Podcasts about Goldwater Institute

In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. the Supreme Court will consider "Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision."In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., several Christian-owned businesses, along with six individuals in Texas, brought suit alleging that the Affordable Care Act's preventative services coverage requirement was illegal and unconstitutional. They contend it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as the ACA required them to fund preventative services that conflicted with their religious beliefs, and that it violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, given the controlling effect of a non-appointed advisory body over which preventative treatments were required. Given those issues, the case sits at an interesting intersection of health law, religious liberty law, and administrative procedure, and the Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument on April 21, 2025.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyse how oral argument went before the Court.Featuring:Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater Institute

Drew Perkins talks with Tim Minella, Senior Constitutionalism Fellow at The Goldwater Institute, about their work to eliminate DEI in higher education. Links & Resources Mentioned In This Episode

What if the key to improving education in America is as simple as dismantling the Department of Education (DOE)? In this week's episode of The Narrative, CCV Policy Director David Mahan, Communications Director Mike Andrews, and Ohio Christian Education Network Executive Director Troy McIntosh sit down with Heritage Foundation's Jonathan Butcher—a leading expert in education policy—to talk about President Trump's recent executive order to abolish the DOE and how ending the bloated bureaucracy could unlock a new era of innovation, local empowerment, and real reform. Jonathan takes us through the potential benefits of dismantling the DOE, offering a fresh perspective on how we can reshape education to better serve students, parents, and communities. More about Jonathan Butcher Jonathan Butcher is the Will Skillman Senior Research Fellow in Education Policy at The Heritage Foundation. He has researched and testified on education policy around the US, including testimony before the US Commission on Civil Rights. He is the author of Splintered: Critical Race Theory and the Progressive War on Truth. Jonathan co-edited and wrote chapters in The Critical Classroom, discussing the racial prejudice that comes from applying critical race theory in K-12 schools. He also co-edited and wrote chapters in the book The Not-So-Great Society, which provides conservative solutions to the problems created by the ever-expanding federal footprint in preschool, K-12, and higher education. Jonathan previously served as the Education Director at the Goldwater Institute, where he remains a Senior Fellow. He was a member of the Arizona Department of Education's first Steering Committee for Empowerment Scholarship Accounts, the nation's first education savings account program. He is also a Senior Fellow with The Beacon Center of Tennessee and a contributing scholar for the Georgia Center for Opportunity. Prior to joining Goldwater, Jonathan was the Director of Accountability for the South Carolina Public Charter School District. Jonathan previously studied education policy at the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas. He worked with the School Choice Demonstration Project, the research team that evaluated voucher programs in Washington, D.C. and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Jonathan holds a bachelor's degree in English from Furman University and a master's degree in economics from the University of Arkansas.

Last fall, you had a chance to vote on a measure that is intended to force cities around the state to address homeless issues, specifically, when the homeless become a nuisance. You passed that proposal, so now what?  You’re about to hear how homeless in your hood could mean you get tax money back from your city. 

Good Morning Wakies! Today's Guests:7am - Joe Seyton, Goldwater Institute 8am- Ed Ethington and Tim Crawford, Desert Rose Tax

Joe Seyton joins the show!

Dr. Jeffrey Singer is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He is the Founder of Valley Surgical Clinics, the largest and oldest private group surgical practice in Arizona. He has been in private practice as a general surgeon for more than 40 years. He is also a visiting fellow at the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix. Singer is a member of the Board of Scientific Advisors of the American Council on Science and Health. He writes and speaks extensively on regional and national public policy, with a specific focus on the areas of healthcare policy and the harmful effects of drug prohibition. In this episode Dr. Singer shares his extensive knowledge on the history of prohibition, then the crackdown on prescription drugs, and what a world with more legal drugs might look like. He busts a few myths too, and some of them will blow your mind because they're opposite what we hear on the news. Dr. Singer believes a much healthier world is available to us if we move away from prohibition, let doctors be doctors, and police be police, and allow adults to have more legal, regulated options for substance use. Learn more at https://enditforgood.com/

Tyler Bonin, former teacher, a military veteran, and now a civics education specialist at the Goldwater Institute. Why is this socialist history book in 1 in 4 classrooms?

Mark Haughwout and I start off with a Trump update followed by Joe Setyon of the Goldwater Institute and their battle against Hollywood subsidies on the backs of AZ taxpayers.  Glenn Leest of WT Wealth Management joins us to discuss the impacts of Trumps first week on the economy. 

Seth goes through historian Victor Davis Hanson's analysis of the nonstop Left wing juggernaut. A judge strikes down President Trump's Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship. Vice President J.D. Vance's remarks at the March for Life in Washington, D.C. Listener call-in's on abortion and deportations. The Goldwater Institute's recently-released report: Billions for DEI in Higher Ed: The Cost of Indoctrination.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Trumps crushing it, eliminating DEI garbage in the federal government. Angela and I break it down. Democrat Katie Hobbs stops housing development and gets sued by the GoldWater Institute. Olivia talks Phoenix decay + a comment on chickens. Restaurateur Dave Ledbetter talks about the changes he's seen post covid, the nearly non existent cash transactions and all those service fees you get hit with when you go to pay. Talk show host, long time newscaster, former Miss AZ/USA (AND butcher) Jineane Ford talks about the rural blight of windmill farms and the blowback on these non-green behemoths. 

