POPULARITY
2 episodes with first congress
2 episodes with first congress
2 episodes with first congress
3 episodes with first congress
2 episodes with first congress
This Day in Legal History: First American Anti-Slavery Society OrganizedOn April 14, 1775, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the first American society dedicated to the abolition of slavery was organized. Known as the Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage, it marked a critical early step in the formal anti-slavery movement in the United States. Among its key founders were Benjamin Franklin and Dr. Benjamin Rush, both prominent figures of the American Enlightenment and signers of the Declaration of Independence. The society was composed primarily of Quakers, whose religious convictions aligned with the idea that slavery was morally wrong and incompatible with Christian values.While its initial activities were limited, the group laid the groundwork for more organized and effective abolitionist efforts in the decades to come. In 1787, after the American Revolution, the society was reconstituted as the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, with Franklin serving as its president. This reorganization gave the movement greater political clout and visibility. The society pushed for gradual emancipation, legal reforms, and the education and employment of freed Black individuals.Franklin's involvement lent substantial legitimacy to the cause, especially when he submitted a petition to the First Congress in 1790 calling for the federal government to take action against slavery. Although the petition was ultimately rejected, it sparked the first significant congressional debate over slavery in U.S. history. The 1775 founding of the original society represents a rare pre-Revolutionary acknowledgment of slavery's moral contradictions within the new American experiment. It also helped forge an early link between legal reform and moral advocacy, a tradition that would define much of the abolitionist movement in the 19th century.Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook, is set to face trial in Washington over allegations that it created an illegal monopoly by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) argues that these billion-dollar acquisitions were designed to eliminate emerging competition and solidify Facebook's dominance in the social media space. Filed in 2020, the case seeks to force Meta to sell off Instagram and WhatsApp, a move that would significantly impact the company's business, especially since Instagram alone is estimated to account for over half of its U.S. ad revenue.Meta's legal team has pushed back, calling the case weak and politically motivated. CEO Mark Zuckerberg is expected to testify, facing scrutiny over past emails where he framed the Instagram acquisition as a defensive move against competition. Meta argues that the market has since changed, with strong competition from TikTok, YouTube, and Apple's messaging services.The FTC claims Meta still dominates platforms for sharing content among friends and family, while alternatives like Snapchat and MeWe lack sufficient market presence. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has allowed the case to proceed but acknowledged the FTC faces a tough road. The trial will run through July and, if the FTC prevails, a second trial will determine remedies like a forced breakup. The case is one of several targeting alleged monopolistic practices by major tech firms, including Google, Amazon, and Apple.Facebook owner Meta faces existential threat at trial over Instagram, WhatsApp | ReutersThe Trump administration has repeatedly accused immigrants of serious criminal ties—such as gang leadership or terrorism—without backing those claims with evidence in court. Presumably because they aren't interested in immediately perjuring themselves. One high-profile example involved the FBI's arrest of a Salvadoran man in Virginia, publicly labeled a top MS-13 leader and terrorist. Yet the Justice Department dropped the sole charge—illegal gun possession—and instead moved to deport him without pursuing gang-related allegations in court. A similar case involved Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was deported and later labeled a human trafficker, though no such charge appeared in legal filings. Officials also deported 238 Venezuelans alleged to be part of the Tren de Aragua gang, despite some having no criminal records. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem defended their imprisonment, citing national security, while declining to present supporting evidence. Legal experts caution that making unsupported public accusations risks undermining prosecutions and due process, as it can taint juries and violate Justice Department policy.Some judges have pushed back. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis emphasized that serious accusations should be vetted through the legal system, not just made in press conferences. Meanwhile, other alleged MS-13 members were charged through traditional indictments, showing the DOJ still uses evidence-backed prosecutions in some cases. Critics say the administration's approach mixes law enforcement with political messaging, leveraging public fear to justify aggressive immigration actions.Trump officials push immigrant gang message, but sometimes don't back it up in court | ReutersA group of Harvard University professors has filed a lawsuit to stop the Trump administration from reviewing nearly $9 billion in federal grants and contracts awarded to the university. The lawsuit, brought by the Harvard chapter of the American Association of University Professors and its national organization, argues that the administration is unlawfully targeting the school to suppress free speech and academic freedom. The review was announced amid ongoing scrutiny of elite universities over pro-Palestinian protests, diversity programs, and transgender policies.Federal agencies including the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, along with the General Services Administration, began investigating $255.6 million in contracts and $8.7 billion in multi-year grants. They demanded Harvard meet conditions to continue receiving funds, such as banning protester mask-wearing, eliminating DEI programs, cooperating with law enforcement, and revising departments allegedly involved in antisemitic harassment.The administration has cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination at federally funded institutions, as its legal basis. However, the plaintiffs argue that the government has not followed the proper legal process and is instead using funding threats to impose political viewpoints. Harvard law professor Andrew Crespo said the government cannot silence speech it disagrees with through funding leverage.Harvard professors sue over Trump's review of $9 billion in funding | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
Donald Trump says tariffs will make the US rich again. The President's been delivering his first Congress address since commencing his second term. He's talked up the 119 sweeping changes he's already pushed through - drastically reshaping domestic and foreign policy. He says the US has been ripped off for decades by nearly every country on earth - and he won't let that happen any longer. US correspondent Jonathan Kearsley says Trump was also quick to fire back at the Democrats in the audience who didn't clap for him. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Donald Trump says tariffs will make the US rich again. The President's been delivering his first Congress address since commencing his second term. He's talked up the 119 sweeping changes he's already pushed through - drastically reshaping domestic and foreign policy. He says the US has been ripped off for decades by nearly every country on earth - and he won't let that happen any longer. US correspondent Jonathan Kearsley says Trump was also quick to fire back at the Democrats in the audience who didn't clap for him. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Tenure of Office: March 4, 1813 - November 23, 1814 Despite being elected to the First Congress under the Constitution, Elbridge Gerry would hit some rocky patches in his career of public service after 1789. Still, the twists and turns that led him on a diplomatic mission to France, a couple of terms as governor of Massachusetts, and finally to presiding over the Senate as Vice President left us with much to discuss as we evaluated his overall life at the end. Sources used for this episode can be found at https://www.presidenciespodcast.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the funding scheme for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which receives funding directly from the Federal Reserve, violate the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution? The case was decided on May 16, 2024. The Supreme Court held that the funding scheme for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau satisfies the Appropriations Clause. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court. The Appropriations Clause provides that “no Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” Article I, §9, cl. 7—in other words, government spending must be authorized by an act of Congress. Historically, the word “appropriation” requires identifying a source of public funds and authorizing the expenditure of those funds for designated purposes. The practices of the English Parliament after the Glorious Revolution, the American Colonies, early state legislatures, and the First Congress varied widely in their specificity, duration, and structure, but all met these basic requirements. The statute authorizing the CFPB's funding likewise contains the necessary elements of a valid appropriation under the Appropriations Clause. It identifies a source of funds (the combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System), sets a maximum amount that can be drawn, and specifies the purpose for which the funds can be used (to pay the CFPB's expenses in carrying out its duties). Furthermore, the CFPB's funding mechanism is analogous to some of the broad, open-ended appropriations passed by the First Congress. Therefore, the CFPB's funding statute satisfies the requirements of the Appropriations Clause. Justice Elena Kagan authored a concurring opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined, noting that CFPB's funding scheme would have been acceptable not only in the late-18th century, but also any other time in our Nation's history. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a concurring opinion, endorsing judicial restraint. She pointed out that “when the Constitution's text does not provide a limit to a coordinate branch's power,” courts “should not lightly assume that Article III implicitly directs the Judiciary to find one.” Justice Samuel Alito authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined, arguing that the Appropriations Clause imposes more stringent obligations on Congress to monitor and control the expenditure of public funds and the projects they finance. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support
Lawrence Lessig visits Google's New York office to discuss his book “Free Culture.” Lawrence Lessig could be called a cultural environmentalist. One of America's most original and influential public intellectuals, his focus is the social dimension of creativity, or how creative work builds on the past and how society encourages or inhibits that building with laws and technologies. In his two previous books, CODE and THE FUTURE OF IDEAS, Lessig concentrated on the destruction of much of the original promise of the Internet. In FREE CULTURE, he widens his focus to consider the diminishment of the larger public domain of ideas. In this powerful wake-up call he shows how short-sighted interests blind to the long-term damage they're inflicting are poisoning the ecosystem that fosters innovation. All creative works—books, movies, records, software, and so on—are a compromise between what can be imagined and what is possible. For more than two hundred years, laws in America have sought a balance between rewarding creativity and allowing the borrowing from which new creativity springs. The original term of copyright set by the First Congress in 1790 was 14 years, renewable once. Now it is closer to two hundred. Lessig shows us that while new technologies always lead to new laws, never before have the big cultural monopolists used the fear created by new technologies, specifically the Internet, to shrink the public domain of ideas, even as the same corporations use the same technologies to control more and more what we can and can't do with culture. As more and more culture becomes digitized, more and more becomes controllable, even as laws are being toughened at the behest of the big media groups. What's at stake is our freedom—freedom to create, freedom to build, and ultimately, freedom to imagine. Originally published in March of 2007. Visit http://youtube.com/TalksAtGoogle/ to watch the video.
In the Judiciary Act of 1789, the First Congress created the office of the U.S. Attorneys, which was signed into law by President George Washington. Timothy J. Heaphy, a former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia, joins host Dr. Katie Crawford-Lackey to discuss the roles and responsibilities of U.S. Attorneys within the federal justice system and the significance of collaboration between different levels of law enforcement.
