Podcasts about Imperial Presidency

What can 1920s Germany teach us about American politics today?   Georgetown professor and national security expert Dr. Paul D. Miller joins host Curtis Chang to explore striking parallels between the Weimar Republic and our current moment of democratic fragility. From the rise of Christian nationalism to the erosion of institutional norms, they unpack the theological, historical, and civic fault lines shaping today's polarized landscape. Buckle up—this episode is for anyone ready to trade tribalism for truth and confront the urgent role Christians must play in defending democracy.   Send written questions or voice memos for “Ask Curtis” episodes to: askcurtis@redeemingbabel.org   Send Campfire Stories to: info@redeemingbabel.org   Resources mentioned in this episode: Paul D. Miller's article: A Confessing Church for America's Weimar Moment Paul D. Miller's previous appearance on the Good Faith podcast: Episode 36: The Religion of American Greatness The history of the Weimar Republic  The rise and fall of the Weimar Republic (video) Christians against Nazis: the German Confessing Church Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church Karl Barth in Nazi Germany Sandy Berger's theft of classified information Pete Hegseth shares classified information  Reining in "Imperial Presidency" executive orders   More From Paul D. Miller: Paul D. Miller's The Religion of American Greatness: What's Wrong with Christian Nationalism Paul D. Miller on X (formerly Twitter) Paul D. Miller at The Dispatch   Follow Us: Good Faith on Instagram Good Faith on X (formerly Twitter) Good Faith on Facebook   Sign up: Redeeming Babel Newsletter  

What if the recent crackdown on elite universities didn't start with Trump—but with Obama? In this episode, we trace a surprising through-line connecting Obama's Title IX enforcement to Trump's Title VI threats. Harvard Law Professor Jacob Gersen joins us to reveal how both presidents used informal bureaucratic tools to reshape higher education—often without Congress. What does this say about presidential power and academic freedom in America?Papers discussed:“The Sex Bureaucracy”: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2750143“The Six Bureaucracy”: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5199652

What has Congress done in the past four months?  Now, what has the executive tried to do?  This is an illustration of a century long process of power to the executive.  We trace this evolution's historical roots.  

Welcome to the age of the imperial presidency, dear listener.After President Donald Trump returned to the Oval Office in January, he flexed a newfound authority unlike his predecessors as he spent the first few weeks legislating through executive orders.Whether you think Trump is above the law in practice or theory, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last July in Trump v. United States feels particularly poignant as his administration faces over 100 lawsuits under 100 days into his second term.How does the court's finding impact how Trump legislates from the executive branch? Does he really have the power to fire federal employees and the heads of nonpartisan bureaus? With the help of our D.C. reporters Ryan Knappenberger and Benjamin S. Weiss, we break this down and more in our fourth episode this season.Special guests:Ben Olinsky, senior vice president for structural reform at the Center for American ProgressMichael Sozan, senior fellow at the Center for American ProgressJed Shugerman, law professor at Boston University School of LawSharece Thrower, political science professor at Vanderbilt UniversityThis episode was produced by Kirk McDaniel. Intro music by The Dead Pens. Editorial staff is Ryan Abbott, Sean Duffy and Jamie Ross.

President Trump hit the ground running - hard - after his inauguration in January. It seemed like at least half of the Federal Government was exposed as not only totally fake, but actually working against US interests. From USAID to the Department of Education, thousands of "employees" were let go. Then he fell into the siren song of all Presidents: he got sucked into the Imperial Presidency and began waving the sword. Can he get back on track?

Guest: John Nichols is the national affairs correspondent for The Nation Magazine. He is the author of several books including his latest co-written with Senator Bernie Sanders “It's OK to Be Angry About Capitalism.” His latest article in the Nation is Democracy Dies at “The Washington Post” …and oligarchy lives.   Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons The post John Nichols on the Imperial Presidency, the Press, & the Mounting Anti-Trump Opposition appeared first on KPFA.

Is the U.S. presidency becoming too powerful?Imagine a president ignoring court rulings, dismantling government agencies, and bypassing oversight. It's not just a hypothetical—it's happening now. In this episode, we explore the rise of executive overreach and its implications for democracy.

Maarten van Rossum over Imperial Presidency Dik Verkuil schrijft biografie Frits Bolkestein Emilie Hemelrijk over slaven in het Romeinse Rijk Simon Rietveld plantte een bos op Madagaskar

A coalition of privacy defenders led by Lex Lumina and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a lawsuit on February 11 asking a federal court to stop the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from disclosing millions of Americans' private, sensitive information to Elon Musk and his “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). As the federal government is the nation's largest employer, the records held by OPM represent one of the largest collections of sensitive personal data in the country.Is this a big deal? Should we care? Joining Pam today is Stanford Law Professor Mark Lemley, an expert in intellectual property, patent law, trademark law, antitrust, the law of robotics and AI, video game law, and remedies. Lemley is of counsel with the law firm Lex Lumina and closely involved in the DOGE case. In this episode, Lemley overviews urgent privacy concerns that led to this lawsuit, laws such as the Privacy Act, and legal next steps for this case. The conversation shifts to the current political landscape, highlighting the unprecedented influence of Silicon Valley, particularly under the Musk administration. Lemley contrasts the agile, authoritative management style of Silicon Valley billionaires with the traditionally slow-moving federal bureaucracy, raising concerns about legality and procedural adherence. The conversation also touches on the demise of the Chevron doctrine and the possible rise of an imperial presidency, drawing parallels between the Supreme Court's and the executive branch's power grabs—and how Lemley's 2022 paper, "The Imperial Supreme Court," predicted the Court's trend towards consolidating power. This episode offers a compelling examination of how technological and corporate ideologies are influencing American law.Links:Mark Lemley >>> Stanford Law page“The Imperial Supreme Court” >>> Stanford Law publication pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) The Rise of Executive Power(00:07:22) Concerns About Data Handling and Privacy(00:08:41) The Impact of Silicon Valley's Ethos on Government(00:14:01) The Musk Administration's Approach(00:18:01) The Role of the Supreme Court(00:24:43) Silicon Valley's Influence on Washington

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger Picture Lee Zeldin found Biden's hidden money, nice try. Jobless claims are up in DC, people are going to see the jobs that were created were in DC. Trump gives a list of money that DOGE saved. [CB] created the Impoundment Act of 1974. Calls to audit Fort Knox is getting louder. London is sending gold to NY. The [DS] was baited by Trump. They are now calling him a tyrannical dictator. Trump is the opposite, he is dismantling the system tyrannical system. The [DS] took the bait, now the people will see who the shadow tyrannical government really is. In the end Trump will win.   (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1891395214557774290 https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1891164638730940746 https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1891196692239728909   Industrial Average has lagged the S&P 500 by 17 percentage points over the last 2 years. As large cap technology stocks increasingly drive the market, the Dow is falling behind. Currently, large cap tech only reflects ~14% of the Dow compared to ~33% of the S&P 500. Is the Dow Jones Industrial Average index outdated?  All federal spending is taxation What the gov't doesn't take in from tax revenue, it takes via inflation The only way to stop inflation is to lower gov't spending That's what DOGE is doing Low inflation = freedom and prosperity for Americans https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1891414886443319769 Top Auto CEO Says He May Pull Production Out of Mexico If Trump Follows Through on Tariffs The CEO of Nissan has said he may be forced to move production out of Mexico if Donald Trump imposes tariffs on exports. The head of the Japanese automaker made the comments during a press conference on Friday. “From Mexico to the U.S., we are exporting a significant number of cars this fiscal year,” Uchida said, according to Reuters. ”320,000 units are exported from Mexico to the U.S., and if the high tariffs are imposed, we need to be ready for this,” he continued. ”Maybe we can transfer the production of these models elsewhere if this were the decision, we will think how we can make it a reality while monitoring the situation.” Source: thegatewaypundit.com A 1974 federal law forces the President to avoid efficiency and cost savings Average Americans can be forgiven for not understanding how Joe Biden was able to “forgive” student debt and stop Trump's Border Wall construction without pushback from the media, Congress, or the courts, while Trump's efforts to make government more efficient are being blocked at every turn.  The Impoundment and Control Act of 1974 was passed at the height of the Watergate debacle and was a calculated move by Congress to stop Nixon's so-called Imperial Presidency. Understood in its most basic terms, Congress says that if it voted to spend money on something, the president may not change that amount, even if he can achieve the exact same outcome by spending less money. To put it bluntly, the Act says that the president is not allowed to save the country money. As a hypothetical example, assume that Congress has budgeted $1 billion to rebuild the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore. The President, however, finds a way to re-construct the bridge to the exact specifications laid out by Congress for $500 million, saving half the cost. Under the Act's explicit terms, the president would be barred from this cost-saving approach. He must spend all $1 billion. If this has you scratching your head—well, welcome to the club.

Viewers' comments: Bp Williamson, battle over the Holy See, SSPX confusion, "Sacramentalism?", isolated in New Zealand, Sunday obligation online? Confirming babies? OT living 900 years? Bible Books of Wisdom? Imperial Presidency: executive orders? The post-Francis NO church? Jesus Christ alone is Savior! This episode was recorded on 2/11/2025. Our Links: http://linkwcb.com/ Please consider making a monetary donation to What Catholics Believe. Father Jenkins remembers all of our benefactors in general during his daily Mass, and he also offers one Mass on the first Sunday of every month specially for all supporters of What Catholics Believe. May God bless you for your generosity! https://www.wcbohio.com/donate Subscribe to our other YouTube channels: ‪@WCBHighlights‬ ‪@WCBHolyMassLivestream‬ May God bless you all!

