But maybe this kind of experience of them seeing America and what it’s about. Not just from a slanted media, but from actually coming here and experiencing America. I mean, just in terms of brisket sandwiches that they’re going crazy for. American food. Page – 9 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 27:11 Even that, like just going into Europe. Anyone ever gone to Europe? You turn on the news, and imagine your only news station was CNN and MSNBC. That’s it. Yeah, that is all they have. They have the state-run everything and news networks. There is no alternative voice. There’s no alternative tech. They ban Rumble and other outlets. So, they can just control the media, and this is what it leads to. Just authoritarian states. Evan Nappen 27:35 It’s crazy. So, I was looking at this, and you also indicated to me about kind of a crazy international story, Teddy, Teddy Nappen 27:56 Yes. Let’s just say, you know, at times like this, you should buy a holster. This was in Brazil, where a female suspect, when she was stopped by the military police from Goaz, carried out a body search. Evan Nappen 28:17 Now, this is in Brazil, right? Teddy Nappen 28:19 In Brazil Evan Nappen 28:19 In Brazil. And this is an actual story that is from a “legitimate” news source, right? What’s the source? Teddy Nappen 28:28 Yeah, it’s right from the Daily Star. (https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/moment-female-suspect-pulls-loaded-37287603) Evan Nappen 28:31 Yeah, okay, and they even have video. They’re showing reports. So, this is actually legit. This is not a parody or a joke? What happened here with the woman? Teddy Nappen 28:42 The officers located the pair, carried out a stop and search. They showed the armed passengers struggling to remove the firearm from inside her “intimate area”. Physically trying to pull out a loaded pistol from her vagina. Evan Nappen 28:58 And Teddy, this is not small. They show the gun, and it’s the actual firearm, folks. This is the gun, and they even name the gun, a Taurus 92. That is essentially the Beretta M9, you know, but made by Taurus, a Taurus 92. Basically that 15 to 17 shot, depending on the size of your mag, and that you don’t live in New Jersey. A full size Taurus 92. Or also our military carry gun until the SIG replaced it of the Beretta M9. That full size nine. She pulled it out. How did she? Ouch! Page – 10 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 29:51 You know, I don’t even know how that happened. I don’t think Taurus and Victoria Secret should have partnered up for the Victoria concealed. Evan Nappen 30:02 And I think they mentioned that it got stuck. It was stuck. Teddy Nappen 30:05 Yes, it was stuck. Evan Nappen 30:07 It was stuck, and I can imagine why it was stuck, considering the size of a Taurus slash Beretta 92. Teddy Nappen 30:15 Yeah. Evan Nappen 30:15 And it was loaded as well. Teddy Nappen 30:18 What she should have done was got some rem oil, and that would have helped solve it. Evan Nappen 30:22 Well, you know, New Jersey has a requirement for your holster to have to cover the trigger guard and the frame and all that. Technically, she might actually have been in compliance if she was under New Jersey gun law, given the requirements for a holster. I don’t know. Teddy Nappen 30:41 Well, it has to cover the majority of the firearm and the trigger. So. Evan Nappen 30:49 I mean, this was pretty crazy. Teddy Nappen 30:53 Yeah, pretty crazy. Evan Nappen 30:54 But it makes sense in Brazil that there would be a Taurus, since they’re made in Brazil. So, those would be a Brazilian gun. Teddy Nappen 30:56 You know, I’ll give Taurus credit for the gorilla ad campaign that they. Page – 11 – of 12 Evan Nappen 31:06 Well, Taurus makes other guns, like the Judge. You know, the Judge, the Raging Bull. She didn’t do a Raging Bull. At least she didn’t do the Raging Bull. I mean, it’s bad enough with the Taurus 92. Teddy Nappen 31:21 It might have been easier with a Public Defender, to be honest. Evan Nappen 31:24 Right. That’s what she’s gonna need now. After putting a Taurus, being caught with a Taurus 92 there carrying, carrying illegally, no less inappropriately. Now, she’s going to need a public defender to defend her possession of a Taurus. Teddy Nappen 31:43 and a gynecologist. Evan Nappen 31:46 Uhuh, maybe she could call the consulate. I don’t know what’s going to happen there. That’s a crazy, crazy story. But hey. You know, just think if she had a North American Arms mini revolver or something, that you know, but a Taurus 92. Oh man. Teddy Nappen 32:05 I love the mindset of like, okay, this is a good idea, right? Just on the impracticality of like, okay, if I’m ever like, you know, the deal goes bad, and I need to draw this quickly. Evan Nappen 32:25 I don’t know what. Yeah, where? And then if she was hiding it up there, why did she surrender to the police when she was hiding it? If that was hidden, I mean, do they? I don’t think. Teddy Nappen 32:39 I think at that point she was just looking for the excuse, because it was probably just had enough. Evan Nappen 32:44 This just has got to go. Here, just take it, take it. Oh boy. Well, Teddy, that is definitely something to consider in the news on carry, carry news, in terms of method. Now, we have the GOFU, which is a Gun Owner Fuck Up. Now, I think this last, the last story might qualify as a GOFU, but we need to bring it down to a little bit more of a commonality of things that often happen, and that we often see. That are mistakes made. Teddy Nappen 33:27 Too many times. Evan Nappen 33:28 Too many times. One of the things we want to really be clear as to a GOFU here is the warning shot. Warning shots are basically mythology. You should not be firing warning shots, because the firing of a Page – 12 – of 12 gun is essentially what’s construed as the use of deadly force. If you’re using deadly force, you have got to be justified in using deadly force. So, we do not in any way recommend the warning shot. In New Jersey, the discharge of the firearm without lawful purpose is an automatic virtual per se felony, as Murphy’s new law has declared it essentially. So, you have the discharge law. Then you have the issues of undercutting your own arguments for use of force. If it was a threat that was justified in using deadly force, why are you firing your firearm without using it to stop the deadly force? Where you feel you can fire it as simply a warning, is it that imminent danger, or is it not that imminent? There’s just so many downsides and negatives to warning shots. Evan Nappen 34:59 Plus where is the round going? There are cases where you hear, “oh, it was a warning shot, and that’s why I hit them. You’re trying to excuse either the bad aim or whatever under some guys, a warning shot, not a good idea. So, make sure you get your training. Make sure you learn the rules on the use of deadly force. It’s critical that you do that. You can really get jammed up if you don’t understand that dynamic. It’s critical, and it is often not intuitive because of how bad these things are shown on television all the time. Television is not a good education source for learning when you can and can’t use deadly force. If we’re talking about made-for-TV dramas and TV shows and movies, and all that, not a good idea to learn your gun law from there. Evan Nappen 36:04 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 36:14 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E295_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