News
News
News
News
Last time we spoke about the second Zhili-Fengtian War. After the first Zhili-Fengtian War of 1922, the Zhili warlords took control of Beijing. Cao Kun bribed his way into the presidency as Zhang Zuolin retreated to Manchuria to rebuild his army. Zhang appointed key officials and boosted military production, significantly enhancing his army, navy, and air force. The catalyst for the second Zhili-Fengtian War in 1924 was the First Jiangsu-Zhejiang War. Zhang Zuolin declared war on the Zhili clique, accusing them of corruption and oppression. The war saw battles at Rehe, Shanhaiguan, and other locations, with both sides suffering heavy casualties. However, the Zhili forces were plagued by internal betrayal and logistical challenges. Feng Yuxiang's unexpected coup in Beijing further weakened the Zhili's position. Ultimately, the Fengtian army's superior strategy and coordination led to their victory, capturing key cities and forcing Zhili leaders to flee. #106 the First United Front Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. The second Zhili-Fengtian war was by far the most intense war to date for China's Warlord Era. Perhaps up to 450,000 troops participated in battles stretching along the Great Wall Line from Shanhaiguan to Beijing. The casualties were reported to be around 30,000, but estimates for China's Warlord Era are notoriously flimsy. Ultimately it was won by Feng Yuxiang's betrayal against Wu Peifu. Feng Yuxiang's Beijing coup certainly turned the tide, and now he had emerged a major player on the scene. Feng Yuxiang went to work, expelling the former Emperor of the Qing Dynasty, Puyi from the Forbidden city and placed Cao Kun under house arrest. Now immediately after Feng Yuxiang had taken Beijing, he began reorganizing his forces into the 1st National Army or better known as the Guominjun. Feng Yuxiang acted as its commander in chief with his co-conspirators Hu Qingyi and Sun Yueh as commanders of the 2nd and 3rd Armies. Now the Guominjun wer certainly an odd motley crew. The Guominjun's ideology was a blend of Chinese nationalism, progressive social reforms, military modernization, and ethical governance influenced by Christianity. Feng Yuxiang's leadership and vision shaped the faction into quite a unique force, striving to create a unified, modern, and moral China. Feng took care of his men's well being, he educated them, promoted their sense of nationalism. Within his territory Feng promoted education, built schools, and established social welfare programs. He believed that improving the living standards of the common people was essential for national strength and stability. He implemented a series of social reforms in the areas he controlled. These included land reforms aimed at reducing the power of landlords and distributing land more equitably among peasants. His Guominjun would become known for its efforts to combat corruption and inefficiency within its ranks and in the administration of its territories. Feng Yuxiang sought to create a more ethical and efficient government. Feng supported the modernization of China's infrastructure and industry. This included building railways, improving communications, and promoting technological advancements. The Guominjun was driven by a strong sense of Chinese nationalism, emphasizing the need to unify China and end the fragmentation caused by warlordism. They aimed to establish a central government that could restore national sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Guominjun placed a high emphasis on military discipline and modern training methods. Feng Yuxiang's background in the Beiyang Army influenced his approach to building a modern, professional military force. The Guominjun's ideological alignment with nationalism and reform brought them into close cooperation with the Kuomintang. The alliance with the KMT was based on shared goals of unification and modernization, though it was sometimes strained by ideological and strategic differences. Because of the geographical distance between their spheres of influence they would be more or less isolated from each other and thus it made it difficult to coordinate actions. Feng Yuxiang had hoped by imprisoning Cao Kun and exiling Puyi he would gain popular support amongst the Republican and anti-Manchu in the Beiyang government. Feng Yuxiang also proclaimed the Guominjun troops to be the first in the history of the Republic to serve as a national military establishment rather than a personal army. However no one forget his acts of treachery, the coup d'etat certainly gave him a bad rep. One of the few successes he would have was persuading Dr Sun Yat-Sen to come over to Beijing to take part in the new government. With the collapse of the Zhili clique, a more tenuous balance of power emerged in Beijing. Feng Yuxiang's position in Beijing was weakened each day, because of the maneuvers of Zhang Zuolin. He had moved the Fengtian forces south of Manchuria, proceeding south of the Tientsin-Pukou railway. This effectively gave Zhang Zuolin control over East China from Manchuria down to the Yangtze Valley. Alongside this Zhang Zuolin reached an agreement with Duan Qirui to bring him into the new fold. A 5 day conference took place at Tientsin from November 11th to 16th, including the new triumvirate of Zhang Zuolin, Feng Yuxiang and Duan Qirui. They discussed the future of the Beiyang government. Feng Yuxiang quickly discovered he had little negotiating power beyond his dominance in Beijing and even that was tenuous as Zhang Zuolin pretty much surrounded them all. Feng Yuxiang found out his trump card, the promise from Dr Sun Yat-Sen that he would come participate in the new Beiyang government was useless as both Zhang Zuolin and Duan Qirui had likewise received the same promise from him. During the conference the new triumvirate agreed Duan Qirui would become a figurehead of the new government with a position called the chief executive. Despite Duan Qirui's status as the leader of the practically non-existant Anhui Clique, he was more palatable to the surviving Zhili clique warlords than Zhang Zuolin or Feng Yuxiang. They made sure not to make Duan Qirui a president or premier, his role was specifically meant to be temporary, this was done to lure Dr Sun Yat-Sen over to Beijing. Meanwhile Feng Yuxiang and Zhang Zuolin retained their territories and became the military leaders of the new regime. On November 24th, Duan Qirui arrived to Beijing and assumed his new office. On December 9th the foreign powers recognized Duan Qirui's new government on the basis he did not alter their pre-existing unequal treaties. This was inevitable as Japan was the leading imperial power in asia and backed both Zhang Zuoli and Duan Qirui. He formed a cabinet without any Guominjun members. It would seem no one had forgotten Feng Yuxiangs treachery, but then again, his Guominjun had no officers with sufficient prestige to be nominated to any posts. Feng Yuxiang had little hope of exerting any control in the new government. Feng Yuxiang responded the dire situation by resigning his post as inspector general and retired, stating he would spending his future in study and travel. Yet his Guominjun forces still controlled Beijing. Zhang Zuolin took a cue from his move by also resigning his titles, heading over to Tientsin. Thus Duan Qirui with no military power, personally under threat of Feng Yuxiang's forces in Beijing was facing a daunting situation. He had to try and maintain the peace between the two warlords while forming a government acceptable to the foreign powers. His government then decided to make Feng Yuxiang and Zhang Zuolin defense commissioners of the northwest and northeast respectively. Feng Yuxiang now would control Suiyuan and Chahar, setting up new headquarters in Kalgan. Feng Yuxiang's new position did not prove lucrative and it was not an adequate power base. His only real ally was the KMT, but he was far to isolated from them, thus he turned to the Soviet Union.Feng Yuxiangs socialist actions had attracted the attention of communists and indeed within his entourage were many communists. The Soviets were enemies with the Empire of Japan. The Empire of Japan backed Zhang Zuolin, so the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The Soviets basically saw Feng Yuxiang as a possible balance against the Japanese who were continuing to expand their influence in Manchuria. Dr Sun Yat-Sen came to the north alongside the Soviet Michael Borodin. Dr Sun Yat-Sen had pleaded with western nations for a long time to support his government with finance and arms, but none offered anything tangible. Dr Sun Yat-Sen ‘s problem was his hard stance against the unequal treaties. All of the western powers knew, it was Dr Sun Yat-Sen's priority to get rid of the unequal treaties, thus they all refused to support his efforts. However there was a new nation that did not support the unequal treaties, in fact they even publicly stated so, the Soviet Union. Back in Autumn of 1920, Sun Yat-Sen met with representatives of the Commuturn in Shanghai. Sun Yat-Sen told them he believed Lenin wanted him to be the founder of the CCP, because Chen Duxiu did not have much influence with the people of China, unlike him, he was after all kind of a rockstar. After numerous attempts to gain support from Japan or the West, Sun Yat-Sen began to seriously consider cooperating with the CCP who were being supported by the Soviet Union. In December of 1921, Sun Yat-Sen met with Hendriks Josephs Franciscus Marie Sneevliet, known as Marin, because why is his name that long haha, in Guilin. Marin was a official representative of the Commiturn, Sun Yat-Sen came to him expressing his admiration for the Russian Revolution and for Lenin. He stated that he wanted to learn more about the Soviet achievement, especially their new economic policies. In August of 1922, the soviet diplomat to China, Adolf Joffe was trying to settle issues regarding Outer Mongolia and the Chinese Far Eastern Railway, to which he had little to no success, but during the process he also met with Dr Sun Yat-Sen. Sun Yat-Sen brought up the idea of cooperating with the CCP, it sounded promising. For a few months the Soviets brainstormed and by the 4th congress of the Communist international decided to get the CCP to agree to such a thing. In July of 1922 the CCP accepted Marin's proposal to join the Kuomintang in an alliance. This became known as the Sun-Joffe Manifesto and what it resulted in was the First United Front. In July the Soviets instructed the CCP to join the alliance, but there was a ton of push back. In Hanzhou, Marin met with Chen Duxiu, Li Dazhao, Cai Hesen , Zhang Guotao, Gao Junyu , Maring , and Zhang Tailei. Marin pointed out to them that the Kuomintang was a party of all classes who were trying to promote democratic revolution. The CCP joining the KMT would be in line with Lenin's outline on the international communist revolution. Many of the CCP leadership pointed out issues, like anti-communist elements in the KMT, but ultimately they all decided it was a good idea as the reality was, the CCP was only 300 members, they needed help to grow. Thus it was decided, some of the CCP leading figures would join the KMT, with the secret intention of persuading KMT members to join the CCP. According to testimony from Zhou Fohai, a CCP member at the time who would later join Wang Jingwei's collaborationist government "At that time, the Soviets wanted to collude with Wu Peifu, so it first gave Wu Peifu the honorific title of 'enlightened warlord'. At that time, Sun Hongyi was close to Wu Peifu, while Li Dazhao was close to Sun Hongyi. They took advantage of this relationship and had a secret relationship with Wu Peifu. Li Dazhao went to Luoyang several times, and it seems that there were records in the newspapers at that time. His methods were really clever. Wu Peifu ordered Gao Enhong to appoint Communists as the chief inspectors of the four lines of Beijing-Hankou, Beijing-Fengtian, Jinpu and Longhai. The inspector of Beijing-Hankou was Bao Huicai, and the inspector of Jinpu seemed to be Li Minzhi... Before the Soviets was abandoned by Wu Peifu, it once had an affair with Chen Jiongming. Chen Jiongming... specially summoned Chen Duxiu to Guangdong as its education committee member Chairman of the National People's Congress. At that time, Chen Jiongming's rebellious deeds were already well known, and Guangdong was clearly divided into two factions, Sun and Chen. The Soviets naturally used its strength to shift the situation. So the Soviets colluded with him. Chen Jiongming paid 500 yuan a month to Chen Gongbo to publish the "Qun Bao", which was a result of their collusion. Later, when Chen Jiongming was hiding in Huizhou, Ma Lin and Tan Pingshan went to Huizhou twice to discuss the terms of cooperation. Who would have thought that Chen Jiongming would dare to bombard Guanyin Mountain and endanger Premier Sun. After this rebellious act, Chen Jiongming was despised by the Chinese people. The Soviets was afraid of the attack of public opinion, so it did not dare to openly ally with him. Abandoned by Wu Peifu in the north and isolated from Chen Jiongming in the south, the Soviets, in 1923, followed the orders of the Third International and tried to infiltrate the Kuomintang and carried out its conspiracy to destroy the Kuomintang. " On January 12th of 1923, the Soviets passed a resolution recognizing the First United Front. Sun Yat-Sen accepted the alliance, but with two reservations; number 1, China would not become a communist nation; number 2 that the Soviets would give up the unequal treaties the Russian Empire previously held over China. On January 26th Sun Yat-Sen and Joffe issued a joint statement, declaring the cooperation between the KMT, CCP and Soviet Union. Now its important to note, Sun Yat-Sen did not believe the Soviet system could or would be functional for China. He believed China's largest problem was reunification under national independence. The Soviets abolished the unequal treaties that the Russian Empire had made with China and declared Outer Mongolia was part of China resolving that debacle. The Soviets even stated they promised not to carry out a communist revolution within China. Sun Yat-Sen stated publicly he was willing to accept CCP members into the KMT. Now this was clearly only done in order to receive Soviet finances and arms, but secondly, he truly believed their membership would help strengthen the nationalist movement. Many in the KMT were concerned with this venture. On February 9th of 1924, at Tsinghua University, Sun Yat-Sen was answering questions about the issue where he stated “Russia is Russia, and China is China. Russia has its own ideology, and China has its own ideology. In my previous speech, I mentioned Russia everywhere. I was talking about the organization of its revolutionary party, not its revolutionary ideology.” Now here comes Mr. Borodin. In September of 1923, Borodin was sent to serve as Dr Sun Yat-Sens political advisor, specifically responsible for facilitating the First United Front. Borodin spoke no Chinese, thus he conversed in English. He had a heavy midwestern American accent, which masked his Russian origin, helping him communicate with the largely anglophone and American educated leadership within the KMT. He was accompanied by Ho Chi Minh, yes the future leader of communist Vietnam. Borodin showed up in early October to Guangzhou where he held some private talks with the CCP. The CCP had been complaining about how the KMT were quite anti-communist in general, how the alliance made no sense if it was agreed there would be no Communist Revolution pushed by the Soviet Union within China. Borodin told them the real purpose of the alliance was actually a reorganization effort and to infiltrate the KMT. "In the newspapers, I talked about the Kuomintang, but for us, what I said was actually the increase in the influence of the CCP... We must never forget that what we are actually doing is to stabilize the CCP. This goal should be remembered forever." Now despite the new alliance with the Soviets, Sun Yat-Sen did not stop reaching out to the US and Japan causing Borodin headaches. In his report to Stalin, Borodin mentioned that on January 23, 1924, he talked with Sun Yat-Sen "I asked Sun Yat-sen again and again: How long will