What are the power dynamics between Trump and Musk? What is Trump's plan for Gaza? Are Trump's announcements purely performative? Join Katty and Anthony as they answer all of these questions and more. Become a Founding Member Support the podcast, enjoy ad-free listening, gain early access to our mini-series, and get a bonus members-only Q&A episode every week! Just head to https://therestispoliticsus.com to sign up today. The Rest Is Politics US is powered by Fuse Energy, a green electricity supplier powering homes across England, Scotland & Wales. Use referral code USPOLITICS when signing up. Learn more at https://getfuse.com/uspolitics ⚡ Instagram: @RestPoliticsUS Twitter: @RestPoliticsUS Email: TRIPUS@goalhanger.com Assistant Producer: India Dunkley Video Editor: Jake Liascos Social Producer: Jess Kidson Producer: Fiona Douglas Senior Producer: Dom Johnson Head of Content: Tom Whiter Head of Digital: Sam Oakley Exec Producers: Tony Pastor, Jack Davenport Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

[00:30] The Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump? (55 minutes) Eighty years on from the liberation of Auschwitz, the disastrous U.S.-negotiated ceasefire deal between Hamas and Israel shows that we have forgotten the horrific lessons from World War II. President Donald Trump believes he can solve all of America's problems domestically and internationally—but Bible prophecy portrays a very different picture of the future of the U.S. and this present evil world if we do not turn to God for solutions.

Today's guests say Project 2025 would give Trump almost unlimited power to implement policies that will hurt everyday Americans and strip them of fundamental rights.

Could the American system of checks and balances crumble under a second Trump presidency? In this episode Berkeley Law Professor Daniel Farber, co-director of the Edley Center on Law and Democracy, joins the pod to discuss the complexities of executive authority in the U.S. government. From emergency powers initially crafted for crisis management to the potential overreach encouraged by figures such as Mitch McConnell and Mike Johnson, we explore how these dynamics could fundamentally alter the balance of power established by the Constitution. We examine the constitutional framework intended to keep presidential power in check, focusing on the evolving roles of Congress and the judiciary. And, we focus on how party loyalty often clashes with institutional accountability, and how mechanisms like congressional funding and public opinion serve as crucial, yet sometimes faltering, counterbalances to executive overreach. Through critical historical examples and current events, we examine the pressing need for strengthening these checks and balances to prevent authoritarian tendencies.In this episode, we also scrutinize the strategies presidents might employ to extend their influence through appointments and executive orders, challenging the Senate's advisory role. The ease with which democratic norms can be undermined by unchecked presidential actions raises significant concerns about the erosion of civil rights and the potential rise of authoritarianism. And, how the system might respond, and even fail, under the pressures of a President Trump determined to consolidate power. Counterpoint Podcast-------------------------Follow Deep Dive:InstagramYouTube Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com Music: Majestic Earth - Joystock

This month marked 50 years since Richard Nixon resigned the presidency for the crimes of Watergate. The endless fascination with the break-in and the cover-up has obscured what may be more important in Nixon's legacy as Americans demand a more restrained foreign policy today: his contribution to the imperial presidency and the crimes he got away with. In the summer of 1974, Congress had a chance to hold the chief executive accountable for concealing the bombing of a neutral Cambodia during the Vietnam War. But this article of impeachment was voted down. In this episode, historian Carolyn Eisenberg takes us into the Nixon White House and the jungles of Southeast Asia to show how an American president and his national security advisor prolonged the war, misled the public, and caused appalling carnage in faraway places – but got away with it, with terrible consequences for our own time. Recommended reading: 'Fire and Rain: Nixon, Kissinger, and the Wars in Southeast Asia' by Carolyn Woods Eisenberg, winner of a 2024 Bancroft Prize

This week on Talk World Radio, we're speaking with former Congressman / current Congressional candidate Dennis Kucinich. Dennis Kucinich's campaign website: https://kucinich.com Dennis Kucinich's substack blog: https://denniskucinich.substack.com The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush by Dennis Kucinich: https://www.amazon.com/Articles-Impeachment-Case-Prosecuting-George/dp/1932595422

Host Philip Maldari is joined by national affairs correspondent for The Nation Magazine, John Nichols to debunk the politics of the first presidential debate and the Supreme Court's decisions.   The post Unraveling the Imperial Presidency and the Supreme Court's Decisions appeared first on KPFA.

The Washington Post worries that Trump will be a dictator in the White House. But they have not worried about that with Biden, or Obama, or anyone else. They should, because Trump would be a symptom of the disease. https://mcclanahanacademy.com https://patreon.com/thebrionmcclanahanshow https://brionmcclanahan.com/support http://learntruehistory.com --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/brion-mcclanahan/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/brion-mcclanahan/support

Niall Stanage reports from Washington on the 2024 Presidential election and the recent interviews with Donald Trump and Time Magazine. The transcripts to those interviews are available at https://time.com/6972022/donald-trump-transcript-2024-election/ Niall Stanage is Associate Editor at The Hill and White House columnist for that publication.Recorded on Thursday 23rd May 2024. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/the-stand-with-eamon-dunphy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

To join Politicology+, visit politicology.com/plus or subscribe in Apple Podcasts. This week, we look at the growing pessimism people are feeling about their money, their plans to spend less, and the monetary policy that's driving that. Then we'll discuss the dystopian preview of a second Trump term in the Time Magazine cover story, and Arizona's move to repeal its 1864 Abortion ban.  Joining Ron Steslow on this week's panel:  Lucy Caldwell  (Board Advisor to the Renew Democracy Initiative and advisor to the Forward Party) Olivier Knox (veteran politics and foreign policy reporter, most recently at The Washington Post ) James Lavish (co-managing partner of the Bitcoin Opportunity Fund) Segments this week: (04:50)  Money (39:00) Trump's Time Magazine Story  (48:30) Arizona  [Politicology+] RFK Jr's surprising performance with younger and Latino voters, what's driving that appeal, and what it could mean for this election cycle.  Not yet a Politicology+ member? Don't miss the extra episodes on our private, ad-free version of this podcast. Upgrade now at politicology.com/plus. Check out Olivier's substack: https://olivierknox.substack.com/ Read James's  substack: https://jameslavish.substack.com/ Send your questions and thoughts to podcast@politicology.com or leave a voicemail at ‪(202) 455-4558‬ Follow this week's panel on X (formerly Twitter): https://twitter.com/RonSteslow https://twitter.com/jameslavish https://twitter.com/lucymcaldwell https://twitter.com/OKnox Related reading: Segment 1:  CNN - Fears about stagflation are mounting in the US. It's every central banker's worst nightmare | CNN Business Bloomberg - US Consumer Confidence Slumps to Lowest Level Since July 2022 - Bloomberg Politico - Trump trade advisers plot dollar devaluation - POLITICO Segment 2:  Time Magazine - Donald Trump on What His Second Term Would Look Like | TIME WSJ - Trump Allies Draw Up Plans to Blunt Fed's Independence - WSJ Politico - Mitch McConnell continues to break with Trump on immunity claims - POLITICO Segment 3:  NYT - Arizona Legislature Will Consider Repeal of 1864 Abortion Law - The New York Times Politico-Arizona legislature repeals 1864 abortion law - POLITICO NPR - Christian conservatives wrestle with shifting GOP stance on Arizona abortion ban : NPR   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Political cartoonists Ted Rall (from the Left) and Scott Stantis (from the Right) debate the week in news and culture as friendly adversaries to bring you spirited debate and smart insight. First up: The Israel-Hamas War seems to be entering some sort of tipping point in terms of international public opinion. As the International Criminal Court weighs issuing an arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over his government's policy of blockade and mass starvation in Gaza and student protests over America's support of Israel spread from Columbia University to college and university campuses around the nation, the disturbing discovery of a pair of mass graves containing the bodies of hospital patients and personnel apparently summarily executed in areas under IDF control prompt Scott to say that, if this is confirmed to be an Israeli war crime, he would be done with Israel after supporting the Jewish state for many years.Second: The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case with ramifications both for Donald Trump's January 6th insurrection case and the separation of powers under the US Constitution. The court is asked to answer the question of whether a president enjoys absolute immunity for acts committed while in office, whether immunity might be partial, and whether it's possible to separate those acts committed as an individual from those performed as an officeholder. At stake: the nature of the nation's top political job.Finally: In an act that appears to reek of cynicism, the Biden Administration has paused a long-planned ban on menthol-flavored tobacco products, which are popular among Black Americans, because of concerns that Black voters might be annoyed at the President when they go to the polls this November. Vote for us before you die, please.The DMZ America Podcast is recorded weekly by political cartoonists Ted Rall and Scott Stantis. Twitter/X: @scottstantis and @tedrallWeb: Rall.com

Political cartoonists Ted Rall (from the Left) and Scott Stantis (from the Right) debate the week in news and culture as friendly adversaries to bring you spirited debate and smart insight. First up: The Israel-Hamas War seems to be entering some sort of tipping point in terms of international public opinion. As the International Criminal Court weighs issuing an arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over his government's policy of blockade and mass starvation in Gaza and student protests over America's support of Israel spread from Columbia University to college and university campuses around the nation, the disturbing discovery of a pair of mass graves containing the bodies of hospital patients and personnel apparently summarily executed in areas under IDF control prompt Scott to say that, if this is confirmed to be an Israeli war crime, he would be done with Israel after supporting the Jewish state for many years.Second: The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case with ramifications both for Donald Trump's January 6th insurrection case and the separation of powers under the US Constitution. The court is asked to answer the question of whether a president enjoys absolute immunity for acts committed while in office, whether immunity might be partial, and whether it's possible to separate those acts committed as an individual from those performed as an officeholder. At stake: the nature of the nation's top political job.Finally: In an act that appears to reek of cynicism, the Biden Administration has paused a long-planned ban on menthol-flavored tobacco products, which are popular among Black Americans, because of concerns that Black voters might be annoyed at the President when they go to the polls this November. Vote for us before you die, please.The DMZ America Podcast is recorded weekly by political cartoonists Ted Rall and Scott Stantis. Twitter/X: @scottstantis and @tedrallWeb: Rall.com

The GOP's Long Quest For an Imperial Presidency. Now They're About To Crown Trump King Donald the First | What Broke the American War Machine That Now Hobbles Ukraine | How Italy's PM Giorgia Meloni Leads the Far Right in Europe backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

With the Commerce Secretary given the power to allocate $100B to businesses loyal to the Democratic Party, we're seeing a return to the imperial Executive Branch of the FDR days.