This episode distills the complex landscape of federal legislative power into clear, actionable steps. Whether you're studying for the bar or trying to deepen your understanding of constitutional limits, you'll learn the diagnostic protocol to analyze any federal law or regulation.Most federal laws that seem beneficial or expansive are actually constrained by the limited scope of Congress's constitutional powers—and understanding the boundaries is crucial for any aspiring constitutional lawyer. This episode reveals how the Supreme Court has reined in decades of unchecked federal authority through a series of sharp doctrinal limits, from the boundaries of the Commerce Clause to the critical anti-commandeering principle and the transformative major questions doctrine.You'll discover how the Court differentiates between commercial and non-commercial activity and when Congress can—and cannot—reach into the local, personal lives of citizens. We break down iconic cases like Wickard v. Filburn, which gave Congress astonishing power to regulate local farming activities in the aggregate, and contrast it with Lopez and Morrison, which sharply curbed that reach for non-economic acts like gun possession and acts of violence. You'll learn the modern three-part test to analyze commerce power questions and the strategic use of the safety valves—the taxing and spending powers—that can save laws seen as overreach.We also dive into the complex terrain of administrative law, exploring how the Supreme Court's recent crackdown on agency overreach, especially through the landmark major questions doctrine, guards against agencies wielding sweeping authority without explicit congressional approval. This is most evident in the Court's rejection of the CDC eviction moratorium and OSHA vaccine mandates, which it deemed too major to be justified by vague statutory language.If you're preparing for the bar exam or aiming to master the constitutional limits on federal power, this episode is essential listening. It transforms abstract doctrines into a clear, step-by-step diagnostic protocol—perfect for navigating tricky fact patterns and excelling in exam essays. By understanding where and how Congress's constitutional authority ends, you'll sharpen your legal instinct, avoid common traps, and build a robust framework for tackling any constitutional law question.Whether you're a Law School student, a bar exam candidate, or a constitutional law enthusiast, this episode arms you with the insight and analytical toolkit to confidently decode the federal government's power boundaries—an absolute must for anyone serious about constitutional mastery.

Last week's Supreme Court ruling on Trump-era tariffs didn't declare tariffs unconstitutional.They didn't say the President lacks trade authority.They didn't say Congress delegated too much power.Instead…They said they were “uncomfortable.”And in doing so, they may have quietly replaced constitutional separation of powers with something far more dangerous:

Notes: Constitution Law 2025 – Full Outline (https://thelawschoolofamerica.com/ConstitutionLaw2025.html) Understanding Federal Legislative Power: A Deep Dive into the Commerce Clause This episode traces how federal power in the United States expanded and then hit its modern limits through the Commerce Clause. We follow the story from Gibbons v. Ogden to Wickard v. Filburn, and into the era of Lopez, Morrison, and the Affordable Care Act decision, NFIB v. Sebelius. You will hear how the Court went from a broad vision of “commerce” as interstate intercourse, to the aggregation theory that let Congress regulate even a farmer growing wheat for his own family, and then to the modern doctrine that pulls that power back and demands a real connection to economic activity. What we explore in this episode Gibbons v. Ogden and the early, expansive definition of commerce. Wickard v. Filburn as the high-water mark of federal regulatory power. How the Civil Rights Act relied on the Commerce Clause to survive review. United States v. Lopez and Morrison drawing lines around noneconomic activity. NFIB v. Sebelius and why the individual mandate failed under commerce but survived as a tax. Quick Takeaways You need the full “movie” of how Commerce Clause power grew and then contracted. Regulating a farmer feeding his own family was the absolute high watermark of federal power. The Court's logic: if everyone did that, the national market would be distorted. Modern exams turn on recognizing when the pendulum swings back and applying the limits from Lopez and Morrison. Keywords: Commerce Clause, federal power, Gibbons v. Ogden, Wickard v. Filburn, Lopez, Morrison, NFIB v. Sebelius, aggregation theory, legal history, constitutional law.

SummaryThis lecture discussion explores the evolution of the Commerce Clause, located in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which empowers Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with Indian tribes. Initially intended to prevent economic fragmentation among the states under the Articles of Confederation, the clause has since become a cornerstone of federal legislative authority. The lecture traces the doctrine's development from early cases like Gibbons v. Ogden, which established a broad interpretation of interstate commerce, through periods of judicial contraction during the Lochner era, and into its expansive use during the New Deal era with cases like Wickard v. Filburn. It also covers the modern Court's retrenchment in United States v. Lopez and Morrison, reaffirming limits on federal power. The lecture concludes with analysis of Gonzales v. Raich, the Affordable Care Act case (NFIB v. Sebelius), and the interplay between the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Tenth Amendment, providing students with a framework to understand the clause's reach and limitations in contemporary constitutional law.Key TakeawaysCommerce Clause Authority: Congress has the power to regulate channels, instrumentalities, and activities substantially affecting interstate commerce.Early Interpretations: Gibbons v. Ogden broadly defined “commerce” and Congress's authority over it.Judicial Contraction: Cases like E.C. Knight and Hammer v. Dagenhart restricted commerce power by excluding manufacturing and production.New Deal Expansion: NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel and Wickard v. Filburn upheld federal regulation of intrastate activities with substantial economic effects.Civil Rights and Commerce: Heart of Atlanta Motel and Katzenbach v. McClung affirmed Congress's authority to address racial discrimination through commerce power.Modern Limits: Lopez and Morrison reasserted that non-economic activities and areas of traditional state concern fall outside commerce power.Necessary and Proper Clause: Raich shows Congress may regulate intrastate activity if essential to a broader regulatory scheme.Tenth Amendment Constraints: Federal power under the Commerce Clause cannot commandeer state governments (New York v. United States, Printz).Affordable Care Act: In NFIB v. Sebelius, the individual mandate exceeded commerce power but was upheld under the taxing power.Doctrinal Framework: The three-category test for Commerce Clause regulation guides constitutional analysis post-Lopez.

For many, government can inadvertently or purposefully get in the way of doing business. In this largely unknown Supreme Court decision, the court majority had some rather unusual and fantastical imaginations for justifying an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause. Learn how this case could justify government regulations for the most absurd and improbable hypotheticals.Support the showVisit georgewashingtoninstitute.org to sign up for our e-mail list! The site is the one-stop shop of all things Friends & Fellow Citizens and George Washington Institute!JOIN as a Patreon supporter and receive a FREE Friends & Fellow Citizens mug at the $25 membership level!IMPORTANT NOTE/DISCLAIMER: All views expressed by the host are presented in his personal capacity and do not officially represent the views of any affiliated organizations. All views presented by guests are solely those of the interviewees themselves and may or may not reflect the views of their affiliated organizations, the host, Friends & Fellow Citizens, and/or The George Washington Institute.