he hold on to the fantasy that the Chinese people may get some help from the United States, Britain or Japan? Hasn't he been waiting for such help for too long? Isn't it time to sum up the past full of illusions and failures and turn to a new path?" Then in late January of 1924, during the First Congress of the Kuomintang, Sun Yat-Sen expanded upon the Three Principles of the Peoples and this deeply concerned Borodin who reported to Stalin "Sun agreed to the revolutionary program formulated for the Kuomintang, which catered to us; but he disagreed to publicly say that he would establish a united front with us. For this reason, he did not fully trust us." Borodin also came to Sun Yat-Sen about his program stating “You are facing a choice. Do you want to move forward with the 1.5 billion people in the imperialist camp? Or do you want to move forward with the 1.25 billion people who are oppressed by imperialism? You should make a decision”. Although Sun Yat-Sen would accept many of Borodin's suggestions, ultimately it was Sun Yat-Sen calling the shots, and he butted heads often with Borodin. Borodin stated at one point to those around him "the American spirit was deeply rooted in his mind. Generally speaking, it was difficult to make Sun Yat-sen change his mind." By the end of 1923, Chiang Kai-Shek led Dr Sun Yat-Sen's delegation to the Soviet Union. Chiang Kai-Shek reported back to Sun Yat-Sen “The strategy and purpose of the Soviet Union's so-called ‘world revolution' is more dangerous to the independence movement of Eastern nations than Western colonialism.” Sun Yat-Sen replied that he believed Chiang Kai-Shek was over-worrying and that he “deeply believed that only by allowing the Chinese Communist Party members to be under the leadership of our party and under the unified command of our party can we prevent them from creating class struggles and hindering the progress of our national revolution. If our Northern Expedition is victorious, the Three Principles of the People can be implemented as scheduled. By then, even if the Soviet wants to sabotage our national revolution, it will be impossible. Moreover, the Soviet Union only recognizes our party as the only party leading the revolution in China, and strongly urges its CCP members to join our party and obey its leadership, but does not deny that China has no possibility of implementing its communism. Therefore, it still insists on its decision to ally with Russia and tolerate the CCP” Trouble soon brewed in June of 1924, many leading KMT figures wrote to Sun Yat-Sen accusing the CCP of raising the banner of anti-imperialism and anti-militarism causing the KMT to suffer scorn from western powers and Chinese nationalist scorn. Sun Yat-Sen knew of the problem, it was largely CCP students led by Chen Duxiu making a scene. He explained "The Chinese young students headed by Chen Duxiu are self-righteous. They initially wanted to monopolize Russian relations and prevent Russia from interacting with our party. Peter used Russia's help to establish his own faction and compete with our party. If I suspect Chen Duxiu and implicate Russia, it will be exactly what Chen Duxiu is planning and help him succeed. If (Chen Duxiu and others) do not obey our party, I will abandon them." Sun Yat-Sen also tried his best to restrict the CCP to be in his own direct orbit. Chen Duxiu had been repeatedly criticizing Sun Yat-Sen's policies in his newspapers, so Sun Yat-Sen went to Borodin to correct the issue. “Since the CCP have joined the KMT, they should obey party discipline and should not publicly criticize the KMT. If the CCP do not obey the KMT, I will expel them; if the Soviet Union protects the Chinese Communist Party, I will oppose the Soviet Union.” Sun Yat-Sen honestly failed to see the threat that the CCP really posed. He truly believed the CCP joined the KMT was not a cooperation between two equal parties. He believed the KMT was China's only revolutionary party while the CCP were just a group of scholars who supported Leninism. He never really took them seriously, but he also made sure never to give them arms when they continuously demanded them. As for the CCP, they regarded the KMT as quite backwards, many leaders in the CCP thought Dr Sun Yat-Sen was no different than the warlords. When Marin proposed to the CCP that they join the KMT, Chen Duxiu raised opposition arguing "the purpose and foundation of the revolution of the CCP and the KMT are different. The KMT's policies of alliance with the United States, Zhang Zuolin and Duan Qirui are too incompatible with communism. Outside Guangdong Province, it is still regarded as a political party fighting for power and profit. The Sun Yat-sen faction of the KMT has always been absolutely intolerant of the opinions of new members and cannot give them power". A lot of the CCP resented what they saw as Sun Yat-Sen appeasing the right while disenfranchising them. Once the First United Front was established, the Soviets took over management of the Chinese Eastern Railway and began occupying Outer Mongolia. Then money and arms began pouring in, military advisors came to help create Sun Yat-Sens Northern expedition. Sun Yat-Sen dispatched Chiang Kai-Shek to Moscow to investigate their politics and military, while Borodin was made the KMT's organization trainer. In May of 1924 Borodin helped found the Whampoa Military Academy. There officers of the National Revolutionary Army were trained, the backbone of the KMT. They would all under the leadership of Dr Sun Yat-Sen's number two, Chiang Kai-Shek. The quality of the education was guaranteed by regular visits from Soviet Officers. Many future big names would graduate from the academy, such as Lin Biao and Zhou Enlai. Borodin also established the Peasant Training institute, where a young Mao Zedong would serve. Things were not at all rainbows and sunshine. On May 1st of 1924, a large celebration was held in Guangzhou for the Peasant department. Sun Yat-Sen gave a speech calling on everyone to fight for national liberation and to put the theme of class struggle in a secondary position. This certainly did not sit well with the CCP, whose members began calling for breaking the alliance and arguing the KMT would lose the support of the Soviet Union. Borodin happened to be away at the time, and when prompted, Sun Yat-Sen kept saying they would resolve the matter when he returned. Frantic telegrams were sent and by June 20th Borodin returned. On June 25th a meeting was held with the leaders of the KMT and CCP. Borodin agreed with the point that the CCP was a party within the party of the KMT, but also stated the KMT had to give some ground to the CCP if they wanted to keep favor with the Soviet Union. Suddenly a wave of anti communist statements were lobbed from prominent KMT members, such as Wang Jingwei. They further launched a petition to expel certain communists. On July 15th in retaliation, Chinese workers in Shamian went on strike. Despite these setbacks the First United Front remained firm. Mao Zedong would see an appointment as Minister of Propaganda of the KMT. His job entailed hunting down newspapers and anyone who distributed leaflets, demanding they come to the Propaganda Department for review prior. In the next episode, if not a future one, Mao Zedong's propaganda department would have a lot of work ahead of them. Now all the way back to when I mentioned Sun Yat-Sen and Borodin visited Feng Yuxiang. Borodin came bearing a similar deal to what the KMT/CCP had with the Soviet Union and at first Feng Yuxiang was uncooperative. Yet cooped up in his Kalgan HQ, Feng Yuxiang had no backers, he was very low on funds. Most importantly he lacked arsenal facilities. Feng Yuxiang had struggled to cope, hunting everyone for backers, but the Northwest was not easily accessible. When he made orders with private traders bound for coastal ports, they were simply seized by local warlords who controlled coastal areas. Without domestic capabilities or access to the sea, Feng Yuxiang was pretty much screwed. Thus he caved into the Soviets An agreement was bought for Soviet financial aid and munitions by February of 1925, brokered by Borodin. From April to August, war materials began to pour into Feng Yuxiangs camp. The cargo was divided into two shipments, traveling over the trans siberian railway from Moscow to Verkhne Udinsk, then south over caravan trade routes to Maimaicheng. In 1925 it took 500 mongol carts to move the small arms, ammunition, rifles and field guns from Maimaicheng to Ulaan Baater, then over motor vehicles to Pingdichuan, to a station on the Beijing-Suiyuan railway all the way over to Fengzheng. It was a heavy haul to be sure: 5,000 cases of petroleum, 1,000 boxes of ammunition, 15,000 rifles, 15 million rounds of rifle ammunition, 27 colt machine guns, 630,000 machine gun ammunition, 1,000 entrenching tools, 30.000 hand grenades, and 100 poods of explosives. Another haul in 1925 included 64,000 rifles, 15.000 carbines, 72 million rounds of rifle and carbine ammunition, 189 machine guns, 6.45 million rounds of machine gun ammunition, 66 field guns, 18,000 revolvers, 5 million rounds of revolver ammunition, 50 field kitchens, 150 twowheel carts, and 16,000 swords. With a new supply line, Feng Yuxiang would distance himself from Zhang Zuolin. The triumvirate was becoming undone and a new war was looming. I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. While it seemed a decent compromise had been established with the triumvirate of Zhang Zuolin, Duan Qirui and Feng Yuxiang, dark clouds were emerging. The Guominjun and Kuomintang were both getting in bed with the Reds and soon everyone would be mobilizing for another grand war.
Republicans just teamed up with Democrats to pass a series of foreign aid bills while the American taxpayer continues to suffer. Are these set in stone? Not if Senator Mike Lee has anything to say about it. The Senator from Utah joins Jesse Kelly to break down everything going on. Plus, appearances from Kingsley Wilson and Marc Morano. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Republicans just teamed up with Democrats to pass a series of foreign aid bills while the American taxpayer continues to suffer. Are these set in stone? Not if Senator Mike Lee has anything to say about it. The Senator from Utah joins Jesse Kelly to break down everything going on. Plus, appearances from Kingsley Wilson and Marc Morano. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
First – Congress took the first step this week that COULD lead to potential ban on the popular app TikTok. We speak with national security specialist and former Commerce Department official Nazak Nikakhtar about what could be next. THEN – a conversation with data specialist Ken Block about his new book "Disproven" about his hiring by the Trump campaign to investigate election 2020 voter fraud claims Then –iCivics CEO Louise Dube joins us to discuss Civic Learning Week - which was this past week - and the importance of civics education. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Students were the first Chinese to pay attention to the Russian Revolution and the new Communist government there. The Communist International (or Comintern) founded in 1919, also actively promoted and sponsored revolution abroad. Gregory Voitinsky arrived in 1920 as part of the Soviet efforts in China.Chinese students in France (like Zhou Enlai) and professors at Peking University were quick to promote socialist and Marxist ideas and to form societies and launch publications. They were encouraged by Cai Yuanpei, the Republic of China's first Minister of Education who was then Rector of Peking University. In particular, Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao were two intellectuals very active in the lead up to the First Congress of the Communist Party of China. Each was elected at that important first meeting. Chen became the party's first Secretary-General and Li became responsible for propaganda. A Dutch communist, Henk Sneevliet, was present on behalf of the Comintern. A 28 year old Mao Zedong was also there before returning to Hunan province.Please share your advice and make the podcast even better here !Save up to 55% on flights, hotels, car rentals and more through Trip.com here!Enjoy discounts of up to 25% on Contiki Tours here and on Contiki last minute deals here!You save and you support this podcast by using those links. Thank you!Image: "中共一大會會址" by billibala is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
On this day in legal history, August 7, 1789, Congress passed an act known as the 9th Act of the First Congress, which established the Lighthouse Service. This marked a crucial commitment to maritime navigation safety in the United States and was a key piece of legislation designed for the establishment and support of lighthouses, beacons, buoys, and public piers. Remarkably, this was the first non-revenue responsibility assigned to Collectors of Customs. They were tasked with the design, construction, staffing, and management of lighthouses within their Customs districts, broadening their role beyond mere revenue collection. Two centuries later, the importance of this act was commemorated when Congress designated August 7, 1989, as National Lighthouse Day, celebrating both the history and the continued significance of lighthouses and other navigational aids in American maritime history.National Lighthouse Day – August 7thRoger Johnson, a prominent M&A partner at Kirkland & Ellis in London, specializing in private equity deals, was asked to leave the firm after it was discovered he was in talks with a rival company. Johnson, who joined Kirkland from Linklaters in 2015, was instrumental in the U.S. firm's efforts to expand into the private equity M&A sector in London. His departure was confirmed by a spokesperson from Kirkland, who wished him well but declined to comment further on personnel matters. Johnson's recent achievements include representing EQT in a £4.5 billion takeover of Dechra, a veterinary pharmaceuticals company. This personnel change follows the departure of David Holdsworth, a fellow Linklaters alumnus, from Kirkland last year. Separately, on August 2, Kirkland announced the hiring of Alvaro Membrillera, Paul Weiss's London head, a highly rated private equity M&A partner. Meanwhile, Kirkland's average equity partner pay reached $7.5 million in 2022, with the firm's revenue rising nearly 8% to $6.5 billion.Wake Up Call: Kirkland Boots Deals Partner Over Talks With RivalKirkland & Ellis M&A star asked to leave after exit plans leakedDonald Trump's lawyers have dropped a lawsuit in Georgia seeking to force a state judge to rule on Trump's request to discard evidence gathered by a special purpose grand jury and to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from the investigation. This decision came three days after the judge denied the request to remove Willis. Though disagreeing with Judge Robert McBurney's ruling, Trump's lawyers stated that they will explore other channels to seek judicial review. Fulton County DA Willis plans to decide this month whether to ask a new grand jury to charge Trump and his associates. The special purpose grand jury Trump is challenging had only an advisory role and could not indict. This legal maneuvering comes as Trump already faces three other indictments. Additionally, the Fulton County Sheriff's Office announced they will close streets around the courthouse for two weeks starting August 7th as a security measure.Trump Drops Georgia Lawsuit Over Grand Jury, Promises New CaseDemocratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has filed a lawsuit against Google LLC for removing his YouTube videos that questioned the safety of Covid-19 vaccines. Kennedy, a well-known anti-vaccine activist, labeled the company's medical misinformation policies as “impermissibly vague” and the video removal as “unconstitutional,” asserting it violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The lawsuit also criticized the Biden Administration, claiming officials colluded with tech companies to “censor dissenting views” on the pandemic. Kennedy has faced significant backlash for his misleading claims about vaccines and controversial remarks related to the pandemic. The lawsuit reflects broader critiques against social media platforms implementing policies