Here we are, the last playoff match of season before next week's championship bout! Returning victors Ian, Megan, and Danny test their knowledge of a thing we do not talk about. Round one will throw a dinner party for our favorite title characters before round two dives into the byzantine logic behind the titling of movie sequels. A customary lightning round caps off a tense match. See you next week for the season finale! NOTES ⚠️ Inline notes below may be truncated due to podcast feed character limits. Full notes are always on the episode page.

Donald Trump was merely the most recent—and will surely not be the last—in a long line of United States presidents who expanded the powers of the office and did not hesitate to act unilaterally when so doing served their purposes.  Steve talks with Benjamin Ginsberg author of The Imperial Presidency and American Politics: Governance by [...]

Donald Trump was merely the most recent—and will surely not be the last—in a long line of United States presidents who expanded the powers of the office and did not hesitate to act unilaterally when so doing served their purposes.  Steve talks with Benjamin Ginsberg author of The Imperial Presidency and American Politics: Governance by [...]

What You Need to Know about Biden's Imperial Presidency. In May of 2014 Phyllis Schlafly titled her monthly Phyllis Schlafly Report, “Unmasking the imperial presidency.” She explains what was going on in Obama's administration during that time, and you will find that it sounds very similar to Biden's current administration. Although the media covers Biden's falling poll numbers, his IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY marches on. Melanie Kirkpatrick, author, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, former deputy editor of The WSJ's editorial page, shares her new book Thanksgiving: The Holiday at the Heart of the American Experience. Melanie gives a history on the celebration of Thanksgiving and the research behind the book. Check out her website — MelanieKirkpatrick.com. John Schlafly, director, and treasurer of Phyllis Schlafly Eagles, shares the latest Phyllis Schlafly Report Column — Trump Takes the Midwest. This week's column discusses the Biden/Harris administration approval ratings. John explains the impact of Biden's negative numbers.  Wrap up: Biden and Harris approval ratings have dropped significantly. Do you really think the Democrat party will let them run again? No! My prediction is they will choose Gavin Newsom to run for President in 2024. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

9-16-21 | Nuclear Games? | Chauvin 3rd Degree Appeal | The Imperial Presidency

Today we talk about the President's vax mandate and what it means for an Imperial Presidency. Then we'll chat about the legislature and what they can hope to accomplish in just another day or so of the special session. We'll also take your calls on topics of your choice.

GRANT NEWSHAM, Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy, Senior Research Fellow at Japan Forum for Strategic Studies, Contributor, Asia Times, @NewshamGrant Grant Newsham: Afghanistan has been left to the “tender mercy” of the ruthless Taliban Island hoping within the First Island Chain and off the coast of China - What would it look like? Newsham: The Chinese outnumber American ships in the South China Sea at least 10 to 1 DAVID WURMSER, Director, Center for Security Policy's Program on Global Anti-Semitism, former Middle East Advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney, retired, US Navy Reserves Lieutenant Commander David Wurmser: In the West, we operate under the pretense that differing groups like the Sunnis and Shias, or Iranian Shias Revolutionaries and the Al-Qaeda and the Sunni Islamist Jihadis will never cooperate - While, in reality, all of these groups see the U.S., and the West, as their primary enemy in the long run Wurmser: Bill Burns, the Director of the CIA, is being used as the United States' chief negotiator, which only further politicizes the U.S. intelligence establishment Wurmser argues that the U.S. will be more worried about Israeli “wild cat action” than Iran itself Wurmser: The PLO is a politically dead body that has no influence over the Palestinian population in and around Israel AMB. KENNETH BLACKWELL, Former Ohio State Treasurer and Secretary of State, Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations' Human Rights Commission, Senior Fellow, Family Research Council, Author, "The Blueprint: Obama's Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency," @kenblackwell Amb. Kenneth Blackwell: H.R.4 is a blatant attempt to federalize our elections - To impose a one-size fits all scheme Amb. Blackwell responds to the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to reinstate the Trump administration's “remain in Mexico” immigration policy

On this edition of Parallax Views, controversial Fox News personality Tucker Carlson caused an uproar recently when he alleged that he has been spied on by the NSA (National Security Agency). Pointing aside one's opinions of either Carlson or his allegations, Parallax Views wanted to delve into the issue of domestic surveillance program and how the could potentially be abused in way that could target activists of the left and right. Are there ways in which the real issue of domestic extremism can be exploited to unsavory ends? In our highly politicized world it is easy to see how such abuse can occur. How a BLM activist could be labeled a "Black Identity Extremist", for example. Or how someone holding socialist views could be labeled domestic extremists. Although the issue of domestic extremism has gained renewed attention since the Janury 6th "Capitol Breach". But what of the potential for the misuse of this important issue? And what of the potential abuses of domestic surveillance programs? Joining us to unpack all those issues is libertarian gadfly James Bovard, author of such books as Attention Deficit Democracy, Public Policy Hooligan, and The Bush Betrayal. We talk about all the aforementioned issues as well as the dual problem of the Imperial Presidency and secretive entrenched bureacracies often referred to, for good or ill, as the "deep state". All that and more on this edition of Parallax Views. This conversation was inspired by Jim's latest article in The Daily Caller, "Why NSA Vs Tucker Carlson Is An Alarm Bell For All Americans".

Our podcast guest, historian Joshua Zeitz, referenced the world of Arthur Schlesinger, a renowned historian and leading light of liberalism, who popularized the concept of the imperial presidency. He wrote biographies of FDR and Andrew Jackson, both of whom he viewed favorably in terms of how they used executive power to drive popular democratic reform. However, by the early 1970s in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, he had grown skeptical of an imperial presidency that overshadows the other branches of government. Former president Trump took this to a new level and in doing so, may have demonstrated the limits of an imperial presidency. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/nextgenpolitics/message

Ken Blackwell joins hosts Sam Stone and Chuck Warren on Broken Potholes. Ken Blackwell served as a senior transition official for President Donald J. Trump's White House and was appointed to the Presidential Commission on Election Integrity. Blackwell is the Senior Fellow for Human Rights and Constitutional Governance at the Family Research Council.  He is a national bestselling author of three books: Rebuilding America: A Prescription For Creating Strong Families, Building The Wealth Of Working People, And Ending Welfare; The Blueprint: Obama's Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency; and Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America.Mr. Blackwell has had a vast political career. He was mayor of Cincinnati, Treasurer and Secretary of State for Ohio, undersecretary at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission. He was a delegate to the White House Summit on Retirement Savings in 1998 and 2002. During the 1990s, he served on the congressionally appointed National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform and the board of the International Republican Institute. He was Co-Chairman of the U.S. Census Monitoring Board from 1999-2001. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com

Sixty years ago, the left worried about the "Imperial Presidency" and put all their faith in the federal court system. Now, conservatives fret over Joe Biden's executive overreach while hoping that a newly "conservative" federal court system will provide a few victories. But what if the left was right sixty years ago on the presidency while the right correctly railed against "government by judiciary" in the 1950s and 1960s? I discuss the problem and the solutions 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

THE TRUMP MOBS ATTACK AMERICA[col. Writ. 1/7/21 (c)’21 Mumia Abu-Jamal]It was a sight that will be long remembered: hundreds, then thousands of men scaling the walls of the U.S. Capitol like soldiers on a web.Then ripping, tearing, shredding all they could touch, all that they hated and all that they feared: the ruling wealthy powerful politicians in the Capitol, senators and representatives alike.This nest of spiders was unleashed and directed by the fiery tongue of the Imperial President, Trump, designed to stop his congressional enemies from formally confirming his successor.This Trump mob seemed to be of working class origins, which suggests they’ve probably spent most of the last year jobless, probably food insecure, and seeing their country fall apart from a failing economy and a deadly virus.That hunger and fury was fed by Trump propaganda, and before long, they were ready. And when they struck, they were all but greeted by Capitol Hill police, who took selfies with them, and opened gates to them.For they were brothers, white brothers. And once the way was open, they went to work, ripping the Capitol apart.After shattering windows and battering down doors, the Trump Mob burst through, like a hurricane through Kansas.Members of the U.S Senate and House were forced to snuggle under desks, to hide from these invaders.Historians of American history know well that mobs have a long reign in national life, first against the rich and propertied, and later, during the early 20th century, against Blacks newly migrated from the South to the cities.But Trump’s use of mob violence against another branch of government is virtually unique.It turns a new page in American history, and a new low in the Imperial Presidency.—(c)’21 maj