Federalism is the division of power between the federal government and the states. The Constitution establishes this framework by outlining enumerated powers for the federal government, reserved powers for the states, and the Supremacy Clause to resolve conflicts between federal and state laws. The Supremacy Clause and preemption ensure federal law overrides conflicting state law. Express preemption occurs when a federal statute explicitly states its supremacy, while implied preemption occurs when federal and state laws conflict or federal regulation occupies an entire field. The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Its interpretation has evolved, from expansive interpretations in cases like Gibbons v. Ogden and Wickard v. Filburn to modern limitations in United States v. Lopez and NFIB v. Sebelius. Key doctrines include the substantial effects test, channels and instrumentalities of commerce, and the aggregation principle. The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government for the states, emphasizing state sovereignty. Printz v. United States established that the federal government cannot compel states to implement federal programs. The Eleventh Amendment protects states from being sued in federal court without their consent, codifying the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Seminole Tribe v. Florida reinforced states' immunity from private lawsuits. The Dormant Commerce Clause prohibits state laws that unduly burden or discriminate against interstate commerce. The discrimination test and Pike balancing test are used to evaluate state laws. Granholm v. Heald struck down state laws favoring in-state wineries over out-of-state competitors. The State Action Doctrine distinguishes private conduct from government action for purposes of constitutional analysis. Shelley v. Kraemer and Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority are key cases in this area. Understanding federalism and the powers of the states is crucial for analyzing constitutional issues and understanding the balance between national and state authority. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Constitutional Law - Day 1 Main Themes: Judicial Review: The power of the courts to interpret the Constitution and invalidate laws/actions of other branches. Sources of Federal Power: How the Constitution grants and limits federal authority. Separation of Powers: The division of government functions into distinct branches to prevent tyranny. Checks and Balances: Mechanisms ensuring each branch limits the power of the others, maintaining equilibrium. key Ideas/Facts: I. Judicial Review: Established by Marbury v. Madison (1803), giving courts power to "say what the law is" and strike down unconstitutional acts. Ensures the Constitution is supreme and protects individual rights from unchecked legislative/executive power. Quote: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is." - Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison Limitations on Judicial Power: Standing: Parties must have a direct stake in the case's outcome, preventing advisory opinions on hypothetical issues. Ripeness: Cases must be sufficiently developed with a present controversy, not premature or theoretical. Mootness: Cases where the issue is already resolved are dismissed, as no practical relief can be offered. Political Question Doctrine: Courts avoid inherently political matters best left to other branches (e.g., foreign policy). II. Sources of Federal Power: Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8): Grants Congress power to regulate interstate commerce. Broadly interpreted to cover activities affecting interstate commerce, even if local (Wickard v. Filburn). Used to address national issues like civil rights (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.) and environmental protection. Taxing and Spending Power (Article I, Section 8): Allows Congress to levy taxes and spend for general welfare. Used to raise revenue and incentivize state policies (South Dakota v. Dole - drinking age tied to highway funds). Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8): Grants Congress implied powers to execute its enumerated powers. McCulloch v. Maryland: Upheld Congress's power to establish a national bank, even though not explicitly listed. III. Separation of Powers: Executive Branch (President): Enforces laws, conducts foreign relations, commands armed forces. Checks: Congress can override vetoes, control funding, declare war; Judiciary can review actions for constitutionality. Legislative Branch (Congress): Makes laws, levies taxes, declares war, oversees the budget. Checks: Bicameral structure requires approval from both chambers; can impeach officials; confirms appointments. Judicial Branch (Courts): Interprets laws, ensures constitutionality through judicial review. Checks: Life tenure for judges insulates from political pressure; Congress can impeach; President appoints judges. IV. Checks and Balances: Ensures no branch becomes too powerful and maintains accountability within the system. Examples: Congress can override Presidential vetoes. President can veto legislation. Courts can declare laws/actions unconstitutional. Congress controls federal spending, influencing executive policy. Senate confirms judicial appointments, shaping the judiciary. Overall: This session highlights the dynamic tension inherent in the U.S. government's structure. The Constitution establishes a framework for power but relies on judicial interpretation and inter-branch checks to ensure balance and protect individual rights. Understanding these principles is crucial for comprehending how the U.S. system functions and evolves. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 4: Congressional Powers. Chapter 4 explores the essential powers granted to Congress by the Constitution, enabling it to effectively govern and address the nation's needs. These powers include the Enumerated Powers, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the Taxing and Spending Powers. Enumerated Powers: These are specific authorities listed in Article I, Section 8, including the power to levy taxes, regulate commerce, coin money, establish post offices, promote the progress of science and the arts through patents and copyrights, raise and support armies, and declare war. These powers allow Congress to create laws and policies that support national governance and public welfare. Necessary and Proper Clause: Found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, this clause gives Congress the flexibility to pass laws needed to execute its enumerated powers. It ensures that Congress can adapt to changing circumstances and address new issues. Landmark cases like McCulloch v Maryland and the Affordable Care Act demonstrate the broad application of this clause. Commerce Clause: Located in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, the Commerce Clause grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with Indian tribes. This clause aims to create a unified national economy and has been expanded significantly through judicial interpretation, allowing Congress to regulate various economic activities. Key cases such as Gibbons v Ogden and Wickard v Filburn highlight its extensive reach. Taxing and Spending Powers: Outlined in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 2, these powers enable Congress to levy taxes, collect revenue, and allocate funds for the nation's general welfare. This includes funding government operations, implementing public policies, and promoting economic stability. Notable examples include the Social Security Act, Medicare and Medicaid programs, and federal grants to states and local governments. Together, these powers equip Congress with the necessary tools to legislate effectively, ensure national prosperity, and address both immediate and long-term challenges facing the United States. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 4: Congressional Powers. Chapter 4 explores the essential powers granted to Congress by the Constitution, enabling it to effectively govern and address the nation's needs. These powers include the Enumerated Powers, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the Taxing and Spending Powers. Enumerated Powers: These are specific authorities listed in Article I, Section 8, including the power to levy taxes, regulate commerce, coin money, establish post offices, promote the progress of science and the arts through patents and copyrights, raise and support armies, and declare war. These powers allow Congress to create laws and policies that support national governance and public welfare. Necessary and Proper Clause: Found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, this clause gives Congress the flexibility to pass laws needed to execute its enumerated powers. It ensures that Congress can adapt to changing circumstances and address new issues. Landmark cases like McCulloch v Maryland and the Affordable Care Act demonstrate the broad application of this clause. Commerce Clause: Located in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, the Commerce Clause grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with Indian tribes. This clause aims to create a unified national economy and has been expanded significantly through judicial interpretation, allowing Congress to regulate various economic activities. Key cases such as Gibbons v Ogden and Wickard v Filburn highlight its extensive reach. Taxing and Spending Powers: Outlined in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 2, these powers enable Congress to levy taxes, collect revenue, and allocate funds for the nation's general welfare. This includes funding government operations, implementing public policies, and promoting economic stability. Notable examples include the Social Security Act, Medicare and Medicaid programs, and federal grants to states and local governments. Together, these powers equip Congress with the necessary tools to legislate effectively, ensure national prosperity, and address both immediate and long-term challenges facing the United States. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