Joe Seyton joins the show.

We asked Google's NotebookLM to simplify the latest news on the lawsuit the Goldwater Institute is bringing against the Governor of Arizona, Hobbs' water policy that the Institute argues illegally restricts new housing construction.The policy, implemented by the Arizona Department of Water Resources, uses a flawed "unmet demand" model to determine groundwater availability, effectively halting development in large areas of Maricopa County. This action is deemed illegal because it bypassed required legislative authorization and formal rulemaking processes. The lawsuit claims this policy exacerbates Arizona's housing crisis and violates basic democratic principles. The plaintiffs are the Goldwater Institute and the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona.However you look at it, we must learn to balance population growth, housing costs, business, and our water supply.Check out the CAST11.com Website at: https://CAST11.com Follow the CAST11 Podcast Network on Facebook at: https://Facebook.com/CAST11AZFollow Cast11 Instagram at: https://www.instagram.com/cast11_podcast_network

We were thrilled to have the opportunity to talk to PEN America's Jeremy Young about what a second Trump administration holds in store for higher education. It was an informative—and sobering—conversation. Over the next four years, we should be prepared for a tsunami of ideologically-driven threats to academic freedom, campus free expression and the basic integrity of higher education. If you would rather read than listen, there is a transcript attached below. Show NotesPEN America's *Educational Censorship* page is a terrific resourceOn Christopher Rufo, see Benjamin Wallace-Wells, “How a Conservative Activist Invented the Conflict Over Critical Race Theory,” New Yorker, June 18, 2021 and Michael Kruse, “DeSantis' Culture Warrior: ‘We Are Now Over the Walls,'” Politico, March 24, 2023. For Rufo's take on critical race theory, in his own words, see this YouTube video. Here is the full text of Executive Order 13950, which became the template for most of the anti-CRT (or “divisive concepts”) laws passed in red states. On the Stop WOKE Act, the marquee anti-CRT law signed into law by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in 2022, check out these two Banished episodes:The Sunshine State Descends into Darkness (Again)Will Florida's "Stop WOKE Act" Hold Up in Court?Jeffrey Sachs and Jeremy Young predict the future: “For Federal Censorship of Higher Ed, Here's What Could Happen in 2025” (PEN America, January 2, 2025)For more on the phenomenon of “jawboning,” see this page from FIRE and this page from the Knight First Amendment Institute On “anticipatory obedience,” see this excerpt from Timothy Snyder's 2017 book, On Tyranny On legislative challenges to campus DEI, see the Chronicle of Higher Education DEI Legislation Tracker. (We are quite skeptical of many conventional DEI efforts but state bans are a cure that is far worse than the disease )For a deeper dive on accreditation, see Eric Kelderman, “Trump's Vision for College Accreditation Could Shake Up the Sector” (Chronicle of Higher Education, November 26, 2024)On Title VI investigations by the Office of Civil Rights, see Zach Montague, “Campus Protest Investigations Hang Over Schools as New Academic Year Begins” (New York Times, October 5, 2024)Here is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. Kenneth Stern, one of the definition's main authors, explains why he is concerned it is being used to promote campus censorshipOn the prospect of a much heftier endowment tax for the country's wealthiest institutions, see Phillip Levine, “How Trump Could Devastate Our Top Colleges' Finances” (Chronicle of Higher Education, January 13, 2025). Levine addresses the normative question—should college endowments be taxed?—here. TranscriptJeff: So, we're looking forward to a second Trump administration.Jeremy: Are we looking forward to a second Trump administration?Amna: No…towards.Jeff: We are anticipating…I personally am dreading a second Trump administration.Amna: This is Banished and I'm Amna Khalid, along with my colleague Jeff Snyder. Jeff and I were delighted to have the chance to catch up with PEN America's Jeremy Young at the recent American Historical Association conference in New York City. He's one of the most informed and astute analysts of government driven censorship in higher education today. We started by asking him to tell us a little about PEN America.Jeremy: PEN America is a 102 year old organization that exists at the intersection of literature and human rights. It is one of 140 PEN centers around the world which are in a loose network of PEN Centers governed by PEN International. PEN America's mission is to celebrate literature and defend the freedoms that make it possible, of which two of the foremost are academic freedom and freedom of expression.Amna: And what's your specific role?Jeremy: I am the Director of State and Higher Education Policy at PEN America, which means that I oversee our Freedom to Learn program, which leads actions and responses to educational censorship legislation, largely from the state governments, but also from the federal government. Things like DEI bans, critical race theory restrictions, and various other types of restrictions on faculty governance and university autonomy.Amna: We're eager to hear your predictions on what the higher ed sector should be bracing for with the second Trump administration. But first, Jeremy, could you please remind us of the nature of the attacks against higher education during Trump 1.0?Jeremy: In the summer and fall of 2020, this really happened late in the first Trump administration, there was a national panic around critical race theory, and this was created by Chris Rufo and some others really as a response, a backlash, if you will, against the George Floyd protests, the Black Lives Matter movement, the popularity of the 1619 Project, and so on, this sort of moment of racial reckoning. And so Rufo and others (Rufo is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute) decided to use this term critical race theory, which of course is an academic term with a particular set