politics & humor

Here is the second part of my episode with Chris Ogunmodede. We continued the discussion on Nigeria’s political economy. We touched on institutional memory in the legislature and why we need a stronger civil society. Chris is insightful as always.You can rate us here. If you want to support our efforts in bringing you the thoughts of brilliant thinkers through these conversations, you can be a patron here. TRANSCRIPTTL: This is Ideas Untrapped and my guest today is Chris Olaoluwa Ogunmodede. He's a foreign policy analyst, a writer, editor and political risk consultant. His work centres on political institutions and foreign policy of African countries, particularly in the West African region, and he has extensive experience working across Africa, Europe, and the United States. He's an editor at the Republic, a Pan-African global affairs publication. You're welcome, Chris. It's a pleasure to have you here. CO: It's a pleasure. Thanks so much for having me on your podcast. I'm glad to be here. TL: One detour, quickly, that I want to take listening to your answer, is the role of ideas in all of this and messaging from the top or the centre, so to speak. President Buhari has a bit of a perceptive reputation, I would say, as inflexible. Inflexible, he is set in his ways, he has his idea. I mean, we just talked about the cabinet, I remember I think it was his first and probably the only media chat that he had where he said permanent secretaries are the ones running the government. CO: Yes. I remember.TL: We don't need ministers. And exchange rate was so and so in 1983, how come it is so and so in 2016. So what is the role of ideas in how the transmission mechanism of governance really really works? So, if the man at the centre, if the leader, if the visionary, so to speak, have some of these funny, archaic ideas about things, is there really any hope for governance? So that's one. Secondly, which is one other thing you touched on in your answer, you talked about how PDP was found, the experience with succession and governance. And I'm leaning a lot on Carl LeVan here. Talking about how the post-colonial governance, especially after the civil war, has always worked in Nigeria by different veto power structures, exacting influences, pushing each other. But in that same process, I see someone like president Buhari, even right from his days in the military and even afterwards, as a bit of an outsider to that process.So he does not come with all the governing credentials, so to speak or should I say experience. So how much do these two things - ideas and experience in actual governance and the influence with the governing structure behind power, how much do these two things influence the way the APC evolved as a ruling party?CO: Yeah, I think a lot. As you pointed out, this is a president who you could charitably call incurious about a lot of things, and he relies on a very small circle of advisers, the cabal as it were. You know, that's the sort of colloquial description for his advisors. Many of them share his views on economics, on security, on practically everything that's important. This is also not a...president Buhari is not particularly gregarious, he is not particularly outgoing, he's something of a loner, he's a quite austere person. You contrast him with former president Obasanjo, for example, who couldn't be any more different even though they were both military heads of state. President Obasanjo is something of an intellectual. He's written so many books. I mean he ran for UN Secretary-General at one point. He's someone who you will find on panels all over the [place], even to this day. Like, this is a person who has a worldview, he sees himself as an African intellectual statesman and has behaved that way. Not even just today, as far back as when we left the armed forces when he handed over in '79. This is someone who has engaged himself in African affairs, in particular. He's been a peacekeeping envoy to this person, to that person. You know, whether it's Charles Taylor, whether it's in Togo, this is someone who is often dispatching himself to be at the centre of [things], especially things that have to do with Africa. He's someone who relies on a number of young [people]. One thing people don't know and just in the interest of disclosure, he's someone I know somewhat well, you know. President Obasanjo is someone who relies on a lot of scholars, academics, thinktanks. You know, he has a presidential library now. He's long had a Foundation, you know, these are things he uses to project not just his influence, but his willingness to learn so much about the world. When he was president, he was the kind of person who if you went to see him about something about a policy issue and you felt it's something that was worthy of his attention and he got the sense that you knew so much about [it], he was ready to offer you a job right there, that he would say to you things like OK, why don't you come and take this position and that.President Buhari is not like that and this is where intellectual curiosity as a leader is consequential. But like I said, President Obasanjo had all of his flaws and you know, there isn't enough time to go through all of them, but he had that ability to one: spot ideas or at least listen to ideas if he'd never heard of them before. He was even willing to be pushed on his idea. You know, when you read The Accidental Public Servant by elRufai where he talks about his time working for OBJ, you get the sense that that's the kind of [relationship]. It was a somewhat combative relationship, but it was one of begrudging respect because he felt elRufai was someone worth listening to, he understood so much about governance, about public policy, public administration and all of that. So that's the kind of person president of Obasanjo was. Whereas with President Buhari, it's only his inner circle and well, everyone, get lost. That lack of curiosity shows. That's why their policy responses in the administration on every issue is quite predictable. You can spot from a mile away what the administration would do on any issue. It's either to band this thing or to regulate that thing. Or, you know, they're a hammer that sees nails everywhere, the administration. And that's because that's the tone that's set from the top. The ministers and other members of the cabinet don't have a close relationship with him, they don't have any real influence. They certainly don't have any power, and that's by design. These were people who in some ways were foisted upon him and he just had to accept them. You know, like you pointed out, he said something about how ministers don't really the government and Perm Secs are. He only picked ministers, frankly, because he had to. He was more than happy to, you know, roll with the people he was rolling with. So the Ministers he selected are essentially part of the spoil system to him. Now broadly, that's Democratic politics as a rule, but you know, like you pointed out that there's a constellation of forces as far as governance is concerned, but with him, none of that is there. And because like I mentioned, APC as a party consist of several different moving parts with very little in common, the internal mechanisms of the party are not that strong, and it became very evident with all of the parallel congresses and fighting factions. At one point, the party chairman was fighting with the governors and they eventually got him removed (I'm referring to Oshiomole). They got him removed. There is so much reliance on the personality of President Buhari. So when he set the tone, everyone simply just falls in line with it. Now, of course, that generally tends to happen in many democratic systems. In many democratic systems, especially ones with weak political parties, that's what tends to happen. Where the President or Prime Minister, depending on the system, becomes like a sort of patrimonial figure where what he says is essentially an edict. You know, I would say APC is a weak party by virtue of the fact that they have no real means of resolving internal disputes without making them turn into something else, and it had to require the intervention of Buhari to resolve the issue with Oshiomole and the NEC and the governors and all of this stuff. So, apart from the fact that many of the governors and other elite in APC already agree with him on several policy issues, those who don't [agree] have no incentive but to fall in line. Now, you contrast with PDP where especially under Yar'adua who was basically an old-style Marxist, for all intents and purposes, you know. The fact that he was that type of person succeeding a president who I would regard as a neoliberal president, Obasanjo, tells you the kind of diversity of thoughts inside PDP. People always say oh, there's no ideology in Nigerian politics. There is nothing that differentiates [the parties], that's actually not true. There are ideological differences. Clear ones, actually. PDP has something of a sort of free markets, at least it used to anyway, a free-market orientation towards, certainly, economic matters. Had the privatisations, the deregulations of the Obasanjo years, and then the Jonathan years. Whereas with APC, they are much more of a Social Democratic/Democratic Socialist Party. You know, at least the people who formed the core of APC when they did. The Bisi Akande and all these other people. These are old-style union, you know, student's union, teacher's union types, farmer and labour groups. Those are the elements that became, at least in Southwest APC those are the elements that became the elites in the party. And you know, many of them came from the ACN and before that AC, and before that Alliance for Democracy, and then before that, whether it was SDP or Action Group cause some of these guys are that old. Somebody like Bisi Akande has been in politics since the days of Action Group under Awolowo. That's the genesis of their political worldview, so there are clear differences between the parties. What I think people are referring to is the fact that parties are weak. So like I said, internal democracy is nonexistent, party discipline is nonexistent. So it means that the party is as strong as a couple of dominant figures who can come in and exert their will. For example, in a party primary, you can come in and essentially buy the nomination under some circumstances ignoring what the rest of the party might want. Governors are known to exert so much influence on parties, especially in the states. Because there is very little that binds the parties together, in political science they refer to it as party system institutionalization. That means the parties aren't really regarded as legitimate across society. They are not wedded to the society. Yes, people vote for them, they exist and they're registered and all but, for one thing, the low turn out in the election tells you that the overwhelming majority of voters do not regard them as legitimate. So at the end of the day, because they are the only ones who participate and can exert their will because internal party dynamics are so weak, it now makes it easy to move from party to party. One minute you're in PDP. One minute you're in APC. One minute you're in Labour Party. One minute you're in APGA. So people conflict the fact that the parties are so weak that people can come and go with the fact that there is no governing ideology. There are clear differences when it comes to ideology. It's just because the parties are so weak, any dominant figure can just come and impose his will on the party, and everybody goes [along]. For example, Wike is basically the leader of [the] opposition in PDP and it's something I talked about a few weeks ago on Twitter after the Edo election. Wike has basically been PDP's leader since 2015. Because the national party is so weak and redolent, at this point, Wike is the most dominant of all the PDP governors. He governs a wealthy state, at least relative to the rest of the country. He's basically the leader of the opposition in real terms. Yes, you know, they have a PDP chairman and all these other stuff. But, Wike is the most dominant PDP figure in Nigeria and that is because he has been able to exert himself on the party.Normally [a] political party should be expressions of several different things. A uniting ideology that brings different factions because, you know, there'll always be people with different views and things like that, while you want a broader governing philosophy. For example in the US, the democratic party are regarded as the centre-left, the republicans are regarded as right. In Nigeria, those labels don't quite work as well because, well, first of all, what is left in Nigeria and what is right? And like I said, the parties are so weak that anyone can be one thing today and the next thing he's another tomorrow. It's not that there is no prevailing ideology, it's just that the parties are largely the aggregation of one dominant figure's interest or several dominant figures' interest, so it's very easy to come in and stamp your authority and get your way. So all of this is why governance, as it were, under the Buhari administration has mostly been predictable, and one-way traffic. Back when Abba Kyari was still alive, people always used to say he was secretly the president, I don't think that was necessarily what was true. What was true was that President Buhari had a set of ideas and Abba Kyari was the enforcer, and that is literally the role of the Chief of Staff. In the US, that is literally what the chief of staff does. Chief of staff is basically the President's number one protector. That's all he is concerned with. There have been lots of books written about White House chief of staff and one thing you will come to understand about that role is that the person thinks from one point of view only: the president. He doesn't think about the Vice President. He doesn't even think about the cabinet, he doesn't even think about himself or, at least, shouldn't. You think about what president wants and you defending it to a T. That's basically what Abba Kyari is. Of course, because Abba Kyari and President Buhari were ideologically soulmates, all of their prescriptions matched and President Buhari trusted him, respected him so much and he was a very hard working man, so it was very easy for people to say, oh, Abba Kyari is the one pulling the strings. Now, he was a very powerful person, no question about that. I'm not trying to dispute that at all. What I'm saying is that it wasn't nearly as sinister as people thought. Here was a situation where he had been given a lot of free reign to govern by his principal and that's what it is. So that is what governance under Buhari had been like, at least, as far as [the] federal government. President set the tone at the top and Abba Kyari then, and now ambassador Gambari effects what the president wants and that's it. There's no sense of internal meeting. There really isn't one because there's no balance of power of that kind. In certain governments, you get those kinds of situations where one person feels like oh, this is my view, that person has his view. Obasanjo used to encourage that kind of interaction, even Jonathan too to a certain extent used to, but with President Buhari, if disagreements emerge they're largely spontaneous, largely because people will always have their own agendas, their own interests, but a lot of it is largely going on with the president's total oblivion towards them.TL: I might actually have to update my priors on ideology in the Nigerian political system because my partner always tells me PDP is capitalist and I remember my consternation on the show when Akin Oyebode actually said APC is centre-left. I was like, Woah! But interesting point of view raised there. Briefly, let's talk about president Obasanjo.A lot of people still consider him the best president we've ever had...CO: I would generally agree with that. You know, all things considered.TL: One thing and the people who know him and different accounts about his time in government will tell you that he's very hands-on, he knows what's going on, there is never really [any] confusion about who's in charge, even though he's open to ideas and dissent and gives the people that he trusts a lot of latitude to be creative with policy. But there's something important that I want to raise and that is the issue of power vacuum. I mean, you just talked about Kyari. There's this perception that in the current administration there's some kind of power vacuum. And that perception is fed by how much time it usually takes the presidency to react to some issues of national crisis. I remember when the Covid-19 outbreak first reached Nigeria, people both on social media and the traditional media were, for weeks, calling for the president to come out and speak. And we can say the same for a lot of other things, including EndSARS. There are people who still think today that the signal about the reforms, because now, one of the government's defence is like oh, we were responsive. You guys said you wanted this...to dissolve SARS blah blah blah... But some people are of the view and which I agree that if the dissolution of SARS had been a presidential order or pronouncement, then, it could have calmed a lot of nerves, especially among the protesters. So let's talk about the issue of power vacuum - is it real? Is it not? And how much did president Obasanjo's legacy matter here particularly in the area of succession? Because a lot of people still see the handing over to Yar'Adua, some say maybe rather sinisterly, that it was his last act of revenge for not getting a third term. But we know that president Yar'Adua, for all his good intentions and his good heart, was not really a man of good health.CO: Yes.TL: And we had this period where transition, even handling over, constitutionally, to the vice-president became problematic because of the cabal, so to speak. There was some sort of vacuum. So how much does president Obasanjo's legacy matter here in the presidential tradition that have, sort of, been in play since the end of his administration?CO: That's actually a very useful question because I believe that it's quite under-discussed, and here's why I said that. President Obasanjo is the first civilian democratic president for the first republic, right? He comes in with this wealth of experience - he's been a military head of state. Obviously, he's a career military officer. He was a commander in the civil war and all of this stuff. He was on the Supreme Military Council as number two to Muritala Muhammad and all this stuff. So, here's a person who comes into government and civilian democratic politics practically with a very good sense of what he wants to do.And, of course, he brings his own personal traits and all of these stuff into governance and politics. He's a very towering, some might say, overbearing figure and he exerted a lot of hard power. You know, Obasanjo, frankly, with an authoritarian. If we are going to be frank. And because, like I said, he's the first one of the fourth public. So he has framed for Nigerians what a president should be like. Because don't forget before him, the last president we had was in 1983. So many Nigerians before Obasanjo don't have any recollection of what a civilian president is like. So in real terms, Obasanjo is the first civilian president for millions of Nigerians ever. Ever. TL: True.CO: Because many of them weren't born. And like you pointed out, many people regard him as the best leader, broadly, postindependence that Nigeria has had. The things he did on the economy and all of this other stuff. Along that came with, frankly, a lot of political baggage. You know, we don't talk enough about how many of the problems that befell PDP were things that he put in place, were problems he started to create. Whether it was handpicking candidates for PDP, whether it's muscling out PDP chairmen who disagree with him, whether it's instigating issues with governors that eventually lead to their impeachment. You know, a lot of this aggrandising behaviour started with Obasanjo. So a lot of what we've come to understand as far as the mythology of the Nigerian president is of him. That colours everything we’ve now come to understand about the way a president should be like. So the president must always be seen. He must always speak. He must always this. He must always that. So that is why if you remember during the Jonathan years and people always said oh, he was weak, he was indecisive and people were running roughshod over him and this and that, that's because he chose to be hands-off. There's no right or wrong way to administer government. The devil is always in the details of the decisions you make or don't make. So in that sense people always looked at Jonathan through the prisms of Obasanjo and to a large extent, people continue to look at Buhari through the prisms of Obasanjo. Forgetting, one: times are different, times have changed. Buhari and Jonathan are different people. There's never been this sense of allowing the institution to grow. You know it's not the Nigerian Presidency, it's the Nigerian President if that makes sense. In the US they talk about the modern American Presidency. It's this grandiose king-like office. In fact, there's a book by a guy called Arthur Schlesinger called the Imperial Presidency talking about how the American Presidency is essentially a king, and how the president, in real terms, is beyond the authority of Congress and the constitution and all of this stuff. You know, if you think the American President is an imperial one, I would argue the same is true about the Nigerian president. Even more so because in the Nigerian Constitution the structure of the distribution of power favours the Nigerian president even more so than the contextual equivalent in the US where what has happened is that the American President has assumed a lot of powers for himself... Oh, well, yes, "him" because there's only been male presidents. The American President has assumed a lot of powers for himself and when and they have gone to the courts, the courts have sided with the executive branch. You know, the American Presidency, at least as far as the Constitution goes, is quite a weak one. The enumerated powers of the American president are quite specific, and they're quite minimal, but political developments over the last century, in particular, have granted the American president so many powers where at this point, especially on matters of national security and foreign policy, the president can frankly do whatever the hell he wants and everything else will be after the fact. I would say in Nigeria, the enumerated powers of the President are even much more pronounced and the political powers that the President has assumed more so. So that colours how people view the Nigerian presidency and then when you look at the fact that the National Assembly has so much turnover, I think the eighth National Assembly had a turnover rate of I believe, I may not be exact here, about 66 percent. That means 66 percent of the members of the eighth National Assembly did not come back. That's a terrible development if you care about the separation of powers. The institutional memory of the National Assembly is lost, basically. Not when you have two-thirds of the class gone, and then the president stays. But two-thirds, including by the way the senate president. Let's not forget, the senate president was among those who departed. That is a loss of not just institutional memory of governance, but also the understanding of inter-government relations. And then the fact that you have to bring up all these new people up to speed on how governance works and how to be a good legislator. One of the most important lessons I learned as a young student was during an internship on Capitol Hill. I spent some time in the constituency office of a US Senator and one of the most valuable lessons I learned was how much time US Senators put into learning the procedural rules of the Senate. And how much powers they have institutionally, collectively and individually. That's how much power does one senator have, whether you're in the majority or minority? But especially when you're in the majority where you can actually get things done. How much power does his caucus or her caucus? And then, what are the powers of the Senate? Some senators spend a whole year learning this stuff because it's so important. It literally affects everything they do from the passing of the budget, the reconciliation process, parliamentary rules as far as presiding in the Senate. Back then when they still used to have what they call earmarks, which are basically senators reserving certain pet projects for their constituency. There's a million and one thing Senators have to learn, basically, when they take office. So there are a hundred US senators. Imagine 66 of them are gone and a new set... now granted all hundred seats aren't up at the same time but imagine such a scenario where 66 go and another 66 have to come back. That gives the advantage to the executive branch. That's exactly what