Podcast appearances and mentions of Gene Healy

Introduction: Caleb O. BrownWalter Olson and Thomas Berry on the Trump administration and the lawCaleb R. Trotter on state licensure boards threat to free market competitionMark Clifford on the story of Jimmy Lai as a champion of Hong Kong's freedomBrian Doherty and Gene Healy on the intellectual roots of the Libertarian movement in Brian Doherty's book, Modern LibertarianismExclusive: Jeffrey Singer on his new book, Your Body Your Healthcare Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In conventional political debate—particularly in Washington, DC—“law” is understood as top-down legislation: rules consciously designed and imposed by central authorities. John Hasnas challenges this unspoken assumption, pointing to the Anglo-American common law, a decentralized, continually evolving system that produces order without conscious design or political control. In his important new book, Common Law Liberalism: A New Theory of the Libertarian Society, he offers a theory of liberalism that demonstrates that the common law can serve as an effective alternative to traditional politically created legislation. Hasnas's thesis has implications ranging from modest (many government functions can be better supplied by the common law than by centralized legislation) to radical (if human beings do not need the state to make law, do they need the state at all?).Please join us for a discussion of this provocative new book featuring the author and Professor David Schmidtz, director of the Social Philosophy and Policy Center at West Virginia University, moderated by Cato's Gene Healy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Department of Government Efficency, such as it is, can't really do much to cut government without Congressional approval. Gene Healy discusses what a more serious approach to spending and regulatory reform will have to entail. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Introduction: Caleb O. BrownAlex Nowrasteh and Gene Healy on the Executive Orders HandbookHon. Neomi Rao on the Supreme Court's return to a best meaning approach to the lawNicholas Anthony and Caleb O. Brown on Trump's proposal to limit credit card interestU.S. Representative Patrick McHenry and Jennifer J. Schulp on the decline of American financial privacyExclusive: Thomas Berry on Cato's 23rd annual Constitution Day Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There's a quietly brewing rift on the right between those who want to rein in administrative power and those who hope to wield it for conservative ends. Former presidential candidate and business entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy favors the former path and has delivered detailed plans for a radical rollback of regulatory power and shutting down several federal agencies. With the Supreme Court's recent blows to Chevron deference and its embrace of the major questions doctrine, he sees a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to rein in the permanent bureaucracy. Ramaswamy argues that it is not controversial to hold that the people we elect to run the government should actually run the government.Is the United States consigned to rule by an army of unelected and unaccountable federal bureaucrats? Are there any realistic paths to diminish the power of federal government bureaucracies?Join Ramaswamy and Cato's Gene Healy for a discussion about the prospects for transforming how the federal government rules its citizens and businesses. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

After President Joe Biden appeared distracted in last night's debate with Donald Trump, some lawmakers are now discussing the 25th Amendment's provisions to remove a mentally unfit chief executive. And how would a political party replace a candidate after the selection process in states has largely concluded? Gene Healy and John Samples explain. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Start your week off with Boyd Matheson and take a deeper look into what happened over the weekend. How have the conversations we’ve been having about the Middle East foreshadowed the shift in Israel's methods? Gene Healy from CATO joins the show to talk about the polarization of the presidency. Dr. Gleb Tsipursky stresses the importance of allowing small businesses to adapt. Learning from the clips and more!  

Are presidents in this modern age pressured to be less of a ‘uniter’ and more of a ‘divider’? Gene Healy, Senior Vice President for Policy at the Cato Institute, joins Inside Sources to share insights about polarization in the White House and what the whiplash between Democrats and Republicans has left us with.

Introduction: Caleb O. BrownMatt Taibbi and Gene Healy on freedom of speech and the Twitter FilesCaleb R. Trotter on Shannon MacDonald's lawsuit challenging unconstitutional telehealth restrictionsAlex Ward on a post-Trump American foreign policyRobert A. Levy on five of the most important cases facing the Supreme Court this yearExclusive: Ryan Bourne on the War on Prices Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