to combat misinformation. YouTube defended its actions, stating that it enforces its Community Guidelines transparently and consistently, and a Google spokesperson described the claims as meritless. Kennedy, seeking an order to restore all removed videos and demanding a jury trial, likens YouTube to a “digital town square” where censorship of political speech is inappropriate.RFK Jr. Sues Google, YouTube For Removal of Anti-Vaccine SpeechOn Sunday, Donald Trump targeted the federal judge overseeing the case that charges him with conspiring to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Trump expressed in a social media post that he cannot receive a fair trial from U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan and intends to seek her recusal and a change of venue. No formal request has yet been filed. Trump faces a Monday deadline to respond to a proposed protective order meant to shield witnesses and evidence after Chutkan denied his request for a delay. Trump's lawyer, John Lauro, defended Trump's actions after the 2020 election loss, referring to them as "aspirational asks" rather than directives, and expressed opposition to the protective order. Former Vice President Mike Pence countered Trump's claims, saying he had no right to overturn the election result. Additionally, Trump is facing other legal troubles, including possible charges in Georgia, along with ongoing charges related to classified documents and hush money payments.Trump targets DC judge in 2020 election case | ReutersAccording to a new report from the Thomson Reuters Institute, large and midsized law firms experienced a boost in financial performance in Q2 2023, with demand growth for legal work in specific areas like bankruptcy, labor and employment, litigation, and antitrust. The demand increased by 1.5% year-over-year, and the Law Firm Financial Index jumped six points in Q2 to reach its highest level since Q1 2022. The average rate a client agreed to pay for legal services grew by 5.9% in comparison to the same period the previous year. Demand specifically grew for bankruptcy work (5.7%), antitrust and regulatory work (4.6%), and labor and employment work (2.4%), with litigation climbing by 4%. On the other hand, demand for mergers and acquisitions fell by 6%, and real estate demand dropped by 8.4%. The report also highlights differing tactics between midsize and large firms to strengthen profitability, with midsize firms increasing their associate headcount, and top 100 firms trimming theirs. While some large U.S. law firms have made layoffs, the industry is not conducting mass layoffs like in the 2008 financial crisis.Law firms saw rising demand in Q2, report says | ReutersElon Musk's social media platform, X, formerly known as Twitter, will pay legal bills for users who have been treated unfairly by employers for posting or liking something on the site. Musk announced this commitment in a post on X, stating that there would be no limits to funding the legal bills. He also emphasized that legal action would be "extremely loud," and that the company would target the boards of directors of offending companies. This move comes at a time when the platform is experiencing a new high in monthly users, with over 540 million as of last month. X is currently going through organizational changes and is aiming to boost falling advertising revenue. The platform was rebranded from Twitter to X in July, with Musk stating a new focus on building an "everything app." However, the platform's cash flow remains negative due to a nearly 50% drop in advertising revenue and a substantial debt load, with an expected upturn in advertising revenue failing to materialize in June.Musk's X to pay legal bills of people 'unfairly treated' for posting on platform | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
Clause 2: Classification of senators; Vacancies. Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies. After the first group of senators was elected to the First Congress (1789–1791), the senators were divided into three "classes" as nearly equal in size as possible, as required by this section. This was done in May 1789 by lot. It was also decided that each state's senators would be assigned to two different classes. Those senators grouped in the first class had their term expire after only two years; those senators in the second class had their term expire after only four years, instead of six. After this, all senators from those states have been elected to six-year terms, and as new states have joined the Union, their Senate seats have been assigned to two of the three classes, maintaining each grouping as nearly equal in size as possible. In this way, election is staggered; approximately one-third of the Senate is up for reelection every two years, but the entire body is never up for re-election in the same year (as contrasted with the House, where its entire membership is up for reelection every 2 years). As originally established, senators were elected by the Legislature of the State they represented in the Senate. If a senator died, resigned, or was expelled, the legislature of the state would appoint a replacement to serve out the remainder of the senator's term. If the state legislature was not in session, its governor could appoint a temporary replacement to serve until the legislature could elect a permanent replacement. This was superseded by the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for the popular election of senators, instead of their appointment by the state legislature. In a nod to the less populist nature of the Senate, the amendment tracks the vacancy procedures for the House of Representatives in requiring that the governor call a special election to fill the vacancy, but (unlike in the House) it vests in the state legislature the authority to allow the governor to appoint a temporary replacement until the special election is held. Note, however, that under the original Constitution, the governors of the states were expressly allowed by the Constitution to make temporary appointments. The current system, under the Seventeenth Amendment, allows governors to appoint a replacement only if their state legislature has previously decided to allow the governor to do so; otherwise, the seat must remain vacant until the special election is held to fill the seat, as in the case of a vacancy in the House. Clause 3: Qualifications of senators. No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. A senator must be at least 30 years of age, must have been a citizen of the United States for at least nine years before being elected, and must reside in the State they will represent at the time of the election. --- 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
First: Congress is back today, and lawmakers returned to a very long to do list this morning. The House Speaker Kevin McCarthy used the New York Stock Exchange as the backdrop for a speech in which he placed blame for the debt ceiling stalemate at President Biden's feet. Plus: House Judiciary Republicans hold a hearing in Manhattan to try and turn up the pressure on DA Alvin Bragg, calling him soft on crime. Is it an attempt to deflect attention from Bragg's prosecution of Donald Trump. And: Does a delay on the eve of a billion-dollar trial signal Fox is ready to settle with Dominion are headed for a settlement? To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy
This engaging history overturns the conventional wisdom about the Second Amendment--showing that the right to bear arms was not about protecting liberty but about preserving slavery.In Madison's Militia, Carl Bogus illuminates why James Madison and the First Congress included the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights. Linking together dramatic accounts of slave uprisings and electric debates over whether the Constitution should be ratified, Bogus shows that--contrary to conventional wisdom--the fitting symbol of the Second Amendment is not the musket in the hands of the minuteman on Lexington Green but the musket wielded by a slave patrol member in the South.Bogus begins with a dramatic rendering of the showdown in Virginia between James Madison and his federalist allies, who were arguing for ratification of the new Constitution, and Patrick Henry and the antifederalists, who were arguing against it. Henry accused Madison of supporting a constitution that empowered Congress to disarm the militia, on which the South relied for slave control. The narrative then proceeds to the First Congress, where Madison had to make good a congressional campaign promise to write a Bill of Rights--and seizing that opportunity to solve the problem Henry had raised.Three other collections of stories--on slave insurrections, Revolutionary War battles, and the English Declaration of Rights--are skillfully woven into the narrative and show how arming ragtag militias was never the primary goal of the amendment. And as the puzzle pieces come together, even initially skeptical readers will be surprised by the completed picture: one that forcefully demonstrates that the Second Amendment was intended in the first instance to protect slaveholders from the people they owned.Carl T. Bogus is a Professor of Law Emeritus at the Roger Williams University School of Law in Bristol, Rhode Island. He has also held visiting positions at the George Washington, Drexel, and Rutgers University law schools. He is the author of two previous books--Buckley: William F. Buckley Jr. and the Rise of American Conservatism (Bloomsbury Press) and Why Lawsuits Are Good for America: Disciplined Democracy, Big Business, and the Common Law (NYU Press)--and the editor of The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Constitutional Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms (The New Press). His writings have appeared in professional journals as well as the New York Times, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, The Nation, American Prospect, American Conservative, and other popular venues.Buy the book from Wellington Square Bookshop - https://wellingtonsquarebooks.indiecommerce.com/book/9780197632222
What is religious liberty, anyway? What are its origins? What are religious exemptions? What would a jurisprudence of religious liberty based on the idea of natural rights look like? What is distinctive about such an approach and what are some of its pluses and minuses? These are some of the questions addressed in Religious Liberty and the American Founding: Natural Rights and the Original Meanings of the First Amendment Religion Clauses (U Chicago Press, 2022) by Vincent Phillip Muñoz. The book explores the fraught legal and philosophical terrain of religious freedom. It is a meticulous study of the Founders' common concern for the protection for our inalienable right of religious free exercise and their surprisingly divergent views on how to navigate the relationships of privilege and control between church and state. Muñoz examines the attitudes of the Founding Generation on these topics as reflected in the understudied area of constitution making between 1776 and 1791 in America at the state level. He argues that we have to go beyond the First Amendment's text to elaborate its meanings. We must, he contends, understand the intellectual and theological milieu of the time. Muñoz provides the historical context of the creation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and the intellectual underpinnings of their original meanings. He explicates in a thorough but reader-friendly manner what we can and cannot determine about the original meaning of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses. The book is a mixture of legal, intellectual, and political history in which we learn that the Bill of Rights was in many ways an afterthought, designed by the Federalists to counter opposition to the Constitution by Anti-Federalists. Indeed, Muñoz shows that many, if not most, of the individuals who drafted the First Amendment did not even think it was necessary. His detailed examination of the drafting records illuminates the Federalists' lack of enthusiasm for amendments and says, “the aim of many in the First Congress was to get amendments drafted, not to draft precise amendments.” He concludes the book with a discussion of the impact of natural rights constructions of those clauses. Muñoz contrasts fascinatingly, for example, his approach with those taken by recent Supreme Court justices (notably Samuel Alito) and argues that his novel church-state jurisprudence offers a way forward that could adjudicate First Amendment church-state issues in a legal, fair, coherent and, importantly, more democratic fashion. This book is an outstanding guide to the many schools of thought on religious liberty in the United States and in his argument for an inalienable natural rights understanding as the Founders' most authoritative view, Muñoz convincingly shows that competing accounts—(e.g., “neutrality,” “accommodation,” “separation,” “non-endorsement,” “minimizing political division,” and “tradition”) do not capture the deepest understanding of the Founders' thought. Muñoz notes that his constructions correspond to no existing approach. They do not fall into what are usually considered either the “conservative” or “liberal” positions on church-state matters. The aim of the book is to spur more robust conversations about whether we are interpreting the Founders correctly and what evidence is most relevant to develop the First Amendment Religion Clauses consistently with their original design. Let's hear from Professor Muñoz himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
What is religious liberty, anyway? What are its origins? What are religious exemptions? What would a jurisprudence of religious liberty based on the idea of natural rights look like? What is distinctive about such an approach and what are some of its pluses and minuses? These are some of the questions addressed in Religious Liberty and the American Founding: Natural Rights and the Original Meanings of the First Amendment Religion Clauses (U Chicago Press, 2022) by Vincent Phillip Muñoz. The book explores the fraught legal and philosophical terrain of religious freedom. It is a meticulous study of the Founders' common concern for the protection for our inalienable right of religious free exercise and their surprisingly divergent views on how to navigate the relationships of privilege and control between church and state. Muñoz examines the attitudes of the Founding Generation on these topics as reflected in the understudied area of constitution making between 1776 and 1791 in America at the state level. He argues that we have to go beyond the First Amendment's text to elaborate its meanings. We must, he contends, understand the intellectual and theological milieu of the time. Muñoz provides the historical context of the creation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and the intellectual underpinnings of their original meanings. He explicates in a thorough but reader-friendly manner what we can and cannot determine about the original meaning of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses. The book is a mixture of legal, intellectual, and political history in which we learn that the Bill of Rights was in many ways an afterthought, designed by the Federalists to counter opposition to the Constitution by Anti-Federalists. Indeed, Muñoz shows that many, if not most, of the individuals who drafted the First Amendment did not even think it was necessary. His detailed examination of the drafting records illuminates the Federalists' lack of enthusiasm for amendments and says, “the aim of many in the First Congress was to get amendments drafted, not to draft precise amendments.” He concludes the book with a discussion of the impact of natural rights constructions of those clauses. Muñoz contrasts fascinatingly, for example, his approach with those taken by recent Supreme Court justices (notably Samuel Alito) and argues that his novel church-state jurisprudence offers a way forward that could adjudicate First Amendment church-state issues in a legal, fair, coherent and, importantly, more democratic fashion. This book is an outstanding guide to the many schools of thought on religious liberty in the United States and in his argument for an inalienable natural rights understanding as the Founders' most authoritative view, Muñoz convincingly shows that competing accounts—(e.g., “neutrality,” “accommodation,” “separation,” “non-endorsement,” “minimizing political division,” and “tradition”) do not capture the deepest understanding of the Founders' thought. Muñoz notes that his constructions correspond to no existing approach. They do not fall into what are usually considered either the “conservative” or “liberal” positions on church-state matters. The aim of the book is to spur more robust conversations about whether we are interpreting the Founders correctly and what evidence is most relevant to develop the First Amendment Religion Clauses consistently with their original design. Let's hear from Professor Muñoz himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history