we have in Nigeria where two-thirds of every senate, every National Assembly class is gone and the new ones have to come and start learning how government works. Meanwhile, the president has been there the whole time. If you care about authoritarianism, that's something you should want to fix. A lot of political science literature talks about the fact that legislatures need a period of 20 years post-transition - that's this period when they are coming out of authoritarian rule, whether it's a military dictatorship or something like that. But you know, legislatures need about 20 years to become really strong and capable enough to enforce the principle of separation. It gets harder to do that when two-thirds of your class is gone every time. And these are the things that I think much of the commentariat don't discuss enough. Like you know, we talk so much about restructuring, things like that, I've always made a point that personally, I think the National Assembly needs more former governors are not fewer. And this is a very controversial point because we all talk about how governors turned the senate to a retirement home, blah blah, blah. But there is actually a good sense of how former governors, having done a lot of the hard work of negotiating, understanding how especially public finance works, how to allocate certain benefits towards your constituency, how parliamentary rule work, Governors tend to know these things very well. Governors tend to also understand the informal side of legislative politics. You know, agenda-setting and all of that. How to build alliances in the Senate, how to work across party lines, Governors tend to know how to do that stuff very well because they've done it when they were Governors. Whereas with people who aren't Governors, they haven't been executives, they haven't had to deal with budgets and things like that, it's quite a learning curve. And these are some of the reasons why the Nigerian Presidency remains as outsized relative to the National Assembly, even though it's not supposed to be that way. You know, the National Assembly, one of its powers is oversight over the executive branch, over the presidency. But in real terms, especially in this current dispensation, that's why people talk about it as a rubber stamp, because in real terms the political power is an unequal one. All of the power has been situated in Aso Villa and the National Assembly simply just rubber stamps. They go with the flow of the Villa. It's not supposed to be that way. And all of these developments largely stem from the Obasanjo years where Obasanjo was meddling constantly in the National Assembly's business. If you remember, there were five different Senate Presidents when Obasanjo was president. Five.TL: Yeah. CO: I mean I remember...EnweremTL: 2 or 3 speakers.CO: Exactly, exactly. Okadigbo, Wabara...TL: Ken Nnamani.CO: Ken Nnamani, that's it. So, you know, those years were very tumultuous and those were very crucial years. Because like I said, that's the first democratic dispensation of Fourth Republic. So the groundwork that was laid back then is one that continues to still affect the Nigerian political dispensation, obviously, over time there was a bit more stability. David Mark was Senate president for eight years and all of that stuff. Some stability came over time, yes, but it didn't change the fact that...and this is how institutions work, going back to what we discussed, you know it's not a straight line. The signs of decline of institutional quality are often very apparent long time ago but you know, sometimes they move forward, they receded again, they move forward and they recede even further, you know, life doesn't move in a straight line. And that's essentially the point we have gotten to right now where, because of a number of and, these are mostly political development. They are not strictly constitutional ones. They're largely structural and political... Because of the things Obasanjo did, so much has come to be normalized. Now if you remember when the National Assembly had all those fights about who would be principal officers during that interregnum where APC won the election, but we're waiting to be sworn in? If you remember President Buhari said something about oh, he didn't want to get involved in their matter and he wanted them to sort this out themselves and many, at least, much of the commenting class found that to be strange, that's an example of what I'm referring to. Because we were so used to, in the Obasanjo years, him meddling in the National Assembly's business, the idea that a president would not want to get involved in the selection of the National Assembly's business, seems so strange. So these are some of the changes over time that if people, especially in civil society say they want to see as far as good governance, better governance, these are some of the issues we need to address. It can't always be about the presidency, the presidency, the presidency. To me, restructuring has got to be about all of these ideas. What kinds of powers, authority do you want the National Assembly to have? What kind of authority do you want state governors to have? What should the relationship between state governor's and the House of Assembly be? Do you want them to continue to be appendages of the governor? Or do you actually want them to be functional? These are the kind of iterative conversations that we don't have enough of and if you want a proper restructuring, whatever restructuring means to you as a Nigerian, these are some of the things you need to consider. TL: Those are very interesting thoughts, Chris. My final question, so to speak, on Nigeria, our beloved country, is that here we are. A lot of young people, they came out about an issue they are passionate about, they largely conducted themselves peacefully, they spoke their hearts, they expected their government to hear them and they are not asking for too much. But here we are. It has ended exactly the way Nigeria handles things. Lots of violence. Lots of denial. No one is really taking responsibility or leadership.CO: YesTL: What is the way forward? A lot of people are talking about elections. Yeah, we just have to vote these people out, is it really as simple as electing the right people? Is it restructuring? What exactly does that mean? You know a lot of the conversations we have about restructuring is about constitutional reforms, rewriting the constitution and big conferences and some of this processes that makes consensus very, very difficult to get to, you know? Are there quick gains right now that you think can be delivered to Nigerians? I mean, there's a lot to suggest that a lot of progress can be made even in the immediate. The judicial panel in Lagos is a good example. Today, I was reading the news that they made an unannounced visit to the military hospital to examine bodies, they had pathologists trying to test the system and hold it accountable within the powers that you have as a state government. Those are examples of quick gains, so why are we not doing these things? Why are we not testing the system and examine the fault lines, so to speak? Also, there's the issue of apathy. A lot of people say parties win elections in Nigeria by largely relying on their political base. You have state elections where you barely get 200 thousand total votes. So a lot of people don't vote, mostly young people. So is voter apathy part of the problem? And if they come out and vote for their preferred candidate, how are they sure that their preferred candidates are going to be on the ballot to begin with? You know, so many other issues. The issue of money in politics is also an example. So many research as pointed you need a billion naira to become a senator in Nigeria, 3 billion to become a governor and you have young people who want to go into politics and try to change the system, are they not disempowered by default with the way we have designed the system? So, so many questions, but what is the way forward in the long term, in the medium term and the short term?CO: Those are very important question because right now, at least as of this moment, the large scale demonstrations have practically ended, at least in Nigeria, you know, there's still lots of marches abroad and things like that, but in Nigeria, at least in the big cities anyway, the large scale marching to this place and that place is over. But there is a bit of uncertainty about what's next. Now, as you mentioned, there's been a lot of oh, 2023 and PVC, youth party...I did a bit of a thread last week talking exactly about this that, first of all, we have agreed that EndSARS, one of the subtexts of it is that the status quo is not working, how we're going to have to reconfigure the way we go about civic engagement, right? OK, so when we look at the last inflexion point in Nigerian politics, I would say it was the end of the military regime when Abacha died and the transition. What was the, at least in my view anyway, what was the mistake that was made? They were several but one of the key ones was that many of the activists, you know, whether they were NADECO, campaign for democracy or whatever else, everybody ran to politics. Not literally everybody, but much of the muscle behind all of those campaigns, whether it was Bola Tinubu, Bisi Akande, everybody ran to electoral politics, let me be specific. They ran into electoral politics. That's not a problem in and of itself, but in building institutions, you don't put all your eggs in one basket. Imagine a scenario where people like Gani Fawehinmi, for example, built up legal aid organizations, built up the judiciary, public defenders, their mandates and prestige was strengthened. Civil society organizations across a variety of policy issues were built up. Professional associations were built up. Religious organizations took on more of a civically responsible role as opposed to what they're doing right now, which in my view is not any of that. So the point I'm making is that imagine if there were a much larger constellation of forces, of social forces in the political space, as opposed to political parties and electoral politics alone? what would likely have happened is that the political class would have been forced to compete better.Simply because, for example, you come up with one policy idea or the National Assembly takes one bill up for consideration, there's civil society push especially if it's a really unpopular one. There is civil society pushback, you know, professional organizations like the NBA and all of that stuff. Writers groups, creative groups, trade unions and the likes, everybody came up in arms, expressing their opposition, their collective civic opposition to certain things. That would have spelled, for one thing, the ability of countervailing forces in the political system to make their own voices heard. But because all of the muscle from the democracy campaigns, everybody ran to politics. Some people didn't. People like Alao Aka, Bashorun and the likes, they didn't go into politics. But a large number of the activists from the 1990s they went to politics, including, of course, Gani himself.So that made electoral politics the, you know, crown jewel of civic participation. So when I start to see all this stuff about PVC and [2023], it just seems to me like a repetition of all of that. Like, I've seen so much oh, FemCo should be turned to a structure. FemCo should be turned to a party. Oh, FK should run for office and I'm thinking to myself, is that the only way that any of these people or these organisations have to make [a] change in Nigeria? If you are telling me that's the only way, then we're in bigger trouble than I thought. Because as far as I know, there are people who are still locked up in prisons across the country with no one to get them out. There are schools that are still crumbling. You know, there are a variety of policy issues across the board that we could address now. Those problems will not wait for 2023.TL: Sorry to interrupt you, Chris. This is such an important but underrated point you're making. I mean, it's such an important one I can't possibly amplify enough. During this whole protest and all, I pointed out to a couple of friends about the decline of civil society. I don't know how that came about, but you talking about everybody going to electoral politics now seems to be connecting the dots. Look at SARS, for example, and this menace. Someone Like Chief Gani, God rest his soul, by now would have buried SARS in an avalanche of lawsuits.CO: A long time ago. A long time ago. Are you telling me people like Gani, Alao Aka, Bashorun who took on the armed forces could not deal with a problem like SARS if given the institutional environment to work with? Please. TL: Exactly, I mean, one of the empowering precedences, even for state judicial panels today, and I've seen a couple of lawyers cite this to me on social media is Fawehinmi Vs Babangida in 2003. Someone did that. Someone took the initiative to do that. So like you, I'm also quite worried about this narrative of we all have to go into politics as if there are no other instrumentalities of the society...CO: It honestly confuses me when I hear it. Everyone has been saying, oh, Feminist Coalition should run for...and when I say this, it's an agnostic position I'm taking that, they may be good political leaders, they may not, I don't know but what I am pushing back against is the inherency of the fact that because they have demonstrated such brilliance in political organizing in one area of civil society, that it's necessarily going to translate to political office, I don't think that's necessarily true. And it's worth interrogating because when you say you want to vote for somebody, you should ask yourself why is it that you want that person as opposed to however number of other candidates. There ought to be something you're voting for. How do you know that because somebody was a good organizer in a social movement or a protest movement, they would necessarily make a good policymaker or a political leader? You ought to ask yourself those questions and when you don't, you are simply repeating the mistakes we made in 1998/99. Where, frankly, a lot of people who shouldn't have been in politics got into politics and, well, you know, here we are.TL: That's a brilliant point. Needs to be said over and over and over again. I mean, I even tell people that ordinary protest they are bringing thugs...CO: Exactly. [Laughs]TL: Imagine what they would do to win an election? You know? So, I know I sort of derailed your answer, but, I mean...CO: No, not at all. I think, no, it's very much part of the point in that we cannot simply think voting the "right people", I think it's very connected. First of all, what is the right people? You've got to ask that foundational question. Who are the right people? What ideas are you looking for? And even if you get the right people, the educated class in Nigeria likes to bang on about institution and I've explained, sort of, why I find that to be counterproductive. You know, you talk about institutions well, what kind of institutions are you going to build if you think all it takes is that you get in the right people? Well, people change. You know, I did a tweet two days ago talking about how Alpha Condé, the Guinean president. So here's this guy who spent four decades in opposition, right? He gets sentenced to death in absentia by Sékou Touré. He's actually jailed by Lansana Conté, the successor of Sékou Touré. So he's basically suffered a whole lot as an activist. Here's this guy now as president, slaughtering people just because he wants the third time. TL: We can say the same of Ouattara.CO: Exactly. Exactly. This is literally Africa story all over, across the board of people who spend years in opposition, fighting this person, that person, docking bullets, running abroad, you know, living in exile, only for them to get into power and do at the very least exact same thing. If not worse. So to me, all these ah, yes, get the right people...there is no way, if you want the right people, they've got to be backed up by the right set of institutions, the right norms and countervailing forces that ... you see, politics fundamentally is about creating rival power structures. That's why, for example, the principle of separation of powers exists, so that one arm of the government doesn't become too powerful.Even in the electoral realm, it ought to exist. That's why, for example, there are wings in a party, right? So in one party, there might be left-wing, there might be [a] moderate wing, there might be right-wing. You know, you need countervailing forces to keep each other honest. To constantly make you compete, not to get drunk on power. But when you say, oh, get in the right people, but you don't create that environment, they are not going to be the "right people". It's just not going to happen because power is a corrupting influence. If you put in the "right people", first of all, what do you know they're going to do in office? Who are they going to rely on as advisers? What do they intend to achieve in 100 days? Six months? A year, and then four years? What is it that they consider to be their priorities? What do they understand governance to be? You know these are the sets of questions that when you start to ask will give you a sense of the kind of environment you want to design for this so-called "right people" to go in there. Because when you start asking certain questions you recognize they cannot do it alone. They cannot read alone because governance is a collective effort.But when you simply leave it at oh, the right people, you know, because, ah, during EndSARS, he was an organiser or she was an organiser, yes, and that...that doesn't necessarily mean they know anything about governance. It doesn't. And I feel it's still early days, we're still mostly reeling from that horrible killings. You know, this stuff is iterative and old habits die hard, right? So I get that for the most part, people are going to fall back on what they know. But at the same time, we should be willing to challenge even the things we consider to be settled knowledge. And one of those things that I really think we have to challenge is this idea that electoral politics and running for office is the only way to make [a] change. When you get to a situation where even people, celebrities, now think the next game in town is to run for office, I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing, but ultimately it's for you as the voter to determine if you want such people representing you. Because you liked an album they put out 10 years ago does not mean you want them representing you in the State House of Assembly or the National Assembly, or someplace like that. And I feel like too much...TL: Just look at Desmond Elliot.LaughsCO: Exactly. I mean, yesterday, Twitter Nigeria gave this guy hell. They give him hell, and deservedly so. I mean, look at how much of a fool of himself he made. And, unfortunately, he's already in there and he's going to be there until 2023. So not unless you can recall him or something, you are going to have to live with, at least his constituents anyway will have to live with the fact that this guy doesn't know what he's doing. And those are the kinds of lessons we ought to start learning now. Start to tackle people in office now. Start to think about who you want representing you now. Start to familiarise with your local representatives now. Start to sensitise your neighbours, your association members, your church or mosque members now. There are a million and one things you can do now that don't have to wait till 2023. The problems that exist today will not wait for 2023, so why should you? TL: Those are powerful, powerful insights, Chris. But finally, before I let you go, regarding Nigeria, and this is sort of a tradition on the show, what is the one idea that you would like to spread? That you'll like to see people adopt? An idea that you'll like to see rise in status, so to speak?CO: It's very simple. We've got to develop a culture of critique. I think what we need in Nigeria is foundational ideas and notions that are at the heart of everything we do, everything we believe, and everything we desire as Nigerians because they will inevitably seep into politics and that's a culture of critique. One of the good things I've taken away from this EndSARS protest is that the young people have zero respect for any appeals to authority. They don't care if you went to Harvard, you're a perm sec or you're a general, they don't even care if you are the president, as a matter of fact. You have to make sense. And for me, that's what I find so instructive about that phrase "sorosoke". It's not just a little phrase saying "speak up", they're also telling you to make sense. It's not just about speaking up, you have to make sense. What you are saying must tally with what the average person understands intuitively. So you know, I say this because for so much of our past, especially older generations like ours, and we have simply given to authority blindly. Whatever they say, shut up, shut up and you sit down. Especially for we Yoruba people, there's a saying in Yoruba "won ki n sope agblagba n paro" you don't say an elder is lying. We've got to change things like that, I'm sorry.Those kinds of beliefs are fundamentally incompatible with a knowledge-seeking society. This idea that someone's ideas are untouchable because of their status or their age, we've got to get rid of things like that, you know. And this extends across society. We've got to be able to critique, and I said this because so you've seen all these videos of these Lagos State House of Assembly members saying, oh, they're on drugs, blah blah blah. Well, one of the reasons every one of them is reacting this way is they're simply not used to being challenged. It's as simple as that. They are not used to so-called children on Twitter calling them out, saying things about them. And don't forget that what is on Twitter is no longer even within the domain of Nigeria alone. This is stuff all over the world. So it's being fed back to them, and they can't control it. That is why everyone is up in arms and saying oh, all these social media people are doing this and that. Because these people cannot deal with the fact that people they don't even regard as anything useful are pushing back at them, challenging them.They do not see people on Twitter as a constituency of voters. They see them as children. These kinds of ideas have got to go. It does not matter whether you are the president or whether you are a pauper, you should be able to have your ideas challenged. You know, I didn't go to University in Nigeria, in fact, I didn't go beyond JSS 3, so, one thing I've heard from so many people is how in Nigerian universities you can't challenge your lecturer, you can't say this and that. That's absolute nonsense. Why can't you challenge your lecturer? Why can't you critique the ideas of somebody who claims to be teaching? That's the entire essence of pedagogy, of classroom education. That you bring up ideas, of course with reason, not every single idea deserves to be debated in my view, but for the most part, most topics within a scholastic framework can be debated. So this idea that oh, if your lecturer says something, or that if you don't answer a test question the way your lecturer wants it to be answered they mark you down. These are things I've heard so many times and I have no reason to doubt. I'm sure they're true. These things sound absolutely insane to me, and it stems from this culture of suppressing the ingenuity of young people. You know, people are not allowed to challenge ideas. You say something, then, shut up! What do you know? Do you know who you're talking to? He's is the professor. He's a minister. Who cares? Who cares? Like, we have got to be able to critique ideas and a lot of our political cultures, a lot of our social interactions, a lot of our economic interactions stem from the fact that whenever there is perceived to be a power imbalance, the person on the lower totem of the power pole has got to remain there and shut up. That's not how societies progress. Ideas have got to be challenged. They've got to be critiqued and they've got to be revised sometimes. And it doesn't matter who is saying what. You know it's not always black and white to be sure. It's not always a case of right versus wrong, but that's all the more reason why ideas contested. We do not contest ideas in Nigeria collectively, we don't. Like, Daddy G.O said, the governor said, Prof. said. Who cares? You've got to be able to challenge ideas. Yeah, so if I had one thing to pick, it would be that. We need to develop a culture of critique of everybody around us, including ourselves. Even you, you should be open to critique and others should be open to critique from you. Yeah. TL: Thank you so much, Chris Ogunmodede, it's been fantastic talking to you. CO: Likewise, it's been absolutely a pleasure. Thank you so much for hosting me. This is a public episode. Get access to private episodes at www.ideasuntrapped.com/subscribe