“A sex scandal is a public scandal involving allegations or information about possibly immoral sexual activities, often associated with the sexual affairs of film stars, politicians,[1] famous athletes, or others in the public eye. Sex scandals receive attention if a prominent figure is involved, if there is a perception of hypocrisy, if a public figure's sexuality is non-normative, or if it involves non-consensual acts.[2] A scandal may be based on reality, the product of false allegations, or a mixture of both. Whether the scandal is based in fact or not, it may lead to the celebrity disappearing from the public eye or to the resignation of prominent political figures.[3] Sex scandals involving politicians often become political scandals, particularly when there is an attempt at a cover-up or suspicions of illegality. Attempts at coverups include payoffs, threats, or, in extreme cases, murder. While some commentators see sex scandals as irrelevant to politics, particularly where "professional performance [does] not seem to be impaired",[4] Gene Healy of the Cato Institute views them as not just "great fun", but a reminder "that we should think twice before we cede more power to these fools."[5] An increase in the prevalence of morally questionable expressions of sexuality is sometimes referred to as a sexidemic.[6] Sex scandals, in relation to political and public figures, often lead to questions of one's own ethics and moral code. A politician who is caught in a sex scandal is more likely to resign than a public figure in the face of a sex scandal.[1]” --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/antonio-myers4/support

“A sex scandal is a public scandal involving allegations or information about possibly immoral sexual activities, often associated with the sexual affairs of film stars, politicians,[1] famous athletes, or others in the public eye. Sex scandals receive attention if a prominent figure is involved, if there is a perception of hypocrisy, if a public figure's sexuality is non-normative, or if it involves non-consensual acts.[2] A scandal may be based on reality, the product of false allegations, or a mixture of both. Whether the scandal is based in fact or not, it may lead to the celebrity disappearing from the public eye or to the resignation of prominent political figures.[3] Sex scandals involving politicians often become political scandals, particularly when there is an attempt at a cover-up or suspicions of illegality. Attempts at coverups include payoffs, threats, or, in extreme cases, murder. While some commentators see sex scandals as irrelevant to politics, particularly where "professional performance [does] not seem to be impaired",[4] Gene Healy of the Cato Institute views them as not just "great fun", but a reminder "that we should think twice before we cede more power to these fools."[5] An increase in the prevalence of morally questionable expressions of sexuality is sometimes referred to as a sexidemic.[6] Sex scandals, in relation to political and public figures, often lead to questions of one's own ethics and moral code. A politician who is caught in a sex scandal is more likely to resign than a public figure in the face of a sex scandal.[1]” There was frot and tribadism because a few of them (women) were sexually fluid and sexually open-minded during group sex. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/antonio-myers4/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/antonio-myers4/support

Listen to this week's No Spin News interview with former Fox News commentator Geraldo Rivera, Cato Institute's Gene Healy, and Sen. Ted Cruz. We also visit the No Spin News archives and Bill's conversation with Bernard Goldberg. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey BillOReilly.com Premium and Concierge Members, welcome to the No Spin News for Tuesday, July 18, 2023. Stand Up for Your Country. Tonight's rundown:  Talking Points Memo: Bill comments on a new Ron DeSantis ad that uses A.I. to generate a Donald Trump quote. Bill analyzes a flawed AP poll on democracy. New details regarding a whistleblower set to testify before the House Oversight Committee in the Hunter Biden investigation. Gene Healy of the Cato Institute joins the No Spin News to discuss Joe Biden's far-left push. This Day in History: Chappaquiddick Final Thought: The weather In Case You Missed It: Read Bill's latest column, "Twilight in the Politics Zone." It's the 'Summer Reading Special!' 'Killing the Killers,' Killing the Legends,' and 'Killing Crazy Horse' all for $32.95. We'll also give you a FREE 'Team Normal' hat. Bill takes your questions live Monday, July 24th on BillOReilly.com. The Biden Family Investigation is a Premium & Concierge Member exclusive town hall. Sign up today! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The image of public harmony between elected officials and an entrenched national security bureaucracy collapsed in the Trump years, according to Tufts University professor Michael Glennon. Glennon discusses the massive transfer of power from the Madisonian institutions of government to a behemoth national security bureaucracy, the problems this poses for policymaking, and how our politics have become a fight over prevailing "myth systems." Show NotesMichael Glennon bioMichael J. Glennon, “Populism, Elites, and National Security,” Humanitas 31, nos. 1 and 2 (2018): pp. 35-45. Michael J. Glennon, National Security and Double Government (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014).Michael J. Glennon, Gene Healy, Jeremy Shapiro, and Justin Logan, “National Security and Double Government,” Cato Event, November 21, 2014. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Join me and meditation teacher Dr. Gene Healy, for a mini-retreat and transformative life experience! The What: Rooted in Love Mini-Retreat The When: Saturday, March 26th (10am ET)The Where: Tampa Bay, FloridaThe Why: Abundant life livin' www.rootedinloveretreats.com to sign up for more info! I Love you! See you soon! Nik nikki@curlynikki.comSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/goodmornings)