What is religious liberty, anyway? What are its origins? What are religious exemptions? What would a jurisprudence of religious liberty based on the idea of natural rights look like? What is distinctive about such an approach and what are some of its pluses and minuses? These are some of the questions addressed in Religious Liberty and the American Founding: Natural Rights and the Original Meanings of the First Amendment Religion Clauses (U Chicago Press, 2022) by Vincent Phillip Muñoz. The book explores the fraught legal and philosophical terrain of religious freedom. It is a meticulous study of the Founders' common concern for the protection for our inalienable right of religious free exercise and their surprisingly divergent views on how to navigate the relationships of privilege and control between church and state. Muñoz examines the attitudes of the Founding Generation on these topics as reflected in the understudied area of constitution making between 1776 and 1791 in America at the state level. He argues that we have to go beyond the First Amendment's text to elaborate its meanings. We must, he contends, understand the intellectual and theological milieu of the time. Muñoz provides the historical context of the creation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and the intellectual underpinnings of their original meanings. He explicates in a thorough but reader-friendly manner what we can and cannot determine about the original meaning of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses. The book is a mixture of legal, intellectual, and political history in which we learn that the Bill of Rights was in many ways an afterthought, designed by the Federalists to counter opposition to the Constitution by Anti-Federalists. Indeed, Muñoz shows that many, if not most, of the individuals who drafted the First Amendment did not even think it was necessary. His detailed examination of the drafting records illuminates the Federalists' lack of enthusiasm for amendments and says, “the aim of many in the First Congress was to get amendments drafted, not to draft precise amendments.” He concludes the book with a discussion of the impact of natural rights constructions of those clauses. Muñoz contrasts fascinatingly, for example, his approach with those taken by recent Supreme Court justices (notably Samuel Alito) and argues that his novel church-state jurisprudence offers a way forward that could adjudicate First Amendment church-state issues in a legal, fair, coherent and, importantly, more democratic fashion. This book is an outstanding guide to the many schools of thought on religious liberty in the United States and in his argument for an inalienable natural rights understanding as the Founders' most authoritative view, Muñoz convincingly shows that competing accounts—(e.g., “neutrality,” “accommodation,” “separation,” “non-endorsement,” “minimizing political division,” and “tradition”) do not capture the deepest understanding of the Founders' thought. Muñoz notes that his constructions correspond to no existing approach. They do not fall into what are usually considered either the “conservative” or “liberal” positions on church-state matters. The aim of the book is to spur more robust conversations about whether we are interpreting the Founders correctly and what evidence is most relevant to develop the First Amendment Religion Clauses consistently with their original design. Let's hear from Professor Muñoz himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science
What is religious liberty, anyway? What are its origins? What are religious exemptions? What would a jurisprudence of religious liberty based on the idea of natural rights look like? What is distinctive about such an approach and what are some of its pluses and minuses? These are some of the questions addressed in Religious Liberty and the American Founding: Natural Rights and the Original Meanings of the First Amendment Religion Clauses (U Chicago Press, 2022) by Vincent Phillip Muñoz. The book explores the fraught legal and philosophical terrain of religious freedom. It is a meticulous study of the Founders' common concern for the protection for our inalienable right of religious free exercise and their surprisingly divergent views on how to navigate the relationships of privilege and control between church and state. Muñoz examines the attitudes of the Founding Generation on these topics as reflected in the understudied area of constitution making between 1776 and 1791 in America at the state level. He argues that we have to go beyond the First Amendment's text to elaborate its meanings. We must, he contends, understand the intellectual and theological milieu of the time. Muñoz provides the historical context of the creation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and the intellectual underpinnings of their original meanings. He explicates in a thorough but reader-friendly manner what we can and cannot determine about the original meaning of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses. The book is a mixture of legal, intellectual, and political history in which we learn that the Bill of Rights was in many ways an afterthought, designed by the Federalists to counter opposition to the Constitution by Anti-Federalists. Indeed, Muñoz shows that many, if not most, of the individuals who drafted the First Amendment did not even think it was necessary. His detailed examination of the drafting records illuminates the Federalists' lack of enthusiasm for amendments and says, “the aim of many in the First Congress was to get amendments drafted, not to draft precise amendments.” He concludes the book with a discussion of the impact of natural rights constructions of those clauses. Muñoz contrasts fascinatingly, for example, his approach with those taken by recent Supreme Court justices (notably Samuel Alito) and argues that his novel church-state jurisprudence offers a way forward that could adjudicate First Amendment church-state issues in a legal, fair, coherent and, importantly, more democratic fashion. This book is an outstanding guide to the many schools of thought on religious liberty in the United States and in his argument for an inalienable natural rights understanding as the Founders' most authoritative view, Muñoz convincingly shows that competing accounts—(e.g., “neutrality,” “accommodation,” “separation,” “non-endorsement,” “minimizing political division,” and “tradition”) do not capture the deepest understanding of the Founders' thought. Muñoz notes that his constructions correspond to no existing approach. They do not fall into what are usually considered either the “conservative” or “liberal” positions on church-state matters. The aim of the book is to spur more robust conversations about whether we are interpreting the Founders correctly and what evidence is most relevant to develop the First Amendment Religion Clauses consistently with their original design. Let's hear from Professor Muñoz himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history
What is religious liberty, anyway? What are its origins? What are religious exemptions? What would a jurisprudence of religious liberty based on the idea of natural rights look like? What is distinctive about such an approach and what are some of its pluses and minuses? These are some of the questions addressed in Religious Liberty and the American Founding: Natural Rights and the Original Meanings of the First Amendment Religion Clauses (U Chicago Press, 2022) by Vincent Phillip Muñoz. The book explores the fraught legal and philosophical terrain of religious freedom. It is a meticulous study of the Founders' common concern for the protection for our inalienable right of religious free exercise and their surprisingly divergent views on how to navigate the relationships of privilege and control between church and state. Muñoz examines the attitudes of the Founding Generation on these topics as reflected in the understudied area of constitution making between 1776 and 1791 in America at the state level. He argues that we have to go beyond the First Amendment's text to elaborate its meanings. We must, he contends, understand the intellectual and theological milieu of the time. Muñoz provides the historical context of the creation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and the intellectual underpinnings of their original meanings. He explicates in a thorough but reader-friendly manner what we can and cannot determine about the original meaning of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses. The book is a mixture of legal, intellectual, and political history in which we learn that the Bill of Rights was in many ways an afterthought, designed by the Federalists to counter opposition to the Constitution by Anti-Federalists. Indeed, Muñoz shows that many, if not most, of the individuals who drafted the First Amendment did not even think it was necessary. His detailed examination of the drafting records illuminates the Federalists' lack of enthusiasm for amendments and says, “the aim of many in the First Congress was to get amendments drafted, not to draft precise amendments.” He concludes the book with a discussion of the impact of natural rights constructions of those clauses. Muñoz contrasts fascinatingly, for example, his approach with those taken by recent Supreme Court justices (notably Samuel Alito) and argues that his novel church-state jurisprudence offers a way forward that could adjudicate First Amendment church-state issues in a legal, fair, coherent and, importantly, more democratic fashion. This book is an outstanding guide to the many schools of thought on religious liberty in the United States and in his argument for an inalienable natural rights understanding as the Founders' most authoritative view, Muñoz convincingly shows that competing accounts—(e.g., “neutrality,” “accommodation,” “separation,” “non-endorsement,” “minimizing political division,” and “tradition”) do not capture the deepest understanding of the Founders' thought. Muñoz notes that his constructions correspond to no existing approach. They do not fall into what are usually considered either the “conservative” or “liberal” positions on church-state matters. The aim of the book is to spur more robust conversations about whether we are interpreting the Founders correctly and what evidence is most relevant to develop the First Amendment Religion Clauses consistently with their original design. Let's hear from Professor Muñoz himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
What is religious liberty, anyway? What are its origins? What are religious exemptions? What would a jurisprudence of religious liberty based on the idea of natural rights look like? What is distinctive about such an approach and what are some of its pluses and minuses? These are some of the questions addressed in Religious Liberty and the American Founding: Natural Rights and the Original Meanings of the First Amendment Religion Clauses (U Chicago Press, 2022) by Vincent Phillip Muñoz. The book explores the fraught legal and philosophical terrain of religious freedom. It is a meticulous study of the Founders' common concern for the protection for our inalienable right of religious free exercise and their surprisingly divergent views on how to navigate the relationships of privilege and control between church and state. Muñoz examines the attitudes of the Founding Generation on these topics as reflected in the understudied area of constitution making between 1776 and 1791 in America at the state level. He argues that we have to go beyond the First Amendment's text to elaborate its meanings. We must, he contends, understand the intellectual and theological milieu of the time. Muñoz provides the historical context of the creation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and the intellectual underpinnings of their original meanings. He explicates in a thorough but reader-friendly manner what we can and cannot determine about the original meaning of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses. The book is a mixture of legal, intellectual, and political history in which we learn that the Bill of Rights was in many ways an afterthought, designed by the Federalists to counter opposition to the Constitution by Anti-Federalists. Indeed, Muñoz shows that many, if not most, of the individuals who drafted the First Amendment did not even think it was necessary. His detailed examination of the drafting records illuminates the Federalists' lack of enthusiasm for amendments and says, “the aim of many in the First Congress was to get amendments drafted, not to draft precise amendments.” He concludes the book with a discussion of the impact of natural rights constructions of those clauses. Muñoz contrasts fascinatingly, for example, his approach with those taken by recent Supreme Court justices (notably Samuel Alito) and argues that his novel church-state jurisprudence offers a way forward that could adjudicate First Amendment church-state issues in a legal, fair, coherent and, importantly, more democratic fashion. This book is an outstanding guide to the many schools of thought on religious liberty in the United States and in his argument for an inalienable natural rights understanding as the Founders' most authoritative view, Muñoz convincingly shows that competing accounts—(e.g., “neutrality,” “accommodation,” “separation,” “non-endorsement,” “minimizing political division,” and “tradition”) do not capture the deepest understanding of the Founders' thought. Muñoz notes that his constructions correspond to no existing approach. They do not fall into what are usually considered either the “conservative” or “liberal” positions on church-state matters. The aim of the book is to spur more robust conversations about whether we are interpreting the Founders correctly and what evidence is most relevant to develop the First Amendment Religion Clauses consistently with their original design. Let's hear from Professor Muñoz himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies
What is religious liberty, anyway? What are its origins? What are religious exemptions? What would a jurisprudence of religious liberty based on the idea of natural rights look like? What is distinctive about such an approach and what are some of its pluses and minuses? These are some of the questions addressed in Religious Liberty and the American Founding: Natural Rights and the Original Meanings of the First Amendment Religion Clauses (U Chicago Press, 2022) by Vincent Phillip Muñoz. The book explores the fraught legal and philosophical terrain of religious freedom. It is a meticulous study of the Founders' common concern for the protection for our inalienable right of religious free exercise and their surprisingly divergent views on how to navigate the relationships of privilege and control between church and state. Muñoz examines the attitudes of the Founding Generation on these topics as reflected in the understudied area of constitution making between 1776 and 1791 in America at the state level. He argues that we have to go beyond the First Amendment's text to elaborate its meanings. We must, he contends, understand the intellectual and theological milieu of the time. Muñoz provides the historical context of the creation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and the intellectual underpinnings of their original meanings. He explicates in a thorough but reader-friendly manner what we can and cannot determine about the original meaning of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses. The book is a mixture of legal, intellectual, and political history in which we learn that the Bill of Rights was in many ways an afterthought, designed by the Federalists to counter opposition to the Constitution by Anti-Federalists. Indeed, Muñoz shows that many, if not most, of the individuals who drafted the First Amendment did not even think it was necessary. His detailed examination of the drafting records illuminates the Federalists' lack of enthusiasm for amendments and says, “the aim of many in the First Congress was to get amendments drafted, not to draft precise amendments.” He concludes the book with a discussion of the impact of natural rights constructions of those clauses. Muñoz contrasts fascinatingly, for example, his approach with those taken by recent Supreme Court justices (notably Samuel Alito) and argues that his novel church-state jurisprudence offers a way forward that could adjudicate First Amendment church-state issues in a legal, fair, coherent and, importantly, more democratic fashion. This book is an outstanding guide to the many schools of thought on religious liberty in the United States and in his argument for an inalienable natural rights understanding as the Founders' most authoritative view, Muñoz convincingly shows that competing accounts—(e.g., “neutrality,” “accommodation,” “separation,” “non-endorsement,” “minimizing political division,” and “tradition”) do not capture the deepest understanding of the Founders' thought. Muñoz notes that his constructions correspond to no existing approach. They do not fall into what are usually considered either the “conservative” or “liberal” positions on church-state matters. The aim of the book is to spur more robust conversations about whether we are interpreting the Founders correctly and what evidence is most relevant to develop the First Amendment Religion Clauses consistently with their original design. Let's hear from Professor Muñoz himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/religion
What is religious liberty, anyway? What are its origins? What are religious exemptions? What would a jurisprudence of religious liberty based on the idea of natural rights look like? What is distinctive about such an approach and what are some of its pluses and minuses? These are some of the questions addressed in Religious Liberty and the American Founding: Natural Rights and the Original Meanings of the First Amendment Religion Clauses (U Chicago Press, 2022) by Vincent Phillip Muñoz. The book explores the fraught legal and philosophical terrain of religious freedom. It is a meticulous study of the Founders' common concern for the protection for our inalienable right of religious free exercise and their surprisingly divergent views on how to navigate the relationships of privilege and control between church and state. Muñoz examines the attitudes of the Founding Generation on these topics as reflected in the understudied area of constitution making between 1776 and 1791 in America at the state level. He argues that we have to go beyond the First Amendment's text to elaborate its meanings. We must, he contends, understand the intellectual and theological milieu of the time. Muñoz provides the historical context of the creation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and the intellectual underpinnings of their original meanings. He explicates in a thorough but reader-friendly manner what we can and cannot determine about the original meaning of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses. The book is a mixture of legal, intellectual, and political history in which we learn that the Bill of Rights was in many ways an afterthought, designed by the Federalists to counter opposition to the Constitution by Anti-Federalists. Indeed, Muñoz shows that many, if not most, of the individuals who drafted the First Amendment did not even think it was necessary. His detailed examination of the drafting records illuminates the Federalists' lack of enthusiasm for amendments and says, “the aim of many in the First Congress was to get amendments drafted, not to draft precise amendments.” He concludes the book with a discussion of the impact of natural rights constructions of those clauses. Muñoz contrasts fascinatingly, for example, his approach with those taken by recent Supreme Court justices (notably Samuel Alito) and argues that his novel church-state jurisprudence offers a way forward that could adjudicate First Amendment church-state issues in a legal, fair, coherent and, importantly, more democratic fashion. This book is an outstanding guide to the many schools of thought on religious liberty in the United States and in his argument for an inalienable natural rights understanding as the Founders' most authoritative view, Muñoz convincingly shows that competing accounts—(e.g., “neutrality,” “accommodation,” “separation,” “non-endorsement,” “minimizing political division,” and “tradition”) do not capture the deepest understanding of the Founders' thought. Muñoz notes that his constructions correspond to no existing approach. They do not fall into what are usually considered either the “conservative” or “liberal” positions on church-state matters. The aim of the book is to spur more robust conversations about whether we are interpreting the Founders correctly and what evidence is most relevant to develop the First Amendment Religion Clauses consistently with their original design. Let's hear from Professor Muñoz himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law
What is religious liberty, anyway? What are its origins? What are religious exemptions? What would a jurisprudence of religious liberty based on the idea of natural rights look like? What is distinctive about such an approach and what are some of its pluses and minuses? These are some of the questions addressed in Religious Liberty and the American Founding: Natural Rights and the Original Meanings of the First Amendment Religion Clauses (U Chicago Press, 2022) by Vincent Phillip Muñoz. The book explores the fraught legal and philosophical terrain of religious freedom. It is a meticulous study of the Founders' common concern for the protection for our inalienable right of religious free exercise and their surprisingly divergent views on how to navigate the relationships of privilege and control between church and state. Muñoz examines the attitudes of the Founding Generation on these topics as reflected in the understudied area of constitution making between 1776 and 1791 in America at the state level. He argues that we have to go beyond the First Amendment's text to elaborate its meanings. We must, he contends, understand the intellectual and theological milieu of the time. Muñoz provides the historical context of the creation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and the intellectual underpinnings of their original meanings. He explicates in a thorough but reader-friendly manner what we can and cannot determine about the original meaning of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses. The book is a mixture of legal, intellectual, and political history in which we learn that the Bill of Rights was in many ways an afterthought, designed by the Federalists to counter opposition to the Constitution by Anti-Federalists. Indeed, Muñoz shows that many, if not most, of the individuals who drafted the First Amendment did not even think it was necessary. His detailed examination of the drafting records illuminates the Federalists' lack of enthusiasm for amendments and says, “the aim of many in the First Congress was to get amendments drafted, not to draft precise amendments.” He concludes the book with a discussion of the impact of natural rights constructions of those clauses. Muñoz contrasts fascinatingly, for example, his approach with those taken by recent Supreme Court justices (notably Samuel Alito) and argues that his novel church-state jurisprudence offers a way forward that could adjudicate First Amendment church-state issues in a legal, fair, coherent and, importantly, more democratic fashion. This book is an outstanding guide to the many schools of thought on religious liberty in the United States and in his argument for an inalienable natural rights understanding as the Founders' most authoritative view, Muñoz convincingly shows that competing accounts—(e.g., “neutrality,” “accommodation,” “separation,” “non-endorsement,” “minimizing political division,” and “tradition”) do not capture the deepest understanding of the Founders' thought. Muñoz notes that his constructions correspond to no existing approach. They do not fall into what are usually considered either the “conservative” or “liberal” positions on church-state matters. The aim of the book is to spur more robust conversations about whether we are interpreting the Founders correctly and what evidence is most relevant to develop the First Amendment Religion Clauses consistently with their original design. Let's hear from Professor Muñoz himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/secularism
What is religious liberty, anyway? What are its origins? What are religious exemptions? What would a jurisprudence of religious liberty based on the idea of natural rights look like? What is distinctive about such an approach and what are some of its pluses and minuses? These are some of the questions addressed in Religious Liberty and the American Founding: Natural Rights and the Original Meanings of the First Amendment Religion Clauses (U Chicago Press, 2022) by Vincent Phillip Muñoz. The book explores the fraught legal and philosophical terrain of religious freedom. It is a meticulous study of the Founders' common concern for the protection for our inalienable right of religious free exercise and their surprisingly divergent views on how to navigate the relationships of privilege and control between church and state. Muñoz examines the attitudes of the Founding Generation on these topics as reflected in the understudied area of constitution making between 1776 and 1791 in America at the state level. He argues that we have to go beyond the First Amendment's text to elaborate its meanings. We must, he contends, understand the intellectual and theological milieu of the time. Muñoz provides the historical context of the creation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and the intellectual underpinnings of their original meanings. He explicates in a thorough but reader-friendly manner what we can and cannot determine about the original meaning of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses. The book is a mixture of legal, intellectual, and political history in which we learn that the Bill of Rights was in many ways an afterthought, designed by the Federalists to counter opposition to the Constitution by Anti-Federalists. Indeed, Muñoz shows that many, if not most, of the individuals who drafted the First Amendment did not even think it was necessary. His detailed examination of the drafting records illuminates the Federalists' lack of enthusiasm for amendments and says, “the aim of many in the First Congress was to get amendments drafted, not to draft precise amendments.” He concludes the book with a discussion of the impact of natural rights constructions of those clauses. Muñoz contrasts fascinatingly, for example, his approach with those taken by recent Supreme Court justices (notably Samuel Alito) and argues that his novel church-state jurisprudence offers a way forward that could adjudicate First Amendment church-state issues in a legal, fair, coherent and, importantly, more democratic fashion. This book is an outstanding guide to the many schools of thought on religious liberty in the United States and in his argument for an inalienable natural rights understanding as the Founders' most authoritative view, Muñoz convincingly shows that competing accounts—(e.g., “neutrality,” “accommodation,” “separation,” “non-endorsement,” “minimizing political division,” and “tradition”) do not capture the deepest understanding of the Founders' thought. Muñoz notes that his constructions correspond to no existing approach. They do not fall into what are usually considered either the “conservative” or “liberal” positions on church-state matters. The aim of the book is to spur more robust conversations about whether we are interpreting the Founders correctly and what evidence is most relevant to develop the First Amendment Religion Clauses consistently with their original design. Let's hear from Professor Muñoz himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
What is religious liberty, anyway? What are its origins? What are religious exemptions? What would a jurisprudence of religious liberty based on the idea of natural rights look like? What is distinctive about such an approach and what are some of its pluses and minuses? These are some of the questions addressed in Religious Liberty and the American Founding: Natural Rights and the Original Meanings of the First Amendment Religion Clauses (U Chicago Press, 2022) by Vincent Phillip Muñoz. The book explores the fraught legal and philosophical terrain of religious freedom. It is a meticulous study of the Founders' common concern for the protection for our inalienable right of religious free exercise and their surprisingly divergent views on how to navigate the relationships of privilege and control between church and state. Muñoz examines the attitudes of the Founding Generation on these topics as reflected in the understudied area of constitution making between 1776 and 1791 in America at the state level. He argues that we have to go beyond the First Amendment's text to elaborate its meanings. We must, he contends, understand the intellectual and theological milieu of the time. Muñoz provides the historical context of the creation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and the intellectual underpinnings of their original meanings. He explicates in a thorough but reader-friendly manner what we can and cannot determine about the original meaning of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses. The book is a mixture of legal, intellectual, and political history in which we learn that the Bill of Rights was in many ways an afterthought, designed by the Federalists to counter opposition to the Constitution by Anti-Federalists. Indeed, Muñoz shows that many, if not most, of the individuals who drafted the First Amendment did not even think it was necessary. His detailed examination of the drafting records illuminates the Federalists' lack of enthusiasm for amendments and says, “the aim of many in the First Congress was to get amendments drafted, not to draft precise amendments.” He concludes the book with a discussion of the impact of natural rights constructions of those clauses. Muñoz contrasts fascinatingly, for example, his approach with those taken by recent Supreme Court justices (notably Samuel Alito) and argues that his novel church-state jurisprudence offers a way forward that could adjudicate First Amendment church-state issues in a legal, fair, coherent and, importantly, more democratic fashion. This book is an outstanding guide to the many schools of thought on religious liberty in the United States and in his argument for an inalienable natural rights understanding as the Founders' most authoritative view, Muñoz convincingly shows that competing accounts—(e.g., “neutrality,” “accommodation,” “separation,” “non-endorsement,” “minimizing political division,” and “tradition”) do not capture the deepest understanding of the Founders' thought. Muñoz notes that his constructions correspond to no existing approach. They do not fall into what are usually considered either the “conservative” or “liberal” positions on church-state matters. The aim of the book is to spur more robust conversations about whether we are interpreting the Founders correctly and what evidence is most relevant to develop the First Amendment Religion Clauses consistently with their original design. Let's hear from Professor Muñoz himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day
This week we introduce Congress as the House and Senate get to work. We also look at Washington's attempts to establish the right tone for the Presidency.