of meanings but to, as he put it, decodify and recodify it, essentially weaponize it to mean things that weren't all that connected to the actual theory of critical race theory and were really just a sort of catchall for criticisms of DEI and other race-based pedagogies and ideas. And so Rufo was able to convince president Trump to issue an executive order 13950 called Race and Sex Stereotyping that laid out a list of nine divisive concepts which bore some passing resemblance to critical race theory, but really were vague, and general, and banned all sorts of practices related to race, gender, and identity, and ideas related to race, gender, and identity that were unclear and difficult to interpret. Originally, this was a restriction aimed solely at trainings in government agencies…the executive order never went into effect. It was stayed by a court and repealed on the first day of the Biden administration. But that language of the divisive concepts then began to appear in state legislatures aimed now squarely at education. At first, at K-12 institutions primarily, and over time, higher education became more and more of the target.In 2023, we started to see a shift toward sort of broad spectrum attacks on higher education, moving away from some of the direct speech restrictions of the critical race theory bans, in part because of court cases that had gone adversely for those restrictions, and instead restricting broad swaths of university governance, including DEI offices, the ability of a university to manage diversity work on its own as a sort of shared governance function, tenure restrictions on faculty governance, restrictions on curriculum, which I think are going to be very prominent in 2025.Amna: You mentioned backlash to the 2020 racial reckoning as a key factor driving the anti-CRT movement. Can you say something more about where this opposition to CRT and now DEI is coming from?Jeremy: I think that there are several causes that are inseparable from one another. I think there are people who actually do want to restrict those particular ideas on campus, who want to advance a sort of triumphalist Western canon narrative of America as the victor, and they're just very opposed to any discussions that paint the United States in any way that is not hyper-patriotic and perfect. There's absolutely some racism, some sexism, some, some discrimination, discriminatory bias that's involved.I also think that there is a real desire to simply crush university power that I think comes out of the educational realignment that we have seen over the last 10 years. Kamala Harris won college educated Americans by 14 points, and four years ago, Joe Biden won them by four, and prior to the 2016 election, there was essentially no difference between the parties, really, at any time in American history on the axis of college education. There is now a sense I think among some conservative forces that instead of the long-time conservative project of reforming universities, having more viewpoint diversity, think of the Koch Centers in various institutions. Instead they're a place where liberals go to get educated, so we should just crush them, right? So I think that's part of it. It's just the goal of taking away universities' autonomy on everything is a key component.And the third component is political gain. And that is the one that has fluctuated the most over this period. Glenn Youngkin won a come from behind victory running on criticizing critical race theory in K-12 schools. And Steve Bannon said in 2021, I think about critical race theory and I see 50 new House seats in the midterm elections. Now, when that didn't happen, I think it began to become clear that these attacks are not as salient as they were thought to be. I think in 2023 and 2024, there was a real move away from that, especially with, also with the collapse of the DeSantis presidential campaign, which was built entirely around this idea of him being, fighting the war on woke. There was a sense that, maybe you still want to do these things, but now it's going to be quiet, it's going to be stealth mode, because there's no political gain to be gotten from having a big press release around this, around the Stop WOKE Act. But the other two motivations, the motivation of restricting certain ideas about race; and the motivation of smashing the power of higher education, those have remained constant.Jeff: Very succinct and helpful. Thank you. You and your colleague Jeffrey Sachs recently wrote an informative and sobering piece about Trump's plans for higher ed in 2025 and beyond. Maybe you could tell us a little about your key predictions. The first one you mention is jawboning. What is jawboning and why should we be worried about it?Jeremy: Jawboning, put simply, is when government officials, instead of passing a law requiring someone who isn't a government official to do something, they simply browbeat or bully or threaten them into doing it. In some ways you can look at the congressional hearings as a form of jawbonings or making threats against presidents at Columbia and Harvard and so on. But the classic example is actually what we're seeing at the state level where lawmakers are simply going to university presidents and say, saying, okay, we're not going to pass a DEI ban or a curriculum restriction. We're going to simply request that you make one on your own or we'll cut your funding. Or we'll pass one next year that's worse than anything you could imagine. It's a very intimate form of censorship, right? It takes restrictions out of the legislative process where they can be challenged at a hearing; out of the judicial process where they can be challenged on constitutional grounds; and every single one of these bills has at least some constitutional infirmities. And instead makes it just a threat, right? We're gonna cut your budget. What are you gonna do about that? It's a very difficult position for presidents to be in because they don't have a lot of leverage.Jeff: I think it was Yale historian Timothy Snyder who coined the term anticipatory obedience.  