American politics has moved beyond merely Team Blue and Team Red, or even tribal affiliations, and into an era of political sectarianism. In this webinar, the Cato Institute's Gene Healy will discuss how polarization has taken on an element of the religious, the role of the executive branch in exacerbating this trend, and what can be done to start to reverse this tide. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The rise of political polarization and hatred should be of genuine concern, and Joe Biden's pledge to deliver a sense of normalcy and boredom seems to have been just another broken campaign promise. Gene Healy made his case at the most recent Cato Club event. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Introduction: Caleb O. BrownNorbert Michel and Jennifer Schulp on regulation of cryptocurrencyScott Lincicome on improving our brittle supply chainsArizona Gov. Doug Ducey, Dr. Jeffrey Singer, and Gene Healy on Arizona's success with free marketsJohn Samples and Robert Corn-Revere get inside the mind of the censor See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Increasing political polarization is real, according to political scientists. To what extent have the powers of the presidency helped drive it? Gene Healy comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

At some point, says Gene Healy, Congress will get around to repealing the authorization for the use of military force that has enabled so much American-led global meddling. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The authorizations that have enabled two decades of American-led war across the globe should be repealed. Congress may finally agree. Gene Healy and John Glaser explain why. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Stanford University's Terry Moe and the Cato Institute's Gene Healy debate giving fast-track authority to U.S. presidents.

On Washington Wednesday, Mary Reichard talks to Gene Healy of the Cato Institute about the expanding power of executive orders; on World Tour, Onize Ohikere reports on international news; and a biographical sketch of Saint Patrick by D. James Kennedy. Plus: commentary from Janie Cheaney, a roo rescue, and the Wednesday morning news. Support The World and Everything in It today at wng.org/donate. Additional support comes from Wilberforce Weekend. A world class event from The Colson Center that explores your God-given calling and his restorative work in the world. May 21-23. More at wilberforceweekend.org. And from Maranatha Baptist University, with graduate assistantship opportunities for on-campus learning. mbu.edu/go_campus.

The second impeachment trial for Donald Trump ended up considerably more bipartisan than the last one, but “Citizen Trump" was nonetheless acquitted. So, have Republicans helped set a kind-of precedent by not issuing a conviction? Gene Healy dissects the trial. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The President's second impeachment trial begins with most Republicans agreeing that the whole proceeding is a "sham" and is unconstitutional. Gene Healy describes the arguments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The U.S. Senate is awaiting an article of impeachment from the House regarding Donald Trump's activities leading up to a deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol. Why should the Senate proceed with a trial for a President who has already left office? Gene Healy offers his thoughts. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The U.S. Senate is awaiting an article of impeachment from the House regarding Donald Trump's activities leading up to a deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol. Why should the Senate proceed with a trial for a President who has already left office? Gene Healy offers his thoughts. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Donald Trump's latest impeachment in the U.S. House now triggers a Senate trial. An impeachment trial isn't a criminal proceeding, so how will the Senate weigh evidence? And why did some in GOP leadership push instead for “censure” just days after running for their lives from a Trump-inspired mob that killed at least four people? Gene Healy comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

As the U.S. enters the final two weeks of the presidency of Donald Trump, the pro-Trump mob attack on the Capitol is spurring lawmakers to renew calls to remove the President by either impeachment and removal or invoking the 25th Amendment. Gene Healy explains how those Constitutional processes would work. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Will a Biden Administration bring us nothing more than an undoing of the executive actions of the Trump team? That's an unlikely outcome, according to Gene Healy. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The answers Joe Biden and Kamala Harris gave to a longstanding survey on executive power are less than promising for separation of powers. Gene Healy explains. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

1. Introduction: Caleb O. Brown 2. Cato Audio Roundtable: Ryan Bourne, Gene Healy, and Jeffrey A. Singer M.D. on the new Pandemics and Policy Series 3. Julian Sanchez on the NSA Metadata Program Being Ruled Unconstitutional 4. Thomas A. Firey on Masks, Mandates, and Tradeoffs During COVID-19 5. J.D. Tuccille on Likelihood of a Contested 2020 Election Outcome See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The President's most recent orders adjusting unemployment benefits, student loan payments, and payroll taxes deserve scrutiny for both the manner in which Congress has given away power and Presidential aggrandizement. Gene Healy comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Notorious political dirty trickster and federal inmate Roger Stone got a commutation from the President. Was it corrupt? Is the pardon power truly plenary? Gene Healy comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Notorious political dirty trickster and federal inmate Roger Stone got a commutation from the President. Was it corrupt? Is the pardon power truly plenary? Gene Healy comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this edition of Empire Has No Clothes, Matt, Kelley, and Daniel speak with Gene Healy, author of the book The Cult of the Presidency. He tells us about Donald Trump's abuses of executive power and whether there's any hope of reining him in. We also talk about North Korea's escalation of tensions with the South and whether there could still be a rapprochement between Trump and Kim Jong-un.