Episode 114:This week we're continuing Russia in Revolution An Empire in Crisis 1890 - 1928 by S. A. Smith[Part 1]Introduction[Part 2-5]1. Roots of Revolution, 1880s–1905[Part 6-8]2. From Reform to War, 1906-1917[Part 9-12]3. From February to October 1917[Part 13 - 17]4. Civil War and Bolshevik Power[Part 18 - 22]5. War Communism[Part 23 - 25]6. The New Economic Policy: Politics and the EconomyNew Economic Policy and AgricultureNew Economic Policy and IndustryNew Economic Policy and LabourThe Inner Party StruggleThe Party StateInstituting Law[Part 26 - This Week]6. The New Economic Policy: Politics and the EconomyGoverning the Countryside - 0:31Foreign Policy and Promoting Revolution - 13:39Nation Building - 29:31The Limits of NEP - 37:48Discussion - 41:26[Part 27 - 30?]7. The New Economic Policy: Society and Culture[Part 31?]ConclusionFootnotes:92) 2:02Priestland, Stalinism, 150.93) 2:13Velikanova, Popular Perceptions, 138.94) 3:08T. V. Pankova-Kozochkina, ‘Rabotniki sel'skikh sovetov 1902-kh godov: nomenklaturnye podkhody bol'shevikov i sotsial'nye trebovaniia krest'ianstva (na materialakh Iuga Rossii)', Rossiiskaia istoriia, 6 (2011), 136–46.95) 3:40Golos naroda, 215.96) 4:11Olga A. Narkiewicz, The Making of the Soviet State Apparatus (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1970), 61.97) 4:42I. N. Il'ina, Obshchestvennye organizatsii Rossii v 1920-e gody (Moscow: RAN, 2000), 72.98) 5:02A. A. Kurënyshev, Vserossiiskii krest'anskii soiuz, 1905–1930 (Moscow: AIRO-XX, 2004).99) 5:35Velikanova, Popular Perceptions, 158.100) 6:01McDonald, Face to the Village, 104–5.101) 6:30Diane P. Koenker and Ronald D.Bachman (eds), Revelations from the Russian Archives: Documents in English Translation (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1997), 38.102) 7:24Gill, Origins, 113.103) 7:56M. Ia. Fenomenov, Sovremennaia derevnia. Opyt kraevedcheskogo obsledovaniia odnoi derevni, vol. 2 (Leningrad: Goz. izd-vo, 1925), 39.104) 9:09Litvak, “Zhizn' krest'ianina', 194.105) 9:30D. Kh. Ibragimova, NEP i perestroika: massovoe soznanie sel'skogo naseleniia v usloviiakh perekhoda k rynku (Moscow: Pamiatniki istoricheskoi mysli, 1997).106) 11:47Litvak, ‘Zhizn' krest'ianina', 194.107) 14:24Tooze, Deluge, 11.108) 22:09Alexander Vatlin and S. A. Smith, ‘The Comintern', Oxford Handbook of the History of Communism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), ch. 10.109) 23:55John Riddell (ed.), To See the Dawn: Baku, 1920—First Congress of the Peoples of the East (New York: Pathfinder, 1993), 45.110) 24:12Riddell, To See the Dawn, 70.111) 24:39H. G. Wells, Russia in the Shadows (New York: Doran, 1921), 96.112) 25:01Stephen White, ‘Communism and the East: The Baku Congress, 1920', Slavic Review, 33:3 (1974), 492–514 (501).113) 25:25Riddell, To See the Dawn, 204–7.114) 25:46E. H. Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, vol. 2 (London: Macmillan 1952), 265.115) 27:11S. A. Smith, A Road is Made: Communism in Shanghai, 1920–1927 (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2000).116) 28:01Jon Jacobson, When the Soviet Union Entered World Politics (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1994), 50.117) 29:29Velikanova, Popular Perceptions, ch. 1.118) 30:35Lewin, Lenin's Last Struggle, ch. 4.119) 32:49Francine Hirsch, Empire of Nations: Ethnographic Knowledge and the Making of the Soviet Union (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 2005), 229, 331.120) 33:39Terry Martin, The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923–1939 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001).121) 35:43Yuri Slezkine, ‘The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism', Slavic Review, 53:2 (1994), 415.122) 37:05Michael G. Smith, Language and Power in the Creation of the USSR, 1917–1953 (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1998), 125, 134.
Dispatches: The Podcast of the Journal of the American Revolution
This week our guest is JAR contributor Samuel T. Lair. During the earliest days of the republic, states became laboratories of experimentation regarding how to implement laws which the Constitution left vague. For more information visit www.allthingsliberty.com.
Episode 53: The First Congress
As president, George Washington demonstrated the value of a strong executive in the hands of a trustworthy person. He stayed within the bounds of presidential authority outlined by the Constitution and the acts of the First Congress organizing the executive branch. Listen for more! Center for Civic Education
We think about the American Revolution beginning in 1776. Our textbooks tell us that was the signing of the Declaration, thus the beginning, right? Not really. The events of 1774 are very important to understanding. Before we discuss the Congress that assigned Jefferson to write a Declaration and officially broke off relations with Britain, we should study the first congress that Jefferson was unable to get into. We do that in this episode, and look at a few decisions the Congress made and didn't make which determined the history afterwards. We also look at a seemingly minor decision of the 1774 Congress, in rejection a suggestion by Patrick Henry, which would turn out to have huge implications on our politics today. While we are a discussing a meeting that Jefferson was not at, and not yet enough of a name to be asked, perhaps, We do discuss him. Thomas Jefferson does participate, virtually. We also take a look at Jefferson's Summary View of the Rights of British North America, written in this year. -- OUR SPONSOR is EveryPlate.com - Meals Delivered to Your Door for $1.79 a meal. http://www.everyplate.com/beatup179 -- This podcast is part of the Airwave Media Network. - www.airwavemedia.com Interested in advertising on this podcast? Contact sales@advertisecast.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen to the Sun. March 13, 2022 special edition of the Pan-African Journal: Worldwide Radio Broadcast hosted by Abayomi Azikiwe, editor of the Pan-African News Wire. The program features our regular PANW report with dispatches on the planned resumption of talks between Russia and Ukraine on ending the military conflict; Ethiopia has held the First Congress of the ruling Prosperity Party; the military regime in Sudan has announced another cash infusion from the United Arab Emirates (UAE); and the Zimbabwe Information Ministry has announced a new policy on media relations. In the second hour we look at Africa-China relations within the context of the 2 Sessions being in Beijing. Later we continue our commemoration of Women's History Month with an examination of women in the Civil War and within the labor force during the 19th and 20th centuries.
This episode is also available as a blog post: https://eagleeyelens.blog/2022/03/14/prosperity-party-concludes-first-congress-with-six-points-of-resolutions/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/eagleeyelens/message
This episode is also available as a blog post: https://eagleeyelens.blog/2022/03/11/prosperity-party-held-a-colorful-educative-and-historical-opening-ceremony-of-its-first-congress/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/eagleeyelens/message
This episode is also available as a blog post: https://eagleeyelens.blog/2022/03/11/the-ethiopian-ruling-party-prosperity-party-pp-beginning-its-first-congress-today-in-finfinne-addis-ababa/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/eagleeyelens/message
Article III describes the court system (the judicial branch), including the Supreme Court. The article describes the kinds of cases the court takes as original jurisdiction. Congress can create lower courts and an appeals process, and enacts law defining crimes and punishments. Article Three also protects the right to trial by jury in all criminal cases, and defines the crime of treason. Section 1 vests the judicial power of the United States in federal courts, and with it, the authority to interpret and apply the law to a particular case. Also included is the power to punish, sentence, and direct future action to resolve conflicts. The Constitution outlines the U.S. judicial system. In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress began to fill in details. Currently, Title 28 of the U.S. Code describes judicial powers and administration. As of the First Congress, the Supreme Court justices rode circuit to sit as panels to hear appeals from the district courts. In 1891, Congress enacted a new system. District courts would have original jurisdiction. Intermediate appellate courts (circuit courts) with exclusive jurisdiction heard regional appeals before consideration by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court holds discretionary jurisdiction, meaning that it does not have to hear every case that is brought to it. To enforce judicial decisions, the Constitution grants federal courts both criminal contempt and civil contempt powers. Other implied powers include injunctive relief and the habeas corpus remedy. The Court may imprison for contumacy, bad-faith litigation, and failure to obey a writ of mandamus. Judicial power includes that granted by Acts of Congress for rules of law and punishment. Judicial power also extends to areas not covered by statute. Generally, federal courts cannot interrupt state court proceedings. Clause 1 of Section 2 authorizes the federal courts to hear actual cases and controversies only. Their judicial power does not extend to cases that are hypothetical, or which are proscribed due to standing, mootness, or ripeness issues. Generally, a case or controversy requires the presence of adverse parties who have some interest genuinely at stake in the case. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app
This is an interview with Rev. Craig B. Mousin, an Adjunct Faculty member of the DePaul University College of Law and the Grace School of Applied Diplomacy. This podcast argues that the Preamble to the Constitution invites you to add your voice to protecting and expanding voting rights to ensure the nation's promise of equality for all. Since the Civil War, our nation has amended the United States Constitution at least once every fifty years to expand voting rights to persons previously excluded. The summer of 2021 marks fifty years since the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18. Today, however, we face, renewed efforts to restrict voting rights through reluctance in Congress or state legislation making it more difficult to register and vote. It is time to assemble with others to protect and expand voting rights through local and national action. You can read the Constitution at: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/Citations to Professor Akhil Amar are from his book, America's Constitution, A Biography, (Random House, NY, 2005), (states waiving restrictions, thus expanding the number of persons eligible to participate in the state ratification process of the Constitution: 7) (no amendment has restricted voting rights: 19) (union not a league or confederacy: 33) (immigrant signers of the Declaration of Independence and members of the First Congress and First Supreme Court: 164). Information on the efforts to repeal state anti-black laws in the 19th Century can be found in Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done, America's First Civil Rights Movement, From the Revolution to Reconstruction, (W.W. Norton & Company, N.Y., 2021) (black laws defined: 16-19) (William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass, 237-238). For more information on Group Action for Peace, see: Robert Armbruster, “‘Working Within the System' Youths Press for Registration,” (The Record, August 24, 1970).To find additional information on the Helen C. Peirce School for International Studies, see: http://peirce.cps.eduFor information on one historical assembly to protect the rights of freed black Chicagoans prior to the Civil War, see Craig B. Mousin, “A Clear View from the Prairie: Harold Washington and the People of Illinois Respond to Federal Encroachment of Human Rights,” 29 S. Ill. L. J. 285 (Fall, 2004/Winter, 2005),209-304. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2997657For a current example of urging Congress to provide the DACA students with a path to citizenship, over 500 college and university Presidents and Chancellors recently called upon Congress to legislate a “permanent roadmap to citizenship for undocumented youth and students.” see: https://www.presidentsalliance.org/press/statement-hanen-daca-decision-2021/ In addition to DACA recipients, John Washington on Lationo USA reports about a proposed New York City bill that would expand the right to vote in municipal elections to non-citizen residents. You can find his story at: https://www.latinousa.org/2021/07/30/immigrantvoters/ For more information on Group Action for Peace, see: Robert Armbruster, “‘Working Within the System' Youths Press for Registration,” (The Record, (Hackensack, NJ), August 24, 1970).
Biden gives his first Congress address and Derek chauvin verdict
The First Congress of Black Writers and Artists in Paris 1956 staged debates about colonial history which are still playing out in the protests of the Gilets Noirs. New Generation Thinker Alexandra Reza leafs through the pages of the journal Présence Africaine, and picks out a short story by Ousmane Sembène tracing the dreams of a young woman from Senegal. Her experiences are echoed in a new experimental patchwork of writing by Nathalie Quintane called Les enfants vont bien. And what links all of these examples is the idea of papers, cahiers and identity documents. Producer: Emma Wallace Alexandra Reza researches post-colonial literature at the University of Oxford. You can hear her in a Free Thinking discussion about Aimé Césaire https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000nmxf She also appears alongside Tariq Ali and Kehindre Andrews in a discussion Frantz Fanon's Writing https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000tdtn And in last week's Free Thinking episode looking at the fiction of Maryse Condé https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000v86y She is a New Generation Thinker on the scheme run by BBC Radio 3 and the Arts and Humanities Council to select academics to turn their research into radio.
The First Congress of Black Writers and Artists in Paris 1956 staged debates about colonial history which are still playing out in the protests of the Gilets Noirs. New Generation Thinker Alexandra Reza leafs through the pages of the journal Présence Africaine, and picks out a short story by Ousmane Sembène, tracing the dreams of a young woman from Senegal. Her experiences are echoed in a new experimental patchwork of writing by Nathalie Quintane called Les Enfants Vont Bien. And what links all of these examples is the idea of papers, cahiers, and identity documents. Producer: Emma Wallace Alexandra Reza researches post-colonial literature at the University of Oxford. You can hear her in a Free Thinking discussion about Aimé Césaire https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000nmxf She also appears alongside Tariq Ali and Kehinde Andrews in a discussion Frantz Fanon's Writing https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000tdtn And in a Free Thinking episode looking at the fiction of Maryse Condé https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000v86y She is a New Generation Thinker on the scheme run by BBC Radio 3 and the Arts and Humanities Research Council to select academics to turn their research into radio.