He said it was a dynamic that's often seen under conditions of rising authoritarianism. So you've got individuals and groups that start to make concessions they think will appease the powers that be. Is there a connection here to jawboning?Jeremy: Yes, so we talk about over compliance and pre-compliance. We're not going to comply with the letter of the law, we're going to comply with the spirit of the law. There is a law in Alabama that passed in 2024 that restricts some elements of DEI, but does not actually ban outright the DEI offices. And every university in Alabama has treated it as though it is an outright ban. And that's significant, in particular, because of the nature of these laws. You know, you go look at a set of statutes in a state legislature or the federal government, what you'll notice is that most laws are very precise. Think about traffic laws. What are you allowed to do on the road? It's very specific. You can drive this many miles an hour this particular way. There's no room for interpretation. There's no room for judgment because the goal is to make you comply with the law. These laws are intentionally vague. They ban broad swaths of ideas which are never defined in the laws.What does it mean to say, for instance, one of the divisive concepts, to say that you're not allowed to say that the United States is fundamentally racist. What does that mean? It doesn't say in the law what that means. It's left up to your interpretation, which means whoever is going to enforce that law gets to decide whether you violate it. That is actually a constitutional violation. It's against the 14th Amendment. And while the courts have found all sorts of infirmities with these laws, that's the one they've found the most consistency. Not freedom of speech, not racial discrimination but vagueness. So over-complying with a vague law is, it's difficult to avoid because these laws lend themselves to over-compliance because they're so vague. But it's also vitally important to avoid doing that.The other thing that we see is pre-compliance, which is just imagining that the legislature is going to pass a law but then whether or not they do it. We intervened with the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, one of the seven accrediting bodies because they were basically enacting what a restriction in Project 2025 that would have forbidden them to have a DEI standard for universities they accredit. And just doing it preemptively.It's not clear whether the education department is able to pass that restriction without legislation. And it's not clear whether legislation or the regulation would survive a court challenge. And they're just saying we'll just take it out. That's pre-compliance. You don't want to do that. And what we argued successfully, is that, again, even if you don't think an accreditor should have a DEI standard, we don't take a position on that. The worst time to get rid of your DEI standard is one month before a new administration that's promised to ban it tells you to. That's the moment when you put up your back and say, no, we're not going to comply with this.Jeff: Jeremy, tell us a little bit more about the new Trump administration's plans to disrupt the conventional work of accreditors.Jeremy: So higher education institutions are accredited by one of seven accrediting bodies, six of which have historically served certain regions, but now under new federal regulations the university can work with any of the seven accreditors. But they still tend to be concentrated in regions.Accreditation is really the only thing that separates a real substantive university from a diploma mill; and the way that accreditation is enforced, is that the Department of Education will only provide federal student financial aid, which 55 percent of all students receive, to schools that it recognizes as legitimate accreditors, which currently is those seven institutional accreditors. They are private or nonprofit organizations. They're run by academics. They have their pluses and minuses, but they are pretty much the guarantor of institutional quality in higher education. And if you look at Project 2025, everything that they say they want to do to higher education is focused on accreditation. They have identified these accreditors as the soft underbelly of higher education. And the simplest thing that they want to do and that they probably will at least try to do is to ban accreditors from having DEI standards, of which six of the seven currently do.But they really want to go further. What they really want to do is to undermine the system of accreditation itself by allowing any jurisdiction, any state, to either charter its own accreditor or serve as its own accreditor. So Ron DeSantis could become the accreditor for all universities in Florida. And now instead of those universities having DEI offices, he can say you cannot be accredited in the state of Florida unless you've banned DEI and basically instituted a classical curriculum, a Hillsdale style classical curriculum. It's a little more complicated than project 2025 makes it sound. Our analysis is that while they may attempt to do it through regulatory action, the process of negotiated rulemaking in the Department of Education is sufficiently complex that it would probably stop them from doing it and so that probably means that they need legislation to change the Higher Education Act, which would be subject to a filibuster.So this is something that we will be watching to see if they try to do it administratively. It may not be possible. And we'll also be watching if they try to slip it into one of those reconciliation bills that are being proposed that would be able to go through without a filibuster.Jeff: So that's how the accreditation system might be weaponized. You and Sacks also identify Title VI enforcement by the Office of Civil Rights as a key area of concern. Maybe we can break this down into its component parts. What is the Office of Civil Rights and what's Title VI?Jeremy: Sure. So the Office of Civil Rights is an office within the Department of Education that ensures that educational institutions meet the requirements of the various civil rights laws. It covers Title VI funding, which is funding that is tied to financial aid for universities, and it makes sure that institutions that are receiving