1. Background and Constitutional Basis The Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce. The clause reads: "Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." This provision is a critical element of the federal government's ability to influence a wide array of economic, social, and legal issues across the country. 2. Federal Powers and Implications Broad Scope of Regulatory Authority: Historically, the Commerce Clause has provided the basis for significant expansions of federal power. This authority allows Congress to address issues that transcend state boundaries, which individual states might be ill-equipped to handle alone. For example, environmental regulations, anti-discrimination laws, and labor standards often require uniformity that only the federal government can provide. Economic and Social Impact: The federal government's regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause can also affect large segments of the economy, such as transportation, labor relations, and telecommunications. The impact extends beyond purely economic considerations, influencing social welfare and public health. Contemporary Relevance: In modern contexts, the Commerce Clause has been a foundational legal basis for implementing legislation like the Affordable Care Act, specifically the individual mandate, which was initially argued under this clause before being upheld under the taxing power. 3. State Powers and the Dormant Commerce Clause Dormant Commerce Clause Concept: While the Commerce Clause grants power to the federal government, it also implicitly restricts the states from enacting legislation that interferes with or discriminates against interstate commerce. This concept, known as the Dormant Commerce Clause, ensures a free and open national market. State Legislation Impact: States are often barred from passing laws that would favor local businesses or industries at the expense of out-of-state competitors. This prohibition helps prevent a "race to the bottom," where states might otherwise engage in competitive deregulation to attract businesses at the expense of broader public interests. Balancing Local and National Interests: The Supreme Court often finds itself balancing state powers against federal interests, deciding whether state laws unduly burden interstate commerce by applying a test of whether the local benefits of the regulation outweigh the burdens on interstate commerce. 4. Key Cases Illustrating Commerce Clause Applications Wickard v. Filburn (1942): This landmark case dramatically expanded the scope of the Commerce Clause, holding that even personal activities affecting the broader market (like growing wheat for personal use) could be regulated by Congress if, in the aggregate, they have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. Gonzales v. Raich (2005): This case further affirmed federal power under the Commerce Clause, allowing Congress to criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states have legalized it, under the theory that such local activities could affect the national market. United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000): These cases signaled a shift, with the Court imposing limits on the reach of the Commerce Clause. In Lopez, the Court struck down a federal law banning guns near schools, ruling it exceeded Congress's commerce power. Morrison followed suit by invalidating parts of the Violence Against Women Act on similar grounds. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012): Although the Commerce Clause did not ultimately serve as the basis for upholding the ACA's individual mandate, the extensive discussions surrounding the case highlighted the ongoing debate over the scope of federal regulatory power under the Commerce Clause. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Welcome. This time I trying something a little different. Some people have time to read, others would rather listen. So this time, you get your choice. Pick the one that suits you best. Or OD on both and get some sleep! Use the Comments section to let me know your preference.Thanks!Grab your Tin Foil Hat and read on…Everyone from Tucker Carlson to (insert Sage Pundit here) is saying “Something big about to happen.” You can feel it in the air. Things are super wrong and something's gonna pop. Soon.Do you agree? Are you getting that nervous tingle more now than then? It's OK. It's going around. Even cable “news” shows are mentioning “Armageddon” – but only in sentences that start with Trump and end with Elected! So what else could it be?Well, there are lots of theories out there. Some actually have more than a tad of credibility: The end of the petro dollar. The implosion of the Fed. EMP. Civil War III. Another pandemic. Epstein didn't commit suicide. Michelle Obama for President, and, of course, CLIMATE CHANGE!!!We've heard them all plenty of times. Most make the “News” frequently enough. But this new one is crafty, conniving cleaver and you haven't heard of it until now! It's not some flaming disaster that would wipe out millions in a matter of days. But just as deadly. Here it is: Destroy the Supreme Court and in doing so, the Constitution and Rule of Law will follow.Consider: The only branch of Government holding our three branch system together is the Supreme Court and its reliance of the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Like Extreme Democrats (and they're all Extreme), you may have a philosophical problem with certain SCOTUS decisions. Personally, I'm still pissed about Wickard v. Filburn. Today, the EDs are ripped about Marbury v Madison. Last week, it was Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.  Next week, they'll get back to dumping on the Alabama Supreme Court ruling on frozen embryos. But it's Marbury v. Madison that's threatens death to the Liberals', Progressives' and Democrats' addiction to power bordering on blood lust. Why Marbury? Because it established judicial review, allowing the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of laws and confirming the Supreme Court as a co-equal branch of government.With Trump's surprise win over HRC, Liberals started seriously sweating coming SCOTUS vacancies. Hillary's loss guaranteed Trump SCOTUS replacements would put the future of Roe V Wade, the Democrats (un)Holy Grail of Re-Election, in critical danger.  First came the Gorsuch nomination and the embarrassing confirmation hearings. Then came the Super Spectacle of the Kavanagh confirmation which exposed the obscene conduct of Senate Democrats and the extremes of character assassination they would employ to ruin an individual's reputation - all for the sake of abortion. In addition to the repulsive conduct of Democrat Senators during the televised confirmation, 83 ethics complaints were simultaneously filed against Kavanagh. Following his confirmation, protesters began singing, "We Shall Not Be Moved," outside the capitol and a gang of protesters broke through a police line, storming up steps to pound on the doors of the U.S. Supreme Court.Then came Roe v. Wade's second day in court. “Politico leaked an initial draft majority opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. The draft, which allegedly had five votes needed to constitute the majority opinion, would strike down the landmark case Roe v. Wade” (earthrights.org).That really set the Liberals on fire. This was proof President Orange Man had nominated Justices Kavanagh and Gorsuch specifically to overturn Roe, the Extreme Liberals nightmare and the Christian Right's sweetest dream. Always the Left's campaign wedge issue, it now became worse.  For over a year, protesters picketed outside SCOTUS houses in violation of Federal law. In what could be correctly identified as an early example of Lawfare, Attorney General Merrick Garland repeatedly ignored the violations. No arrests were made until a man was caught with a gun near Justice Kavanagh's residence, arrested notably by Montgomery County Police, not Federal agents.As angry reactions to the leaked draft grew, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer executed the most egregious action of all. Smirking and screaming into microphones before roaring protestors on the steps of the Supreme Court building, he bellowed his threats to Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch personally “I'm telling you Kavanagh, I'm telling you Gorsuch! You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!” Denying this was a direct threat leveled at two Supreme Court justices confirms one's flaccid grasp of the English language or status as a frothing rabid Liberal as mentally diseased as Schumer. Of course, with MSM support, the bulletproof hubris of elected officials and the two-tiered system of lawfare practiced by liberal judges and the entire Biden DOJ, Schumer paid no price for his threats. The Secret Service has arrested law-abiding American citizens for less.It's constructive to remember Democrats and their evil spawn have a congenital fault. They dependably telegraph their actions and intentions by accusing their opponents of precisely what they are doing in real time or plan for the future. For this New Conspiracy Theory, you'll want to recall the overt war against the Supreme Robes had its first public showing during the 2010 SOTU presented by Barry O. This was followed by other SCOTUS decisions that did not sit well with the first Black megalomaniacal President.Now, direct your attention to MSNBC, Lisa Rubin, Sky News, Chris Hayes,   Joy Reid,  Wolf Blitzer  the Democrat's primary PR firm and their choreographed, invidious melt down over the recent SCOTUS decision to hear former President Trump's immunity claim. But the prime piece de resistance came from MD Representative Jamie Raskin in a chat with CNN's Anderson Cooper in which he said “the courts weren't fast enough. The people need to become “Engaged and aroused and demand action.”Notice all of the comments have been hyper-critical attacks on the Supreme Court and its unethical allegiance to Donald Trump's legal problems. These are the ‘dog whistles' Democrats like to talk about, the ‘clues' of subversion, racism, homophobia, only MAGA Republicans can hear – as translated by Extreme Liberals. This is the foundation of the New Conspiracy Theory.By example and current events, Extreme Democrats are desperate to do anything to prevent Donald Trump becoming President again. Yet, so far, all the rumors, fake Russian dossiers, salty language, strippers, taxes, family business, election interference, insurrection, business fraud ad nauseam have done nothing other than cost Trump millions in legal fees and hours of campaigning time in court while his poll numbers grow and grow and opponents lose and lose. With Extreme Dems hair on fire fanned by the ineffectiveness of their MSM's Yellow Journalists, it has come down to a Supreme Court decision.The seeds of chaos, social unrest, economic upheaval have all been sewn by Extreme Democrats, the “party of chaos”, the illegal immigrants Best Friends, the foster parents of Ukraine – all at the expense the American economy and the American Middle Class. And still Trump wins. The ‘fundamental transformation of America” cannot wait any longer. The backbone of America, the US Constitution, already downgraded to a relic for tourists and settling the occasional legal issue, is already ignored by the Chief Executive. He even brags about it. Respect and preservation of Constitutional principles, the Bill of Rights and Rule of Law must be destroyed in order to “save our Democracy.” If successful, it will obviously do the exact opposite. That's the Super Bowl Game Plan of the Extreme Dems.Having disparaged the Constitution as being written by white supremacist slave owners, Supreme Court decisions derided by a sitting President during the State of the Union address, attacking Trump appointed Justices, the refusal of the Attorney General to act in accordance with his Constitutional responsibilities by enforcing Federal law protecting Jurists, Biden threatening to ‘pack the court' to guarantee the passage of unconstitutional Liberal schemes, gives anticipatory credence to this New Conspiracy Theory. Now add the white hot hatred and blood curdling fear of another Donald Trump presidency that would cancel the cherished New Green Deal, close the border, rebuild the military and hold accountable those who have lead the treasonous efforts to betray the American dream. Extreme Democrats and their myrmidons will go to any and all lengths in their paranoid desperation to prevent another Trump presidency. In the months leading up to the November election, with a Supreme Court decision coming that can destroy the dreams of more than half of American voters and, likely, most of those in power, the New Conspiracy Theory, the “something big” now being bandied about will come to pass at some point. In some way. But the desperation of the Extreme Democrats all but guarantees it.Like any armature Conspiracy Theorist, you wish mightily to be wrong, that everything will return to the good Old Normal of Mom, God, apple pie, baseball, hot dogs and Chevy trucks. Of course, you're free to disregard it all; have some giggles, point and laugh with your friends. If I'm wrong, you'll read it here first. If I'm right, what are your choices?BWWell…there you have it! Mash the Buttons below to Subscribe and Share with everyone you've ever met through your entire life! That should take care of the entire weekend for ya!Back with The Two and Only in a couple days. Brian Wilson Writes is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Brian Wilson Writes at brianwilsonwrites.substack.com/subscribe