Under what circumstances can a U.S. President use the military to put down protests in American cities? Gene Healy explains. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

For episode descriptions, etc., please go to (and bookmark) http://www.hagmannreportlive.comHelp us fight censorship by accessing our show on our own site.LISTEN LIVE - Monday-Friday 9-10:00 PM ET HERE: http://www.hagmannreportlive.comhttps://www.KeithHansonShow.comHelp us fight censorship by accessing our show on our own site.Keith Hanson Show Website: http://www.KeithHansonShow.comKeith Hanson Show Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KeithOnTheAirFollow Keith Hanson on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RealKeithHansonFollow Keith Hanson on Parler: https://parler.com/profile/RealKeithHansonPlease help us keep the lights on - Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/hagmannreport

War has long been the subject of vigorous debate. The United States Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and appoints the president as commander-in-chief of the military. When it comes to war, who holds the power to ultimately decide the actions of the United States? Gene Healy, vice president at the Cato Institute; David B. Rivkin Jr., partner at BakerHostetler; and Margaret L. Taylor, governance studies fellow at the Brookings Institution will discuss in this episode: does the president have the power to start a war?Learn More:"The Long Road Ahead for the Congressional Resolutions on Iran," By Scott R. Anderson, Margaret Taylor"On "Imminence": Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence," By Gene Healy"Repeal Old AUMFs and Salt the Earth," By Gene Healy"Congress Declares War, but Only the President Can Make It," By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It would be hard to misunderstand federalism more, particularly if you're the President of the United States. Gene Healy discusses a week in new and erroneous executive power claims amid the coronavirus outbreak. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The President tossed out a tweet suggesting he might quarantine whole states where COVID-19 has hit especially hard. Is that constitutional? Gene Healy comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Gene Healy is someone I have met a few times in the past year and the more I am around him the more fascinated I became. He has meandered around the world for many years learning about himself and incorporated much of what he has discovered into his healing practice in Florida where he leads his clients through acupuncture, meditation and more.  He has briefly been a rapper. He has briefly been a monk. He has a great story about a silent retreat. He's always seeking to learn and grow. He and I share that mentality and I met him because of that at some events led by Michael Bernoff. Watch this conversation on YouTube and have a discussion there. Watch from the moment this podcast conversation ends. Learn more about Michael Bernoff from his website or from watching or listening to his podcast "The Average Sucks Show". Follow "People I Know Show" on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube for photos, videos and to interact with other listeners. Email comments and questions to peopleiknowshow@gmail.com. Browse a list of some of the apps to listen to "People I Know Show".

Special guest Alice Hunt Friend joins Melanie and Chris for a very timely discussion about the possible repeal of the Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) that presidents have used to justify a range of military operations since 9/11. A few members of Congress have been pushing to repeal these AUMFs for years, and even some reliably conservative voices now support such a move in the interest of restoring the proper balance between the legislative and executive branches on the critical question of war and peace. But most House and Senate Republicans oppose repeal. Would they change their tune with a Democrat in the White House? Or is there a partisan divide on the president’s war powers, with Republicans more inclined to defer to the chief executive and Democrats more inclined to rein in such power? Alice gives a shout out to SOCOM and throws shade on U.S. policy toward Libya, while Melanie dishes on former SEAL Eddie Gallagher. Chris doesn’t like Sen. Tom Cotton’s comments on China and the coronavirus, but he does like puppies!   Links Charles Stimson, "Why Repealing the 1991 and 2002 Iraq War Authorizations Is Sound Policy" Heritage Foundation, January 6, 2020 Kevin Williamson, "Repeal the AUMF," National Review, January 5, 2020 Elaine Luria and Max Rose, “Why We Voted Against the War Powers Resolution,” New York Times, January 11, 2020 Megan Thielking and Lev Facher, “Health Experts Warn China Travel Ban Would Hinder Coronavirus Response,” STAT, January 31, 2020 Adam Taylor, “China’s Coronavirus Has No Links to Weapons Research, Experts Say,” Washington Post, January 29, 2020 Animal Planet’s “Puppy Bowl XVI” Andrew Dyer, "Retired Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher Strikes Back at SEALs Who Testified Against Him," San Diego Union-Tribune, January 28, 2020 Gene Healy and John Glaser, "Repeal, Don't Replace, Trump's War Powers," New York Times, April 17, 2018 Matthew Rosenberg, "Faulty Iowa App was Part of Push to Restore Democrats' Digital Edge," New York Times, February 4, 2020 Noah Rothman, "Iowa in the Age of Mistrust," Commentary, February 4, 2020