federal financial aid are following these civil rights protections. It is an office does good work and we have a good relationship with the office.We have some concerns about the way that the Biden administration has been investigating and enforcing agreements with universities around antisemitism. We expect things to get far worse in the new administration. We expect that any university that has any sort of protest or any faculty member who expresses pro-Palestinian views is going to be investigated and sanctioned by the Office of Civil Rights. We expect they're going to launch lawsuits. They're going to really go after universities. So it is an office that is going to be used in some really aggressive ways to restrict speech on campus.Jeff: In terms of restricting speech, you and Sachs are especially worried about the trend on the part of colleges and universities, not to mention states and the federal government, to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. Why is this so concerning to you both?Jeremy: So the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism is a very interesting document. It starts with a description that is quite thoughtful and then it gives a list of examples of things that could be forms of antisemitism or could accompany antisemitism, and that list includes things like singling out the state of Israel for special criticism that other states are not singled out for that do engage in the same actions or just you know criticizing Zionism, things like that. Which in the context of what that definition was designed for yes, sometimes when you see those statements, it's worth perking your ears up and asking, is this accompanying antisemitism or not?What the laws are doing, and this comes from a model bill that the Goldwater Institute wrote in 2016, and it's now being suffused into all these federal and state policies, is to take those examples of possible antisemitism and change it from possible to definite antisemitism. So anytime you criticize the state of Israel, it's antisemitism. And then writing that into law, saying that universities have to treat this as any instance of this broad definition of antisemitism as hate speech or as a form of harassment. The author of that definition, Kenneth Stern has repeatedly said that it is not designed to be used in that way. In fact, he said it's unconstitutional to use it in that way. And yet that's what we're seeing. So that's the concern. It's not that you shouldn't have a definition of anti Semitism, although I will say our statutes tend not to define particular types of hate speech because it's too subjective, right? This is the reason that we have definitions like severe, pervasive, and targeted for harassment. You're looking at a pattern of behavior because each individual case is protected by free expression.Jeff: I understand that the Office of Civil Rights is currently conducting dozens of Title VI investigations stemming from campus protests over the war in Gaza. There are widespread allegations of antisemitism, many of which are accompanied by competing charges of Islamophobia. How do you think we should make sense of this?Jeremy: These are complex situations. Lots of universities are getting them wrong. Some universities are being overly censorious, some not enforcing harassment protections. And it's right and proper for OCR to investigate these things. The problem is that they are not always coming up with the right findings. That they're not always protecting free expression, balancing free expression adequately with the need to protect students from harassment. We're seeing universities implement draconian time, place and manner restrictions on speech. So just the fact that OCR and the Congress are making all these threatening noises about restricting speech leads a lot of universities to do the censor's work for them.Amna: Jeremy mentioned one other thing the new Trump administration has made ramblings about, which is ramping up the endowment tax on the country's wealthiest institutions. Please see an informative Chronicle of Higher Education article by Philip Levine, linked in the show notes.What all these attacks or interventions, depending on your point of view, have in common, is that they seek to undermine the autonomy of colleges and universities. Here's Jeremy.Jeremy: University autonomy is not a principle that is very widely understood in the United States. It's much more common in Europe where there's an autonomy index and all sorts of things as a way of protecting academic freedom. But it's a vital component of academic freedom. We think about academic freedom in the U.S. primarily as being the freedom of an individual faculty member to speak their mind or to engage in their research or teaching. But, in reality, that freedom can only be protected so long as the people overseeing it, the university administration, are free from the ideological control of the government. The key here is ideological control. We aren't saying that the government doesn't have a budgetary responsibility to oversee the university, or that there isn't a role for the government in community relations, or student success, or access and completion, or any of these things. But when it comes to ideas, what ideas can be present on a campus, whether it's in the classroom, whether it's in a DEI office, anywhere on campus, that is not the government's business, and it cannot be the government's business, or ultimately everyone on campus is simply going to be currying favor with whatever political party is in charge.Amna: Jeremy, this has been wonderful and you've been so kind to give us so much time. Thank you.Jeff: Thank you. It's an absolute pleasure.Amna: That was our conversation with Jeremy Young of PEN America on what Trump 2.0 portends for higher education. As of yesterday, Trump's second term has officially begun. Keep your eyes peeled and ears tuned for what's to come next. If you liked what you heard today, be sure to help us spread the word about Banished, and don't forget to comment and rate this show.Once again, this is Banished, and I'm Amna Khalid, along with Jeff Snyder. Until next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