The Powers of Congress (Commerce Clause, Taxing, and Spending Powers). Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause, found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, grants Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." This clause has been a cornerstone for expanding federal legislative power. Historically, its interpretation has varied from narrow in the early 19th century to expansive during the New Deal era and beyond. Key cases like Gibbons v Ogden (1824) and Wickard v Filburn (1942) demonstrate the evolving nature of Commerce Clause jurisprudence. In Gibbons, the Supreme Court established that federal power over interstate commerce was plenary, overriding state laws that interfered with it. Wickard significantly broadened this interpretation, holding that even activities seemingly local in nature could affect interstate commerce and thus fall under federal regulation. Taxing and Spending Powers. Congress also wields substantial power through its ability to tax and spend for the "general Welfare" (Article 1, Section 8). This power, while ostensibly straightforward, has profound implications for national policy and governance. In cases like United States v Butler (1936), the Supreme Court recognized Congress's broad discretion in taxing and spending to promote the general welfare. However, it also underscored that such powers must not contravene other constitutional provisions. The Affordable Care Act (ACA), particularly the case National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius (2012), is a contemporary example where the taxing power played a key role. The Supreme Court upheld the ACA's individual mandate, characterizing it as a tax and thus within Congress's constitutional authority. The Tenth Amendment and State Powers. The Tenth Amendment is crucial in maintaining the federal balance. It states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This amendment emphasizes the principle of reserved powers, ensuring that states retain a significant sphere of autonomy. The interpretation and application of the Tenth Amendment have been central in cases dealing with the limits of federal power. In New York v United States (1992), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not compel states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program, underscoring state sovereignty. Similarly, Printz v United States (1997) affirmed that the federal government could not commandeer state officers to implement federal laws. The Dormant Commerce Clause. The Dormant Commerce Clause is an inferred principle from the Commerce Clause, suggesting that in granting Congress power over interstate commerce, the Constitution implicitly restricts states from passing legislation that interferes with or discriminates against interstate commerce. This doctrine plays a critical role in maintaining an open national market, free from parochial state interests. Cases like Cooley v Board of Wardens of Port of Philadelphia (1852) and South Dakota v Wayfair, Inc. (2018) illustrate the Court's approach to balancing state interests against the need for a uniform national economy. Wayfair, in particular, marked a significant shift, allowing states to require out-of-state sellers to collect and remit sales tax, reflecting the realities of the modern digital economy. Intergovernmental Immunities. Intergovernmental immunities encompass doctrines that prevent the federal and state governments from encroaching on each other's essential functions. This concept, though not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, is derived from the federal structure itself. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Welcome back to Mad Men & Tonic! We finally made it to the episode that has it all! In S3E13, “Shut the Door. Have a Seat,” K&E mix the Grounds for Divorce cocktail and talk through the questions raised by Don's slow motion corporate conspiracy and formation of a new family, Bobby losing Don's cufflinks, and the shocking conclusion of Don's childhood flashback plot line. Plus we wave bon voyage to Betty, Henry, and (only!) baby Gene as they depart for their glamorous Reno vacation! [Name we couldn't recall of who at McCann previously courted Don: Jim Hobart] Wiki: Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933; Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936; Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938; Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942); Commerce Clause; Self-help (law); “The Grapes of Wrath,” by John Steinbeck. https://mrbostondrinks.com/recipes/grounds-for-divorce https://www.theringer.com/2017/5/3/16039118/best-movie-montage-getting-the-gang-together-3e712a538bd https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL7-CKirWZE You Get What You Give - New Radicals http://burnthismedia.blogspot.com/2015/04/mad-men-season-3-episode-13-shut-door.html https://madmen.fandom.com/wiki/Long_Weekend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvUgnfFReII Grinch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeZRYhLDLeU Folsom Prison Blues - Johnny Cash https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/4c47b824-1a62-4f93-875d-b590fab1ebaf The Office I never really processed 9/11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6l9lUPILgg Royal Tenenbaums - divorce https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/199phj/dear_zookeepers_of_reddit_what_isare_some_of_the/ (Caution: Contain some sad animal stories!) https://www.reddit.com/r/PlanetZoo/comments/u5242f/i_made_a_tier_list_of_how_dangerous_every_animal/ http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/zebra.html https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2022/08/10/the-interplay-between-claims-of-good-faith-and-fair-dealing-and-breach-of-contract/?slreturn=20230018101402 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-rNxnf55a0 Enzo the Baker https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfzN8xY4bXs Oceans 11 fountain https://www.thepierreny.com/ Pierre hotel https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/333407178635726706/ Audrey Hepburn hat look --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/mad-men-tonic/message

In this episode, we return to the Supreme Court Hall of Shame to discuss Gonzales v. Raich, in which the court decided that an activity that: 1) takes place entirely in a single state, 2) involves no commerce, and 3) can't even legally be done across state lines nevertheless counts as “interstate commerce.” We'll also discuss the proposed “Justice for Victims of War Crimes Act” and explain why, although probably very well-intentioned, it makes a real mess of American law.We'll then wrap things up with Captain Kangaroo Court, covering the time the city of Riga put a statue on trial for witchcraft and a pair of Ivy League law professors whose position on law seems to be “do whatever you feel.” All this, plus a brief story about an implausibly French man David saw on the streets of Edinburgh!LRI's legal challenge against vaccination restrictions at polling centers (0:03:45)Supreme Court Hall of Shame: Gonzales v. Raich (0:06:55)The “Justice for Victims of War Crimes” bill (0:32:05)Captain Kangaroo Court (0:46:00)Our episode on Wickard v. Filburn can be found here: https://rss.com/podcasts/lexrexpod/570868/

In this episode, we return to the Supreme Court Hall of Shame to discuss

Victoria Phillips and the Morning Crew discuss Wickard v. Filburn.

Victoria Phillips joins The James Perspective to discuss Wickard v. Filburn. 

Victoria Phillips and the Morning Crew discuss Wickard v. Filburn.

Victoria Phillips and the Morning Crew discuss Wickard v. Filburn.

Victoria Phillips and the Morning Crew discuss Wickard v. Filburn.