Puritans viewed themselves as God’s special people, replacing national Israel. Nowhere do the dangers of this assumption become more clear than in the Puritans’ treatment of the native Americans. Since the Puritans considered themselves God’s chosen people, they concluded that they had the right to take the land from the heathen Indians. The American Indians were the “new Canaanites” in America’s “Promised Land.” The fruit of Puritan theology was brutal, with mission to convert “Canaanites” to Christianity; failing that, it was acceptable to slaughter them in the name of Christ. For example, the Puritan massacres of the Pequot Indian tribe on May 26, 1637, and again on July 14, 1637, were deemed by the Puritans to be directed by God — Captain John Mason declared, “God laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven … Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies” (Segal and Stinenback, Puritans, Indians, and Manifest Destiny, pp. 111-112, 134-135). Converting the pagans for God was acceptable to the Puritans, but killing the pagans for the Lord was also acceptable! Puritans claim that it was the hostility of the Pequots that led to their unfortunate demise. But the Pequots were one of the most tranquil tribes in New England. History reveals that their “hostility” did not manifest itself until they were hunted like animals. For argument sake, let’s say that the Pequots were the instigators of hostilities, virtual savages if you will (which they were not). Does this justify hunting them down, slaughtering the men, women, and children in their sleep, and then doing it again six weeks later to finish the job!? (Not exactly “battlefield” victories!) Moreover, the Puritans claimed it was in obedience to God that these pagans were slaughtered!