Matt Beienburg joins the show.

Stacy Skankey joins the show.

Austin VanDerHeyden joins the show.

0:00 An interview with Arizona's new Speaker of the House, Steve Montenegro. 11:00 An interview with the former President of the ASU College Republicans. 24:30 An interview with Joe Setyon of the Goldwater Institute & rep dive on prop 312, the “crack alley” property rights fix for those suffering the incompetence and neglect of some local governments.  38:30 A quick election update.   ——————————————   Disclaimer: The information provided on the Jeff Oravits Show does not constitute legal, medical, financial or tax advice.  All information is the opinions of the host's and his guests.  You should always seek the advice of a professional regarding any of these complex issues to make sure all circumstances of your situation are properly considered.   ——————————————

Food Friday--Rocco with Rocco's Little Chicago. They are open in their new location, about 100 yards west of the old location. Austin Van Der Heyden with the Goldwater Institute reacts to Arizona voters overwhelmingly passing Prop 312 which allows refunds of property tax when crime is left unchecked.

Matt Beienburg joins the show.

On today's newscast: The Flagstaff Amtrak station and the Grand Canyon Railway received millions of dollars in federal funding, the Navajo Nation Council approved legislation to tax vapes and other nicotine products, the Goldwater Institute is suing Sedona for refusing d to issue a short-term rental permit for a mobile home park, investigations involving missing and murdered Indigenous people got a boost from the FBI and more. Plus, we look at the race for Arizona's Second Congressional District,

Earlier this month, DonorsTrust partnered with the Goldwater Institute and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club for a special event in Phoenix, Arizona. At the event, Peter was joined by DonorsTrust philanthropic advisor Lukas Dwelly and Yellowstone Trust Administration executive vice president Randy Huston for a discussion about the powerful charitable tools you can employ in […]

Earlier this month, DonorsTrust partnered with the Goldwater Institute and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club for a special event in Phoenix, Arizona. At the event, Peter was joined by DonorsTrust philanthropic advisor Lukas Dwelly and Yellowstone Trust Administration executive vice president Randy Huston for a discussion about the powerful charitable tools you can employ in your planned giving. Lukas is a chartered philanthropic advisor, an accredited estate planner, and charted financial advisor. Randy is certified financial planner with expertise in charitable estate planning and has worked in the charitable trust field for nearly 40 years. In this episode, Lukas covers the basics of bequest gifts, life insurance, and leveraging the full power of your IRA. And Randy gives an excellent overview of charitable remainder trusts and charitable lead trusts. The panel discussion will help you think more strategically about the tools available to you, including donor-advised funds.

Joe Seyton joins the show.

Jenna Bentley joins the show.

Some parents who use Arizona Empowerment Scholarship funds are pushing back against the state for upping requirements to get reimbursed for educational materials. These parents, along with the Goldwater Institute, are suing over the recent change that requires all materials bought to have a curriculum in order to be reimbursed. Matt Beienburg is the Director of Education Policy at the Goldwater Institute and joins the show this morning to talk about the lawsuit. 

Matt Beienburg, Director of Education Policy and the Van Sittert Center for Constitutional Advocacy at the Goldwater Institute, joins the show by phone to discuss his recent piece in The Wall Street Journal entitled "No More Pencils, No More Books in Arizona" and Arizona's Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program. President Biden's speech at the opening of the 79th meeting of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

(1:00) Arizona's 97,000 voters that didn't provide proof of citizenship.   (8:00) Prop 140 doesn't have the signatures required yet it's on the ballot!   (14:30) Nikki Check, former Jerome mayor and Yavapai Supervisor Dist. 3 candidate talks water, crime, housing and more.    (43:00) Joe Setyon of the GoldWater Institute shares a $70,000,000 Payson bond boondoggle story.    (58:00) More on where the money is going in Payson and why you should never support a public pool in your community!   (66:00) The money machine gets lubed up! Fed cuts rates but why if the economy's “so great”. What they did, some history and what may be coming.    (77:00) Is she actually this much of an idiot when it comes to economics?   —————————————— Please FOLLOW or SUBSCRIBE to the Jeff Oravits Show! RUMBLE   YouTube   ApplePodCasts   AmazonMusic   Spotify        Also on Twitter and www.TalkWithJeff.com   Disclaimer: The information provided on the Jeff Oravits Show does not constitute legal, medical, financial or tax advice.  All information is the opinions of the host's and his guests.  You should always seek the advice of a professional regarding any of these complex issues to make sure all circumstances of your situation are properly considered.   ——————————————

Austin VanDerHeyden joins the show.

Adam Shelton, Goldwater Institute--Scottsdale pushes a new tax to replace an expiring tax and say Opportunities missed in failed Vail incorporation and reaping the dividends of decades of no-growthers getting their way. The Dems ground game is already in full swing and their convention isn't over yet.

Adam Kwasman joins the show.

John Thorpe joins the show.

Creighton Elementary School District uses taxpayer money to send board members to Napa Valley for DEI conference.

Ned Jones crushes RANKED CHOICE VOTING…(Ep 1935) + Joe Setyon of Goldwater Institute, Sarah Gabel Seifert of EveryLife & I break down one road to a Kamala Harris victory that I hope will not happen.     I lay out a way Kamala Harris may sooth swing voters concerns… but probably (and thankfully) won't because come on, it's Kamala Harris!   I talk with Joe Setyon of the GoldWater Institute… about unfair wage practices and a HUGE victory with a judge ruling against PHX and Tucson's “FAIR WAGE” law.   Ned Jones crushes RANKED CHOICE VOTING… in AZ you will decide if this complicated voting system becomes law in the state.    I talk with Sarah Gabel Seifert & her push to…. support companies that support your values, says the cofounder of EveryLife. Sarah also shares details on how diaper purchases (from other companies) are going to companies that support abortion, insane!    —————————————— Please FOLLOW or SUBSCRIBE to the Jeff Oravits Show! RUMBLE   YouTube   ApplePodCasts   AmazonMusic   Spotify        Also on Twitter and www.TalkWithJeff.com   Disclaimer: The information provided on the Jeff Oravits Show does not constitute legal, medical, financial or tax advice.  All information is the opinions of the host's and his guests.  You should always seek the advice of a professional regarding any of these complex issues to make sure all circumstances of your situation are properly considered.   ——————————————