HEADLINE: There Is No Post Roe “America" by Mike Church  Patrick Deneen - did you mean the title? The liberal system of government, has failed. The effort at creating an order that men will conform their minds and morals to has FAILED.  The order that man created produced Roe v Wade! The same system produced Wickard v Filburn. The sick chicken case - it created today the inspection arm of the USDA. Let's break this down as Charles Carroll of Carrollton, the only Jesuit educated Catholic of “the Founding Father” generation, would have understood it, for Whoopi Goldberg and AOC. Without people there is no State people are individuals. Individuals get married, yes married in the sacramental fashion. These couples have babies. Babies make families. Families make up the population of Church parishes, parishes make communities.Parish communities align with other parish communities to form regions and counties. Counties of shared moral then political rules can form states or kingdoms or republics i.e. an association of regions (see Italy pre-annulment of the Papal states).

In this bonus episode, four guests joined us to make the case for why the Supreme Court should overrule Chevron v. NRDC, Kelo v. City of New London, Wickard v. Filburn, or the Slaughterhouse Cases. Hear the arguments and then YOU decide. Cast your vote in the Twitter poll posted by @CaseyMattox_.Thanks to our guests Daniel Dew, Ilya Somin, Josh Blackman, and Clark Neily. Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this bonus episode, four guests joined us to make the case for why the Supreme Court should overrule Chevron v. NRDC, Kelo v. City of New London, Wickard v. Filburn, or the Slaughterhouse Cases. Hear the arguments and then YOU decide. Cast your vote in the Twitter poll posted by @CaseyMattox_.   Thanks to our guests Daniel Dew, Ilya […]

We discuss the Supreme Court case all about a man and his wheat (we promise it is interesting!). The Court's ruling in this case upsets loads of law students every year, and can be hard to reconcile with the simple facts. So, should we leave Mr. Filburn and his farm alone, or is he endangering America?

If you've found yourself wondering how the Supreme Court has enabled nearly unlimited growth in our national government, the Wickard v. Filburn case is a great place to start. James R. Harrigan and Antony Davies provide one of the best explanations you'll read. You may not realize it but we are engaged in an existential battle over who will control the information we may access in order to understand our world. J.D. Tuccille lays out why it's dangerous to allow politicians and 'officials' to determine what constitutes 'truth'. Given how public schools are increasing becoming a battleground for the minds of our children, it's hard to fault parents who've chosen to get their kids out. Annie Holmquist says homeschooling has just crossed the tipping point. When it comes to higher education, many of us are hoping a similar tipping point is approaching. Isaac Morehouse says it's never been more important to skip college. He definitely has some points worth considering. These are my sponsors. If you find value in what I do, please let them know: Monticello College Life Saving Food (get a 15% discount, free shipping and NO sales tax) The Heather Turner Team at Patriot Home Mortgage HSL Ammo Sewing & Quilting Center Govern Your Income

Regulation between the states turns out to mean... ALL the regulation.

In this episode, Mark joins us to discuss how technological advancements have changed the legal sphere. Mark is the Co-Director at Legal Innovation Centre and Fellow at ForHumanity. You can follow him on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3l4WNih or LinkedIn: https://bit.ly/3hcsG7d This episode is bought to you by ForHumanity. ForHumanity's mission is to examine and analyse the downside risks associated with the ubiquitous advance of AI & Automation, to engage in risk mitigation and ensure the optimal outcome. You can find out more information here: https://forhumanity.center/ You can also follow ForHumanity on LinkedIn: https://bit.ly/3y3FVg8and Facebook: https://bit.ly/3zaM6AI Resources: Join our Slack channel for more conversation about the big ethics issues that rise from AI: https://bit.ly/3jVdNov Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute: https://bit.ly/3l7Ug6X United States v Miller: https://bit.ly/3hgs40J Third-party doctrine: https://bit.ly/3yQTWhK Turner Entertainment Co. v. Huston, CA Versailles: https://bit.ly/3nfI7zv Wikard v Filburn: https://bit.ly/3BY9Icq Gonzales v Raich: https://bit.ly/3lb63Bg “We know what you did during lockdown” - https://on.ft.com/3z7m94d All Writs Act: https://bit.ly/2X0uBok FBI–Apple encryption dispute: https://bit.ly/3jV0dVq

*Correction* 13:00 I mixed up details about Wickard v. Filburn. Claude R. Wickard was the plaintiff. He sued on behalf of Department of Agriculture et al. & Roscoe Filburn was the farmer charged with violating the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 In this episode of Categorical Imperatives we take a look at a case from this day in 1995 that was the first time in over 60 years the court struck down a law under the commerce and necessary and proper clauses It was a big win for Federalism and limited government It's one of my all time favorite rulings, I am sure it will be one of your favorites as well 100 Supreme Court Cases: By Josh Blackman and Randy Barnett: https://conlaw.us/ --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

Today we have another installment of a series that has consistently been some of my personal favorite episodes and that consistently get 2x or 3x the views of other videos. Today In Supreme Court History. As of the day I am recording this, June 8th in 2005 the Supreme Court issued their opinion in the case of Gonzalez v Raich (2005) This case has relevance to innumerable aspects of Constitutional Law. This case is regarded prima Facie, as a Commerce Clause case (Article I, § 8, Clause 3) - It was not only the first time that the court had expanded Congress' powers under the commerce clause since Wickard v Filburn in 1942, this was a case that did not hinge of the commerce clause, but instead enlarged the "Implied Powers" of the necessary and proper clause. Follow & Support To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ Substack - https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal How to support the channel: Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58¤cy_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

This episode is also available as a blog post: http://donnyferguson.com/2020/06/22/wickard-v-filburn-the-supreme-court-case-that-gave-the-federal-government-nearly-unlimited-power/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/donny-ferguson/message

Chauvin verdict in trouble? Wickard v Filburn, and property rights. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

After the New Deal and the major cases about Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there was an open question about the limits of congressional power under the Commerce Clause. The first cases after Wickard v. Filburn (1942) to hold acts of Congress unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause were United States v. Lopez (1995) Morrison v. United States (2000). Together with Gonzalez v. Raich (2005), these three cases put a distinctive mark on the Rehnquist Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence and set up the more recent constitutional debate about the Individual Mandate provision in the Affordable Care Act.

In this episode of Your Thoughts Podcast Tyler Beck and Jesse Martinez catch up with Kash Filburn. We discuss growth as musicians and artists, music lessons, Kash's dedication to his craft, and being a prolific content creator. Kash's video "Drums // Bed - Journey to Full-Time Musician": https://youtu.be/TtLIDaRZ4IA  Find Kash at @kashplaysdrums Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Kashmanz1 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kashplaysdrums/?hl=en Twitter: https://twitter.com/kashplaysdrums?lang=en TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@kashplaysdrums  Your Thoughts Podcast: Website: http://www.yourthoughtspodcast.com Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/tylerbeck Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXn2NghnvDg1_Kl6_IR8k7Q?view_as=subscriber Twitter: https://twitter.com/yourthoughtspod Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/yourthoughtspodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ipodsaregross/?hl=en

Preposterously, a farmer decides to grow wheat. Obviously this must be stamped out immediately.

The Affordable Care Act is being tossed around, some reason they expect the nominee, Amy Coney Barrett to speak on it. Her words are clear. It is a time bomb, set in motion for this Supreme Court term, whether or not she is confirmed, by Justice Roberts when he upheld the law. The case is Wickard v Filburn and can be found here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111. That is what the progressives wanted to base upholding the law on, that is what the conservatives, and Judge Barrett, wanted to tear down. For heaven's sake, he was growing wheat for his own use! This is a case that everyone should know. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts this week helped the court's "living document" caucus strike down a Louisiana law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a local hospital in 'June Medical Services v. Russo'. In 2016, Roberts upheld the same restrictions in his dissent against the court's 'Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt', and still says that the Texas case was decided wrongly. Yet his enduring devotion to stare decisis (precedent) leads him to save the abortion industry from restrictions designed to guard the health of the mother. Bill Whittle Now with Scott Ott is a production of our Members. https://BillWhittle.com CORRECTION: The Supreme Court's Wickard v. Filburn ruling happened in 1942, not 1947 as Scott Ott mentioned.