The perversion of the office of the presidency into the Imperial Presidency has created a situation where choosing the Emperor is too important of a task to leave the plebes. There's too much power there to leave to chance, especially at these waning days of the American Empire. So it all makes sense. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/leavetheswamp/message

Award winning comedian, author, and friend of the show, Andrew Heaton (https://mightyheaton.com/) joins us to talk about the latest on the political and cultural scene. What will happen in November? Will it matter in the end to those are simply over the charade? Heaton is the host of “The Political Orphanage” comedy and news podcast. He's a frequent Reason TV contributor as well as a former congressional staffer. Having worked in Washington D.C., he is also an accomplished comedian and author of “Laughter is Better Than Communism.” Support the show or just listen at https://thebittertruth.info/    

INDIVISIBLE CHICAGO PODCAST SHOW NOTES FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2020 1. With claims of electoral fraud, a disputed election is thrown to Congress, where Republicans hold a slim edge. The year is 1876, and the compromise that leads to a Rutherford Hayes administration is catastrophic. What can we do to avoid such an outcome in 36 days? Hint: 3states1mission.com. 2. “The Imperial Presidency” is a term coined by Arthur Schlesinger in the 70s to describe the Nixon Administration, though it certainly has currency today. But what role does public opinion play in checking that power? This week, we take a step back from the election, from the Supreme Court fight, to think about how the Presidency works — or fails to — in these times. Dino Christenson is associate professor in the Department of Political Science at Boston University and an institute fellow at the Hariri Institute for Computational Science and Engineering. Douglas Kriner is the Clinton Rossiter Professor in American Institutions in the Department of Government at Cornell University. They are co-authors of The Myth of the Imperial Presidency, from University of Chicago Press. Member of the DemCast Podcast Network.