Last month, I spoke with Gene Healy about his persuasive cover story for Reason, arguing that we should all calm down. Perhaps the Ukraine phone call was not even the most impeachable thing Trump did in the month of July of last year, but it wouldn't hurt to send future presidents the message that they cannot act with impunity. Fair enough.I have argued that on principle, a President may sometimes be duty-bound to investigate his political opponents – and even use the threat of withholding aid to a country that doesn't cooperate. Does this apply to Trumps's infamous “perfect phone call”?You can read or listen to my conversation with Gene and decide for yourself whether Trump committed an impeachable offense.Now Peter Suderman at Reason further complicates things, writing that By Withholding Funds to Ukraine, Trump Broke the Law. The Government Accountability Office agrees that the Office of Management and Budget – an agency of the executive branch – was required to submit a reason to Congress for delaying the funds under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Trump and his lawyers argue he was acting within the law and his presidential authority to conduct U.S. foreign policy.It's a tricky issue that opens up many important questions from the balance of powers to the wisdom of foreign policy that includes sending millions of dollars in “anti-corruption aid” to places like Ukraine.Few people have been following the impeachment as closely as John Rothmann – an author, Bay Area radio host on KGO 810AM, and frequent lecturer on American politics and the presidency. John also has one of the finest private libraries in the country – 15,000 volumes, specializing in American political history and political biography. He says Trump must go, and that if the Senate acquits it's the end of America as we know it. He joins me this Sunday for the full hour.But what would the Founders say? What are the important principles in play? And how would the analysis of the impeachment saga change if everyone took their ideological blinders off?As the Senate prepares to vote “guilty” or “not guilty” in this historic case, I urge listeners to withhold their judgment and wait until after they've listened to this Sunday's edition of the show of #ideasnotattitude.

Gene Healy and I broke down the articles of impeachment, and discussed the role of impeachment in restraining an unconstrained executive branch.Don't miss it.Scott Adams often says that when it comes to politics, we're watching two different movies on the same screen.Impeachment is the prime example. I present two different movies: Judge Napolitano told Nick Gillespie that “at least three or four articles” of impeachment could have been drafted.Richard Epstein, on the other hand, called the original impeachment charge “ludicrous.” The charge of obstruction of congress is even more complex. Who can I turn to in a situation like this?I usually turn to my favorite scholars at the Volokh Conspiracy, and Hoover, but in this case, the layers of disagreement, nuance, and partisan spin have made it nearly impossible to figure out who's right.Thankfully, Gene Healy – vice president at the Cato Institute – has a new cover story for Reason Magazine, appropriately titled, “Don't Freak Out About Impeachment.”So, did Trump actually commit an impeachable offense?Perhaps, Healy suggests, we should set aside the phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky for a moment: "The third-rate shakedown attempt of Ukrainegate probably isn't even the worst thing Trump did in the month of July…" – Gene Healy, As he pointed out in his 2018 report The Indispensable Remedy: The Broad Scope of the Constitution's Impeachment Power, impeachment is an underutilized process for reigning in the executive branch. Has Trump abused his power significantly in the past 3 years? A better question might be whether the “cult of the presidency” has grown so large and unwieldy that anyone who takes the job is implicitly agreeing to an “abuse of power”?Maybe we should always demand that Congress impeach every president immediately after the election so that the legislature can get on with legislating. Of course, these days Congress prefers to even defer its job of lawmaking to the administrative agencies of the executive branch…In a short video for the Cato Institute, Healy quotes founding father Elbridge Gerry, who said, “A good magistrate will not fear impeachments and a bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.”With impeachment, Healy should have gotten his wish, but if it doesn't hurt Trump politically, perhaps Congress should look less at partisan politics and more at the real abuses of power by the executive branch:The military-industrial complex (including drone strikes on American citizens)Usurpation of congress's lawmaking authorityThe corruption of science via technocratic administrative ruleStealthy “midnight regulation” Just to name a few that I cover in my new report on the administrative bureaucracy – a “shallow state” lurking in the swamps of DC that rivals the deep state in its unaccountable control over our lives.