On Wednesday's Mark Levin show, states that are grouping to form regional compacts to act as if they are not part of the United States are wrong. The President can require conditions that must be met in order to receive federal funds as can Congress. States do not have the authority to band together to regulate interstate commerce. According to the Supreme Court decision in Wickard v. Filburn the Court sustained a still deeper penetration by Congress into the field of production. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon. That means the federal government can reach into a state, into a farm, and into a factory to stimulate commerce because regulating production is a power that prohibits or restricts the function of commerce. Then, what is property? Per James Madison, anything a man can attach a value to and has a right to is his property. As such, and per the U.S. Constitution, Americans have rights to their opinions, their religion, and other forms of personal property that are dissipating each time a state governor poses a new restriction. Later, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and some Governors are at odds over federalism, and the Governor of Whitman was wrong to shut down Michigan. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Wednesday's Mark Levin show, states that are grouping to form regional compacts to act as if they are not part of the United States are wrong. The President can require conditions that must be met in order to receive federal funds as can Congress. States do not have the authority to band together to regulate interstate commerce. According to the Supreme Court decision in Wickard v. Filburn the Court sustained a still deeper penetration by Congress into the field of production. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon. That means the federal government can reach into a state, into a farm, and into a factory to stimulate commerce because regulating production is a power that prohibits or restricts the function of commerce. Then, what is property? Per James Madison, anything a man can attach a value to and has a right to is his property. As such, and per the U.S. Constitution, Americans have rights to their opinions, their religion, and other forms of personal property that are dissipating each time a state governor poses a new restriction. Later, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and some Governors are at odds over federalism, and the Governor of Whitman was wrong to shut down Michigan. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How did a 1942 US Supreme Court decision about wheat farming come to control almost the entirety of federal law making? And how did it's reasoning result in Congressional assertions of authority unmoored from the express limitations present in the US Consitution? How? Welcome to the first (?) entry in our "Terrible Supreme Court Decisions" series: Wickard v Filburn We always have a substantial economic effect... in Virtual Legality. CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/6I-Iz109rdY #Wickard #Filburn #SCOTUS *** Discussed in this episode: Wickard v. Filburn 317 U.S. 111 (1942) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/ "Lawyer: Is Spreading Coronavirus a Federal Crime? (VL197)" YouTube Video - March 27, 2020 - Hoeg Law https://youtu.be/BUm3XQaTixo "United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co." 315 U.S. 110 (1942) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/315/110/ US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei *** "Virtual Legality" is a continuing series discussing the law, video games, software, and everything digital, hosted by Richard Hoeg, of the Hoeg Law Business Law Firm (Hoeg Law). CHECK OUT THE REST OF VIRTUAL LEGALITY HERE: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy9YAU61GoW-00K0TJOGnPCo DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE LEGAL TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN COUNSEL. *** Twitter: @hoeglaw Web: hoeglaw.com Blog: hoeglaw.wordpress.com

The 18th Amendment was ratified a century ago, beginning the United States' fourteen-year experiment with prohibition. An Amendment was needed because the Constitution did not give the federal government the power to ban alcohol. Yet, today, the federal government bans recreational drugs and puts medicinal drugs under the control of the FDA. But, the Constitution also doesn't give the government the power to regulate drugs. Either the 18th Amendment wasn't necessary a century ago, or federal drug controls are unconstitutional today. Show your support for Words & Numbers at Patreon https://www.patreon.com/wordsandnumbers Quick hits The optimal GPA https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/study-says-there-is-optimal-failure-for-learning-more-efficiently/ Too many 4.0s https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-graduated-cum-laude-so-did-everyone-else-1530523801 Weed in Atlanta https://thefreethoughtproject.com/apd-disbands-drug-unit-fight-real-crime/ Foolishness of the week Bernie Sanders worked for his money https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/aaronfreedman/bernie-sanders-is-rich-but-hes-a-worker Topic of the week Legal status of marijuana by state https://disa.com/map-of-marijuana-legality-by-state Bootleggers and Baptists https://www.amazon.com/Bootleggers-Baptists-Economic-Persuasion-Regulatory/dp/1939709369 18th Amendment https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xviii 21st Amendment https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xxi Wickard v. Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn You used to be able to buy heroin at Sears https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/sears-roebuck-bayer-heroin/580441/ What can Colorado teach us about legalizing weed? https://fee.org/articles/four-years-on-what-can-colorado-teach-us-about-legalizing-weed/ Join the conversation Words & Numbers Backstage https://www.facebook.com/groups/130029457649243/ Let us know what you think mailto:wordsandnumberspodcast@gmail.com Antony Davies on Twitter https://twitter.com/antonydavies James R. Harrigan on Twitter https://twitter.com/JamesRHarrigan Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The 18th Amendment was ratified a century ago, beginning the United States’ fourteen-year experiment with prohibition. An Amendment was needed because the Constitution did not give the federal government the power to ban alcohol. Yet, today, the federal government bans recreational drugs and puts medicinal drugs under the control of the FDA. But, the Constitution also doesn’t give the government the power to regulate drugs. Either the 18th Amendment wasn’t necessary a century ago, or federal drug controls are unconstitutional today. Show your support for Words & Numbers at Patreon https://www.patreon.com/wordsandnumbers Quick hits The optimal GPA https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/study-says-there-is-optimal-failure-for-learning-more-efficiently/ Too many 4.0s https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-graduated-cum-laude-so-did-everyone-else-1530523801 Weed in Atlanta https://thefreethoughtproject.com/apd-disbands-drug-unit-fight-real-crime/ Foolishness of the week Bernie Sanders worked for his money https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/aaronfreedman/bernie-sanders-is-rich-but-hes-a-worker Topic of the week Legal status of marijuana by state https://disa.com/map-of-marijuana-legality-by-state Bootleggers and Baptists https://www.amazon.com/Bootleggers-Baptists-Economic-Persuasion-Regulatory/dp/1939709369 18th Amendment https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xviii 21st Amendment https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xxi Wickard v. Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn You used to be able to buy heroin at Sears https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/sears-roebuck-bayer-heroin/580441/ What can Colorado teach us about legalizing weed? https://fee.org/articles/four-years-on-what-can-colorado-teach-us-about-legalizing-weed/ Join the conversation Words & Numbers Backstage https://www.facebook.com/groups/130029457649243/ Let us know what you think mailto:wordsandnumberspodcast@gmail.com Antony Davies on Twitter https://twitter.com/antonydavies James R. Harrigan on Twitter https://twitter.com/JamesRHarrigan

In 1942 a farmer went toe to toe with the US Supreme Court over his wheat fields. I don't think communists would like the outcome of this ruling. Since they'd like to own you and the means of production too.Support the show! patreon.com/thinklibertypatrons

Kash Filburn is a Phoenix drummer known for playing in Gold Season, Rio Wiley, The Semester Review and more. 

The Poor Bastards camp outside Area 51 during a WoW relapse while trying to understand the new generation of paraphernalia lingo, reverse a supreme court decision, salivating over the United States' recent purchase of a billion dollars in cocaine, and waving goodbye to the sinking ship named YouTube.