The Chevron Doctrine is the longtime bete noir of conservatives and libertarians hostile to the administrative state. Tim Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute joins to discuss the reasoning behind it, and the reasoning that smite it.  Support the show! patreon.com/andrewheaton Past Judge Weeks: https://www.patreon.com/collection/140707?view=expanded  

Join Chuck and Sam for our Independence Day episode, where we reflect on America's foundational history and the sacrifices of our founders. We begin with award-winning broadcaster Ken LaCorte, host of ‘Elephants in Rooms', as he analyzes the Presidential debate and its implications for today's America. Later, Martin Di Caro, host of 'History As It Happens,' provides insights into today's societal divisions and the lasting impact of the American Revolution. Finally, Jon Riches, Vice President for Litigation at the Goldwater Institute's Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation and General Counsel for the Institute, joins us to discuss two recent Supreme Court rulings. Don't miss this compelling discussion that connects history with current events, airing this week on Breaking Battlegrounds.Connect with us:www.breakingbattlegrounds.voteTwitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds-Show sponsors:Invest YrefyYrefy offers a secure, collateralized portfolio with a strong, fixed rate of return - up to a 10.25%. There is no attack on your principal if you ever need your money back. You can let your investment compound daily, or take your income whenever you choose. Make sure you tell them Sam and Chuck sent you!Learn more at investyrefy.com4Freedom MobileExperience true freedom with 4Freedom Mobile, the exclusive provider offering nationwide coverage on all three major US networks (Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile) with just one SIM card. Our service not only connects you but also shields you from data collection by network operators, social media platforms, government agencies, and more.Use code ‘Battleground' to get your first month for $9 and save $10 a month every month after.Learn more at: 4FreedomMobile.comDot VoteWith a .VOTE website, you ensure your political campaign stands out among the competition while simplifying how you reach voters.Learn more at: dotvote.vote-About our guests:Ken LaCorte is a friend of the show and Host of the podcast ‘Elephants in Rooms.' He writes about censorship, media malfeasance, uncomfortable questions, and honest insight for people curious how the world really works. Follow him on X @KenLaCorte.-Martin Di Caro is an award-winning broadcaster and host of 'History As It Happens,' a podcast that delves into current events through a historical perspective. Follow him on X @MartinDiCaro. -Jon Riches is the Vice President for Litigation for the Goldwater Institute's Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation and General Counsel for the Institute. He litigates in federal and state trial and appellate courts in the areas of economic liberty, regulatory reform, free speech, taxpayer protections, public labor issues, government transparency, and school choice, among others. Get full access to Breaking Battlegrounds at breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com/subscribe

Goldwater Institute is suing on behalf of AZ taxpayers.

Adam Kwasman's inquiry sparked a lawsuit by the Goldwater Insitute.

  In hour 2 of The Armstrong & Getty Show: Tim Sandefur, the Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute's Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation, joins Jack Armstrong to talk about the Supreme Court Tim Sandefur continuing with Jack Armstrong talking about the homeless relationship with law enforcement Cryptic pregnancies and paying in ground beef Bump stocks are legal again See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

  In hour 2 of The Armstrong & Getty Show: Tim Sandefur, the Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute's Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation, joins Jack Armstrong to talk about the Supreme Court Tim Sandefur continuing with Jack Armstrong talking about the homeless relationship with law enforcement Cryptic pregnancies and paying in ground beef Bump stocks are legal again See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson questions if prohibiting sleeping/camping on public property under the Grants Pass Municipal Code breaches the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment." These provisions typically carry civil penalties but can escalate to criminal penalties.Initially filed in 2018, this case draws parallels to Martin v. City of Boise, where the Ninth Circuit ruled that criminalizing such activities breached the Eighth Amendment. The Grants Pass case raises a critical question: do civil penalties for similar actions also infringe on constitutional protections?Following the Ninth Circuit's 2022 decision favoring the plaintiffs, led by Gloria Johnson, the city appealed, leading to a Supreme Court hearing scheduled for Monday, April 22. This case sits at the intersection of Criminal Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers, and Property Rights, addressing fundamental questions about local governance, public health, and individual freedoms.Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went the same day.Featuring: Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Litigation, Goldwater Institute

In this RTP explainer episode 65, we are joined by Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President of the Goldwater Institute to discuss Michael Cannon’s new book, Recovery. Listen in as these experts consider the role of government agencies like the FDA in health spaces across America. "Recovery" discusses treatments approved by the FDA and the implications of approved drugs entering the market. Americans are inadvertently affected by the decisions of government agencies. With this said, "Recovery" argues the FDA takes away people’s rights to make their own health decisions. Does the FDA prohibit safe and effective drugs from entering the market? In this episode, experts discuss the implications of the decisions made by the FDA and the consequences of unsafe access to drugs. Copies of Michael Cannon’s book can be found at, https://www.cato.org/books/rec...