I was careful not to be too dour in my “Progress Report for Liberty: 2018,” noting that many subtle victories for liberty were achieved at the state level while the vitriol of national politics raged around us like a storm. Classical liberals should be cheerful about the ongoing reforms to our drug laws, the forward march of technology, and some notably positive developments in the Supreme Court (including the landmark decision of Janus v. AFSCME).However, I also noted the frightful prospect of a national political scene in which Elizabeth Warren scores points for proposing full-on socialism sneakily disguised as the “Accountable Capitalism Act.” John O. McGinnis, the George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law and author of Originalism And The Good Constitution (among other books), has an even more pessimistic take in his recap article, 2018: A Gathering Storm for Classical Liberalism.He notes, first, the ominous trend toward populism, and the popularity of politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who promise to “protect” Americans from the very same forces of competition and free-market dynamism that have built America into the most prosperous nation on earth.Second, although President Trump has ostensibly done some good for free markets, his persona has contributed to what Gene Healy calls “the Cult of the Presidency,” and placed government right at the center of American social life. Based on these dual forces, McGinnis forecasts a gathering storm, in which aggrandizement of the state acts as the engine for a future collectivist revival.McGinnis joined me this Sunday to discuss how the President's recent emergency declaration sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations. Your calls are welcome on the show of ideas, not attitude:

“Few, if any, of the Framers viewed the prospect of presidential impeachment with the unbridled horror common among intellectual leaders today. CEOs can be cashiered for “moral turpitude,” “unprofessional conduct,” and the like. Yet we've somehow managed to convince ourselves that the one job in America where you have to commit a felony to get fired is the one where you actually get nuclear weapons.” — Indispensable Remedy: The Broad Scope of the Constitution's Impeachment PowerCalls for impeachment are growing louder by the day. Billionaire Tom Steyer has garnered nearly 7 million signatures through the “Need to Impeach” campaign, and with Democrats about to retake a majority in the House, Rep. Maxine Waters is saying that impeachment proceedings should begin immediately.Much of this is partisan hype, and incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has already signaled that she will rein in her colleagues' excesses. She recently commented that “when and if he breaks the law, that is when something like that would come up.” Allegations of campaign finance violations from Trump's hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels could fall into this category, but most experts see this is as a flimsy justification.However, there may still be valid reasons to use what James Madison called “the indispensable remedy” against Trump's abuses of the executive office. Pelosi's comments stem from a common misconception about impeachment that it can only be used when the law has been broken, when in fact it can be used to address a much wider range of “conduct unbecoming” to the Presidency.Gene Healy, a Vice President at the Cato Institute, is trying to dispel this and other myths about impeachment. Without making a specific case for impeaching Trump (with all the partisan pitfalls that would entail), Healy's latest white paper serves as a primer on the purpose, history, and scope of impeachment provisions. He concludes that the remedy is an important deterrent against the “incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the Chief Magistrate.” He argues that impeachment has probably not been used often enough in the past 230 years when Presidents have exhibited these traits without technically breaking the law. Some of the Commander-in-Chief's tweets are a prime example.Healy is a leading critic of the “Cult of the Presidency,” which believes the office of the executive to be sacrosanct. The Founders would have abhorred the idea of the President being beyond reproach or — in the extreme case — removal from office. He joined me to discuss the Framers' intention with respect to impeachment.While most analyses are clouded with political bias and tribalism, Healy recognizes the danger in raising or lowering the bar for impeachment to suit the latest political winds. “What you think of Congress' impeachment power shouldn't depend on what you think of President Trump,” he writes, “Donald Trump isn't going to be the last president we have, so it's important to get this right.”We did our best to get it right. You be the judge.

A fascinating conversation with Rick and Gene Healy, vice-president of the Cato Institute on the circumstances under which presidential impeachment was intended by the founders. It's in more cases than you might think! Read Healy's new white paper on the topic here. You can call in to the show to talk with Rick any time at (833) 711-RICK. That's (833) 711-7425.

Tonight, December 13th, Gene Healy, Vice-President of the Cato Institute drops by, we take your phone calls, and give you a Christmas treat.

7 AM - Correspondent Edward Yeranian is in Egypt reporting on Egypt and Syria potentially using chemical weapons; 50-year-old transsexual returns to college basketball as a woman; Gene Healy comes on to talk about his book "False Idol: Barack Obama and the Continuing Cult of the Presidency".