An unassuming string of 16 words tucked into the Constitution grants Congress extensive power to make laws that impact the entire nation. The Commerce Clause has allowed Congress to intervene in all kinds of situations — from penalizing one man for growing too much wheat on his farm, to enforcing the end of racial segregation nationwide. That is, if the federal government can make an economic case for it. This seemingly all-powerful tool has the potential to unite the 50 states into one nation and protect the civil liberties of all. But it also challenges us to consider: when we make everything about money, what does it cost us? The key voices:  Roscoe Filbrun Jr., Son of Roscoe Filbrun Sr., respondent in Wickard v. Filburn Ollie McClung Jr., Son of Ollie McClung Sr., respondent in Katzenbach v. McClung James M. Chen, professor at Michigan State University College of Law Jami Floyd, legal analyst and host of WNYC’s All Things Considered who, as a domestic policy advisor in the Clinton White House, worked on the Violence Against Women Act Ari J. Savitzky, lawyer at WilmerHale  The key cases: 1824: Gibbons v. Ogden 1942: Wickard v. Filburn 1964: Katzenbach v. McClung 2000: United States v. Morrison 2012: National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius  Additional production for this episode by Derek John and Louis Mitchell. Special thanks to Jess Mador, Andrew Yeager, and Rachel Iacovone.                                                  Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. Support Radiolab today at Radiolab.org/donate.

An unassuming string of 16 words tucked into the Constitution grants Congress extensive power to make laws that impact the entire nation. The Commerce Clause has allowed Congress to intervene in all kinds of situations — from penalizing one man for growing too much wheat on his farm, to enforcing the end of racial segregation nationwide. That is, if the federal government can make an economic case for it. This seemingly all-powerful tool has the potential to unite the 50 states into one nation and protect the civil liberties of all. But it also challenges us to consider: when we make everything about money, what does it cost us?   The key voices: - Roscoe Filbrun Jr., Son of Roscoe Filbrun Sr., respondent in Wickard v. Filburn- Ollie McClung Jr., Son of Ollie McClung Sr., respondent in Katzenbach v. McClung- James M. Chen, professor at Michigan State University College of Law- Jami Floyd, legal analyst and host of WNYC’s All Things Considered who, as a domestic policy advisor in the Clinton White House, worked on the Violence Against Women Act- Ari J. Savitzky, lawyer at WilmerHale    The key cases: - 1824: Gibbons v. Ogden- 1942: Wickard v. Filburn- 1964: Katzenbach v. McClung- 2000: United States v. Morrison- 2012: National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius   Additional production for this episode by Derek John and Louis Mitchell. Special thanks to Jess Mador, Andrew Yeager, and Rachel Iacovone.                                                                                                                    Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions sent the country into a tizzy not long ago when he declared that the federal government would start cracking down on state-legal marijuana. This is problematic, but it's a symptom of a larger problem. Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution lists the things that the federal government may concern itself with. Marijuana — indeed, any drug — is not on that list. In fact, a great many things that the federal government concerns itself with are not on that list. So how did we get to the point of having federal laws and regulations about marijuana and a number of other things? We had to have a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, so why doesn't the government need one to ban marijuana? James Harrigan and Antony Davies discuss this and more on this week's episode of Words and Numbers. Quick hits Sarah Silverman https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/sarah-silverman-befriends-troll-insulted-pays-medical-treatment/  CT considers raising its excise tax on cigarettes. Again. http://www.courant.com/opinion/op-ed/hc-op-lafaive-ct-cigarette-tax-smuggling-0109-20180108-story.html  What will mass-market driverless cars look like? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-12/gm-drops-the-steering-wheel-and-gives-the-robot-driver-control  Foolishness of the Week https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/business/economy/irs-debt-collection.html    Topic of the Week: Federalism and Constitutional Amendments Federalism and marijuana http://reason.com/archives/2018/01/10/federalists-cant-support-a-cannabis-crac  Article One, Section 8 of the US Constitution https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html  Wickard v. Filburn https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Attorney General Jeff Sessions sent the country into a tizzy not long ago when he declared that the federal government would start cracking down on state-legal marijuana. This is problematic, but it's a symptom of a larger problem. Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution lists the things that the federal government may concern itself with. Marijuana — indeed, any drug — is not on that list. In fact, a great many things that the federal government concerns itself with are not on that list. So how did we get to the point of having federal laws and regulations about marijuana and a number of other things? We had to have a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, so why doesn't the government need one to ban marijuana? James Harrigan and Antony Davies discuss this and more on this week's episode of Words and Numbers. Quick hits Sarah Silverman https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/sarah-silverman-befriends-troll-insulted-pays-medical-treatment/  CT considers raising its excise tax on cigarettes. Again. http://www.courant.com/opinion/op-ed/hc-op-lafaive-ct-cigarette-tax-smuggling-0109-20180108-story.html  What will mass-market driverless cars look like? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-12/gm-drops-the-steering-wheel-and-gives-the-robot-driver-control  Foolishness of the Week https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/business/economy/irs-debt-collection.html    Topic of the Week: Federalism and Constitutional Amendments Federalism and marijuana http://reason.com/archives/2018/01/10/federalists-cant-support-a-cannabis-crac  Article One, Section 8 of the US Constitution https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html  Wickard v. Filburn https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn 

Joe’s favorites case(s) part deux, Carolene Products, the filled milk case to end all filled milk cases. We talk about a case most famous for its fourth footnote. That’s right. This episode, alongside volumes upon volumes of legal scholarship, is almost entirely concerned with a footnote. But this one almost casually suggests a principle to divide the power of the federal government between courts and the political branches. Bonus content: an idea about returning to school later in life and follow-up on the monkey selfie. This show’s links: Episode 28: A Wonderful Catastrophe, including discussion of the first of Joe’s favorite cases and our discussion of the case of the monkey selfie Draft Compendium of U.S. Copyright Practices, including at page 54 of the linked manual: “The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants. ... Examples: A photograph taken by a monkey.” United States v. Carolene Products Co. Hebe Co. v. Shaw About filled milk Josh Blackman, 60 New Recipes for Carolene Products Co.’s Milnut from 1939 Lochner v. New York Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs Wickard v. Filburn Letter from Justice Robert H. Jackson to Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone on Wickard v. Filburn Jackson’s thoughts on the Wickard problem were put down most candidly in a memo to his law clerk (Robert Jackson, Memorandum for Mr. Costelloe, Re: Wickard Case 15 (July 10, 1942) (on file with the Library of Congress, Jackson MSS, Box 125). Perhaps you’ll have better luck finding this online than we did. It is described in many of the many, many articles about the famous footnote. David Strauss, Does the Constitution Always Mean What It Says?, video of a terrific lecture The text of foonote four Louis Lusky, Footnote Redux: A Carolene Products Reminiscence (note: Joe misspoke. Lusky was a Columbia, not Yale, prof.) Episode 27: My Favorite Case on Plessy v. Ferguson Lincoln Caplan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Footnote Four, which concerns this appearance by Justice Ginsburg at which she discusses Footnote Four and affirmative action (just after minute 36) David Strauss, Is Carolene Products Obsolete?

E-I-E-I-O. This one's all about a farm. Roscoe Filburn's farm. And about what happened to Roscoe and to the Commerce Clause when Roscoe decided to grow just a little too much wheat. Here's a hint: the resulting case, Wickard v. Filburn, may just be the linchpin upon which the whole federal health care debate ends up turning.