The Arkansas Citizens First Congress is pressing members of the General Assembly to enforce COVID-19 protections at the Capitol. The organization is also requesting legislative leaders allow constituents who are under quarantine or for health reasons the capability to virtually testify during committee meetings.
This week on the show we have Dr. Daniel Peart, a Senior Lecturer in American History at Queen Mary University of London in the UK. Daniel is the author of Era of Experimentation: American Political Practices in the Early Republic and Lobbyists & the Making of US Tariff Policy, 1816-1861. The latter was awarded an Honorable Mention in the British Association for American Studies 2019 Book Prize competition. His current project is a book on the development of the Speakership of the US House of Representatives from the First Congress to the Civil War. Part of that research has already appeared in an article in the US Capitol Historical Society's newsletter The Capitol Dome (no. 55, part 2), which you can read here. Help us grow! Leave us a rating and review - it's the best way to bring new listeners to the show. Don't forget to subscribe! Have a suggestion, or want to chat with Jim? Email him at Jim@ThePoliticalLife.net Follow The Political Life on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and Twitter for weekly updates.
Learn the importance behind Court Day in Virginia and what advantages it served Political Figures. Learn who was in charge of coordinating Election Day Protocols on a County Level. Understand importance of Secret Ballot as well as consequences brought on if Election Fraud happened. Learn about James Madison's past achievements and how they carried into present state as he would defeat James Monroe in 5th Congressional District Race. Learn about some issues facing First Congress and proposals introduced by Madison. Understand Madison's conflicting views on Taxation. Learn how Congress prioritized its agenda while Madison pressed hard for Bill Of Rights Debates. Learn how Madison faced great conflict within Federalist Party on Bill Of Rights. Discover how Madison wasn't afraid to take a stand with members of his own party who became primary hurdle for Bill Of Rights Passage. Learn about big achievements that took place in 1789 after George Washington became President. Learn how James Monroe re-emerged onto National Scene in 1790. Appreciating the legacies that both James's left behind. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/kirk-monroe/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/kirk-monroe/support
Natalie Campo, MD, is an integrative psychiatrist practicing in Nashville, TN. She became interested in holistic treatment modalities in her first year of medical school at the University of Texas. In that same year, she was awarded an NIH grant to study infectious encephalitis in the Amazon Jungle. Upon her return, she sought out a physician whose primary care practice included holistic modalities, nutrition, and acupuncture. During medical school, on an externship, she started studying mindfulness and began using it with patients. After medical school, Campo trained in psychiatry at Yale and in medical acupuncture at Harvard. She obtained certifications from the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology and the American Board of Integrative and Holistic Medicine. For many years, she taught alternative, holistic, and natural treatment options for anxiety and PTSD as a Yale faculty member. Campo currently resides in Nashville, where she serves as a Clinical Assistant Professor at Vanderbilt and provides consultation to the Osher Center of Integrative Medicine. In May of 2017, she participated in the World’s First Congress of Integrative Medicine in Berlin, Germany. She started her practice in Nashville called Mindful Medicine in 2011 to bring safe, effective treatments to people seeking relief from anxiety, depression, addiction, and the stress of a hectic lifestyle.
This week our guest is Viktor Valentinovich Kogan-Yasny. Viktor Valentinovich is a commentator on public affairs, writer and philosopher. Since 1989 he has been actively involved in public life. He started as an activist of Moscow Tribune and Memorial and in 1990-91 he worked with the Voters' Club of the Academy of Sciences and the Interregional Group of Deputies of the First Congress of Soviet People's Deputies. He was an aide to the chair of the Human Rights Committee of the RSFSR Supreme Soviet. Since 1992, he has been chair of the board of the Society against the Death Penalty and Torture, which has now become the NGO, Regional Civic Initiative - Right to Life and Civil Dignity. Viktor Valentinovich is one of the founders of Memorial Human Rights Centre and a member of its board. Since 1995, he has been an advisor both to the Yabloko party and to Grigory Yavlinsky. Among the topics we discuss in the podcast are the death penality in Russia, Amnesty International, the links between political developments and human rights, the recent apparent poisoning of Aleksei Navalny and events in Khabarovsk and Belarus. Sergei Nikitin writes: Viktor Valentinovich Kogan-Yasny is the latest guest of our podcast. Simon Cosgrove and I spent a very interesting hour with Viktor Valentinovich. I was especially interested to hear his story about how he found premises for Amnesty International in Moscow. In 1991 Marjorie Farquharson, the first representative of the oldest human rights organization in Russia, opened an office for the organisation on Herzen Street with the help of Viktor. The phone number that was allocated to the Amnesty office has remained unchanged for almost 30 years. Victor may not be very familiar to the general public, but he is a very interesting interlocutor. In 1990-91. Viktor Kogan-Yasny was an assistant chair of the Human Rights Committee of the RSFSR Supreme Soviet. It was he who founded the Society against the Death Penalty and Torture, where in 1992 he became chair of the board. I read with great interest the posts of Viktor Kogan-Yasny, one of the oldest members of the Yabloko Party, writer and philosopher.The podcast is in Russian. You can also listen to this podcast on Podcasts.com (www.podcasts.com/simon-sergei-0b5d072c0), Spotify (open.spotify.com/show/7HdmvhzC2P6VQS8ijICNHZ) and Itunes (podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/simo...ei/id1495261418). The music is from the Elegy for Solo Viola by Stravinsky, performed by Karolina Herrera.
Aimee and Oliver are joined by Angela Nagle and Malcom Kyeyune to discuss some of their recent writing. They talk left discourse, culture war and class war, Strasserism, and the big red button that says "Please Don't Press, or Racism Will Happen." Reading: "First as Tragedy, Then as Farce: The Collapse of the Sanders Campaign and the Fusionist Left" | https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/05/first-as-tragedy-then-as-farce/ "On Strasserism and the Decay of the Left" | https://tinkzorg.wordpress.com/2020/05/07/on-strasserism-and-the-decay-of-the-left/
World’s Leading Scholars and Scientists Convene for First Congress on Informed Consent in Israel; A Very Special HighWire LIVE From Tel-Aviv, Israel
Politico ran a piece the other day slamming Gerrymandering because it almost prevented Little Jemmy Madison from being elected to the First Congress. The horror. The piece was typical Leftist nonsense with a bit of hysterical hyperbole and a scattering of incongruous arguments. And it was written by a "journalism" professor. Go figure. I take it down in this episode of The Brion McClanahan Show. https://mcclanahanacademy.com https://brionmcclanahan.com/support http://learntruehistory.com --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/support
While the Constitution is silent on the President’s removal power, the First Congress concluded that Article II’s vesting of executive power necessarily meant that the President must have plenary authority to remove executive branch officers. As James Madison asserted, “If the Constitution has invested all executive power in the President… the Legislature has no right to diminish or modify his executive authority.” Unfortunately, the modern administrative state has continued to give rise to a “headless” fourth branch of government that exerts immense control over vast swaths of American life. The power to remove subordinates is the key means by which the President can direct how executive authority is exercised. Without it, he is in many instances powerless to ensure faithful execution of the laws.A new bill, The Take Care Act, introduced by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), aims to address this problem. It will eliminate all existing restrictions on the President’s power to remove upper-level executive branch officers, and fully restore the original understanding of the President’s power to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. Join us for an address by the Senator, as he unveils this important new legislation. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
The First Congress picks up where Article III left off. Oliver Ellsworth gets possessive. The justices are told to make like post-boys and get on their horses. Congress tries to avoid amendments, and omits federal question jurisdiction and appeals from criminal trials or pro-federal decisions. The Rules of Decision Act is added at the last moment, leading to countless litigation over a provision that may not have applied in the first place.
What Were The Founders Thinking? Democratic Perspective welcomes constitutional scholar and author Fergus Bordewich. To understand how we got to where we are, he says it’s important to understand the historical context of the constitutional convention and the First Congress. … Continue reading →
El prestigioso hombre de ley, presenta en diálogo con Mario Caira, lo que será el Primer Congreso de Derecho Civil, al que asistirán destacados profesionales del Derecho, en el imponente marco de la Biblioteca Nacional. ENGLISH The prestigious man of law, in dialogue with Mario Caira, presents what will be the First Congress of Civil Law, which will be attended by leading legal professionals, in the imposing setting of the National Library.
In this episode of Constitutionally Speaking, Jay and Luke examine the first session of the First Congress, which met from the spring through the fall of 1789.
Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein have studied American politics for more than three decades. They are the town’s go-to experts on the workings of Congress. In 2012, they rocked Washington when they published It’s Even Worse Than It Looks, a book that marshaled their considerable authority to argue that the dysfunction poisoning American government was the result of “asymmetric polarization,” notably a Republican Party that “has become an insurgent outlier in American politics — ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.” This was a controversial diagnosis then. After Trump, it’s closer to the conventional wisdom. E.J. Dionne is a columnist at the Washington Post, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and the author of the classic book Why Americans Hate Politics. He’s one of the sharpest political observers alive. And now, like a Canadian indie-rock supergroup, the three of them have come together to write One Nation After Trump, a dive into how the Republican Party created Trump, how Trump won, and what comes next. As Dionne says in this interview, the American system was "not supposed to produce a president like this,” and so a lot of our conversation is about how the guardrails failed and whether they can be rebuilt. Mann, Ornstein, and Dionne may be political sages, but they're also a lot of fun, and they have a lot of fun together. You'll hear that in this conversation. Books: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal by William Leuchtenburg Strength to Love by Martin Luther King, Jr. The First Congress by Fergus Bordewich Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman Democracy for Realists by Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The First Congress tells the dramatic story of the two remarkable years when George Washington, James Madison, and their dedicated colleagues struggled to successfully create our government, an achievement that has lasted to the present day. The Constitution was a broad set of principles. It was left to the members of the First Congress and President George Washington to create the machinery that would make the government work. Fortunately, James Madison, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and others less well known today, rose to the occasion. During two years of often fierce political struggle, they passed the first ten amendments to the Constitution; they resolved bitter regional rivalries to choose the site of the new national capital; they set in place the procedure for admitting new states to the union; and much more. But the First Congress also confronted some issues that remain to this day: the conflict between states’ rights and the powers of national government; the proper balance between legislative and executive power; the respective roles of the federal and state judiciaries; and funding the central government. Other issues, such as slavery, would fester for decades before being resolved. Fergus M. Bordewich is the author of several books, among them “Washington: The Making of the American Capital” and “Bound for Canaan,” a national history of the Underground Railroad. His articles have appeared in many magazines and newspapers. He lives in San Francisco.
April 15, 2016 - It’s History in Five Friday, presented by Simon & Schuster. Our guest is Fergus Bordewich , and his book is, The First Congress: How James Madison, George Washington, and a Group of Extraordinary Men Invented the Government. It’s the monumental story of the most productive Congress in US history, in 1789–1791, which we first explored with Fergus in our recent interview, which you can still find at HistoryAuthor.com, iTunes, iHeartRadio, or wherever you're listening. Mr. Fergus Bordewich is the author of six previous books including, America’s Great Debate — Henry Clay, Stephen A. Douglas, and The Compromise that Preserved the Union, Washington: The Making of the American Capital, and Bound for Canaan: The Underground Railroad and the War for the Soul of America. You learn more about these and his other titles at FergusBordewich.com. Simon & Schuster’s History in Five Friday. It’s the perfect way to kick off your modern weekend…with people from the past.
April 4, 2016 - Today, our time machine is whisking us back to the very earliest days of America's republic. Our guest is Fergus Bordewich , and his book is, The First Congress: How James Madison, George Washington, and a Group of Extraordinary Men Invented the Government. It's the untold story of the most productive Congress in US history, in 1789–1791. Mr. Fergus Bordewich is the author of six previous books including, America's Great Debate -- Henry Clay, Stephen A. Douglas, and The Compromise that Preserved the Union, Washington: The Making of the American Capital, and Bound for Canaan: The Underground Railroad and the War for the Soul of America. You learn more about these and his other titles at FergusBordewich.com.
The little known story of perhaps the most productive Congress in US history, the First Federal Congress of 1789–1791. The First Congress was the most important in US history, says prizewinning author and historian Fergus Bordewich, because it established how our government would actually function. Had it failed—as many at the time feared it would—it’s possible that the United States as we know it would not exist today. - Amazon The Avid Reader Show is sponsored and produced by Wellington Square Bookshop in Chester County, PA. The Show airs Mondays at 5 PM EST on WCHE AM 1520. Please visit our website at www.wellingtonsquarebooks.com
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