Justice Clint Bolick provides a behind-the-scenes look at life as a State Supreme Court Justice and shares his experiences working with now-Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Delve into the role of federalism in the judicial system as Justice Bolick navigates the complexities of the legal landscape. Tune in for intriguing insights into the justice system's inner workings and the impact of judicial decisions. Justice Clint Bolick was appointed to the Arizona Supreme Court in 2016 and in 2018 was retained by the voters for a six-year term. Prior to joining the Court, Justice Bolick litigated constitutional cases in state and federal courts from coast to coast, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Among other positions, he served as Vice President for Litigation at the Goldwater Institute and as Co-founder and Vice President for Litigation at the Institute for Justice. He has litigated in support of school choice, private property rights, freedom of speech, and federalism, and against racial classifications and government subsidies. Justice Bolick received his J.D. from the University of California at Davis, and his Bachelor of Arts degree from Drew University. Justice Bolick has written a dozen books and hundreds of articles. Among his most recent books are Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution, co-authored with former Florida Governor Jeb Bush; and David's Hammer: The Case for an Activist Judiciary. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Timothy Sandefur is the Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute's Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation and holds the Duncan Chair in Constitutional Government.  He joined Jack Armstrong to talk about some of the big topics in the news! Listen to The Armstrong & Getty Extra Large Interview and other Extra Large interviews with Tim below! Follow Tim on X HERE and check out some of his videos below! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A popular professor at Arizona State University could face discipline—all because he won't take the government-run school's discriminatory DEI training.  The Goldwater Institute sued ASU on Dr. Owen Anderson's behalf for using taxpayer funds to mandate DEI training among faculty—in violation of state law. To talk more about it, Dr. Owen Anderson talks to Armstrong and Getty!  Listen to the full Armstrong & Getty Extra Large Podcast!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Arizona State University (ASU) professor Dr. Owen Anderson and the Goldwater Institute are suing the university over its mandatory Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) training for faculty. Sam Stone, host of Breaking Battlegrounds, heard every Saturday at 9 AM right here on 960 The Patriot, joins Seth in studio for the full hour to talk about the illegal immigrants who are being dumped into Arizona, Senate Majority Leader (D-NY) Chuck Schumer's 2009 comments on the use of the term "illegal immigrant," and more! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Victor Riches is the President and CEO of the Goldwater Institute.   Prior to joining the Institute, Victor served as Arizona Governor Doug Ducey's Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Budget, where he was responsible for the formation and passage of all of the Governor's major policy objectives as well as the state's budget. […]

Victor Riches is the President and CEO of the Goldwater Institute. Prior to joining the Institute, Victor served as Arizona Governor Doug Ducey's Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Budget, where he was responsible for the formation and passage of all of the Governor's major policy objectives as well as the state's budget. While working for the Governor, he developed and passed into law legislation to protect the sharing economy and restrict the power of unelected bureaucrats. Victor also crafted and negotiated Arizona's first balanced budget in nearly a decade. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this week's episode, we are sharing audio from a program hosted live from Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and presented in partnership with ASU's Center for Constitution Design. The program centered around a discussion of the National Constitution Center's landmark Constitution Drafting Project, and featured members from each project team— Georgetown Law's Caroline Fredrickson of Team Progressive, the Goldwater Institute's Timothy Sandefur of Team Libertarian, and ASU's Ilan Wurman of Team Conservative. They discuss their approaches to constitution drafting, review points of consensus and disagreement, and reflect on the importance of cross-partisan dialogue in today's constitutional environment. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was presented live on February 1, 2024.  Resources:  National Constitution Center, Constitution Drafting Project  National Constitution Center, Constitution Drafting Project, “The Proposed Amendments” (PDF)  Center for Constitutional Design at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, 2024 Model Constitutional Convention  NCC America's Town Hall program, Justice Stephen Breyer on the Importance of Civics Education (Oct. 6, 2022)  Jeffrey Rosen, The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America (2024)  Erwin Chemerinsky, We the People: A Progressive Reading of the Constitution for the Twenty-First Century (2018)  The Preamble to the Constitution  The Declaration of Independence  Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.   You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

On January 17, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce—two cases that ask whether the Court should overturn the landmark Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council case. In this episode, guests Christopher Walker of Michigan Law School and Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institue join to recap the arguments in both cases and to explore the future of Chevron and the administrative state. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.   Resources: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript)  Relentless v. Department of Commerce (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript)  Christopher Walker, Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo   Timothy Sandefur, Amicus Brief of Goldwater Institute in Support of Petitioners, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo   Chevron U.S.A. Inc., v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.