Robert R. Slaughter Professor of Law at Yale Law School, Jed Rubenfeld and Herman O. Loewenstein Chair in Law at Vanderbuilt, Suzanna Sherry discuss what would happen if the Presidential election was cancelled and other challenges caused by COVID-19. This episode of Politics, Meet Me In The Middle borders on fiction as Supreme Court and Constitution scholars Suzanna Sherry and Jed Rubenfeld offer scenarios on cancelled elections, the limits of constitutional rights, and challenges to Presidential, Congressional, and State authority. And has the Electoral College outlived its usefulness. (2:30) What if there were no election in 2020. (8:30) The Supreme Court decides the president. (10:30) What is the Electoral College and how does it work. (17:00) Cameras and streaming the courts. (21:50) Pending Supreme Court Cases. (25:00) Executive Orders. (28:00) Limits Of Government's Power Learn More: Politics: Meet Me in the Middle And Follow Us: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter A CurtCo Media Production

On today’s show… John Nichols, from The Nation Magazine, will explain why ceding too much authority to the Executive Branch has led to an Imperial Presidency. Fadi Quran, from Avaaz, joins us to discuss how Facebook and other social media platforms have become the epicenter for misinformation, and how we can solve the issue. My own doctor, David LeMay, will be here to discuss why overall health is such an important factor in the battle against Covid-19. And Heather "Digby" Parton will help me figure out another crazy news week.

PNN - THE HEARINGS BEGIN -  PNN - Brings you a thoughtful analysis of the weeks news.  Hosted and Lead this week by Senior Producer Brook Hines also our Senior Political Analyst we will delve into the latest issues on the twists and turns of the IMPEACHMENT TRAIL. Jeanine Molloff our Associate Producer and Justice Correspondent digs in to massive abuses and insults to American Justice by this president explaining just how the IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY is a Danger to All Americans. News Director Rick Spisak brings two interviews Progressive Activist and Democratic SocialistKofi Hunt from the St. Petersburg / Tampa area who addresses GOTV and the tactics progressives should use for the election year ahead. And one of our favorite guests author and journalistDenis Campbell of the UK addresses the latest Brexit News and weighs in on the recent democratic debate. ALL THAT AND MORE TUNE IN LIVE SUNDAY NIGHT - 7pm East / 6pm Central / 5pm Mountain / 4pm Pacific http://pnngo.com

It is tempting to look at the impeachment charges levied against President Trump - abuse of power and obstruction of Congress - as evidence that an all-powerful, imperial presidency exists that is associated with illegality and secrecy. Yet the fact that Trump is about to be impeached is the best argument against that argument. Too many constitutional constraints exist to allow for an imperial presidency. Power is not fixed. It varies according to approval ratings, the type of government, national events and electoral mandates. (PAPER 3)

Brad and Camille discuss the expanding power of the presidential office and how it has changed so drastically in the last few decades. 

As Progressive congressman Ro Khanna once again joins Thom, a fascinating discussion of the powers of Congress- are we building an Imperial Presidency based on the Republican-packed supreme court? Can pardons apply to impeachable crimes? Is the House oversight committee powerful enough to police federal government corruption?Will the Roger Stone conviction of election crimes unlock the part of the Mueller Report we still have not seen? What would it take for the Senate to hold a secret impeachment vote? Will we ever repeal the so-called 'Patriot Act'?Plus Thom reads from 'Why You Should Be a Socialist' by Nathan Robinson. And- Thom reprises his recent widely published article that charts how far down the road we are to an all-out oligarchy, and what to expect if we don't succeed in pushing back.

From the “lynching” tweet, to William Taylor’s testimony, to Republican’s storming into a secure meeting room — Jean and Robert discuss the nuances of impeachment action on both sides of the aisle before delving into a look at the state of presidential power, then turn a spotlight on the power of Facebook and social media. Robert’s “hopeful” moment wraps the show, and it is worth listening all the way to the poetic end.

From the “lynching” tweet, to William Taylor’s testimony, to Republican’s storming into a secure meeting room — Jean and Robert discuss the nuances of impeachment action on both sides of the aisle before delving into a look at the state of presidential power, then turn a spotlight on the power of Facebook and social media. Robert’s “hopeful” moment wraps the show, and it is worth listening all the way to the poetic end.

Nixon at the Contemporary PLAY-CAST   Dispatch from Radio Free Disneyland is a series of curated music playlists, pertaining mostly to the culture, stories, and environments presented in Disney Films and Theme Parks. It is not associated with The Walt Disney Company. And while the Playcasts, including the imbedded, watermarked music, are downloadable, their presence is intended to promote the included artists, and encourage ownership of their work through Amazon Music and other venues. President Nixon in a tense Press Conference at Disney's Contemporary Resort on November 17, 1973. Nixon's The One     Artist:             Connie Francis Album:           Special 1968 Election Single   A give away record for Nixon's 1968 campaign.        Bowling Alley Culture Falling Away In Whittier, CA   President Nixon had a small bowling alley installed in the White House. You can take the boy out of Whittier... Overture   Artist:             Jack Wagner/Disney Studio Orchestra Album:           A Musical Souvenir of Walt Disney World An out of print early Walt Disney World souvenir, featuring Jack Wagner, who was the voice of Disneyland and Walt Disney World for many years.   Watergate   Artist:             Hans Zimmer Album:           Frost Nixon Original Motion Picture Soundtrack Trouble's brewing. Zimmer brings the simmer.   Washington   Artist:             Hans Zimmer Album:           12 Years A Slave Original Motion Picture Soundtrack Perfect accompaniment for an Imperial Presidency.         A Message From The General Manager of Radio Free Disneyland       Good Karma Hospital Closing Titles (Truncated)   Artist:           Ben Foster Album:         The Good Karma Hospital What!? The Beatles break up happened at Walt Disney World!?       Jim Michaelson Depicted Trains, Adventure, and Culture Waves © Disney and Jim Michaelson Imagineer and Disney Parks poster artist Jim Michaelson, responsible for posters for such iconic Disney attractions as Country Bear Jamboree, The Walt Disney World and Disneyland Railroads, and Pirates of the Caribbean, has passed away, according to WDWNT and multiple reports. A couple of posters that Jim did before his Disney tenure recently caught our attention while planning this episode. Jim had indeed dabbled in the Milieu of Milhous (President Nixon's middle name) earlier in his career. And, he is even responsible for a classic Jefferson Airplane poster, seemingly straight outta "the Height." Jim has of course done many posters and place setting art for the Disney Parks, but probably none as well known as his Disneyland Railroad poster, and its' similarly arranged descendants, depicting other Disney rail lines around the world. This political poster for Richard Nixon's 1968 presidential election campaign shows the presidential hopeful in the foreground with his running mate, Spiro Agnew behind him on the right. There are images of celebrities (such as Clint Eastwood), sports figures (Wilt Chamberlain and Bart Starr), politicians (Ronald Reagan), and others are in the background, as well as Nixon's daughter and a group of young people who carry placards. Jim was also responsible for a series of imaginative place setting work at Disneyland Paris, that ties Main Street U.S.A with Discoveryland. Highlighting the park's unique arrangement. http://wdwnt.com/2019/06/disney-parks-poster-artist-and-imagineer-jim-michaelson-has-reportedy-passed-away/ Legenda   Artist:            Zemfira and Angelo Badalamenti Album:           Stalingrad Original Soundtrack The Russians again! Playing under President Nixon's resignation speech.       A Special Sort Of Death   Artist:            Leigh Harline/Disney Studio Orchestra

Co-hosts Jean Card (Republican) and Robert Schlesinger (Democrat) agree that imperial presidencies are un-American as they dissect the biggest moments in politics this week, including the Democratic debate and the White House exit of National Security Advisor John Bolton.

Co-hosts Jean Card (Republican) and Robert Schlesinger (Democrat) agree that imperial presidencies are un-American as they dissect the biggest moments in politics this week, including the Democratic debate and the White House exit of National Security Advisor John Bolton.

Author, journalist, and podcast host Donald Jeffries joins S.T. Patrick to discuss his new work Crimes and Cover Ups, 1776-1963: The History They Didn't Teach You in School. In tonight's episode, Jeffries discusses his reasons for writing the book, why founder James Otis is largely forgotten, Americans' bout with historical illiteracy, the Thomas Jefferson controversies, Adam Weishaupt and the Illuminati, the Andrew Jackson debate, his own contentions with the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, the Lincoln assassination, and the Imperial Presidency. Jeffries has been the most frequent guest on the "Midnight Writer News Show," appearing six times (to date). He has discussed Hidden History, Survival of the Richest, Huey P. Long, the death of John Kennedy Jr., Chappaquiddick, and Crimes and Cover Ups, 1776-1963. All of Jeffries' appearances can be heard for free in the Midnight Writer News Show archives section of the site. Donald Jeffries can be followed at his blog, Keeping It Unreal. His works can be purchased on Amazon and wherever good books are sold. 

PLEASE NOTE: ---------------------This edition was meant to be published Monday, 6th of May, but was published later in the week by mistake ------------------ Thom probes the evidence that Trump is already trying to start a war to insure his re-election. ------ Remember how GW Bush's team talked us into attacking Iraq, even though Iraq had no WMD's, and nothing to do with 9-11? Now, as Trump sends a Navy battlegroup to the area, and given the recent ultimatum against Iran, what is this all leading to? ------ Trump is normalizing 'the Imperial Presidency' - what are the dangers of the growing American authoritarianism in our government? ------ Thom debunks the Biden 'put em back in chains' myth- just one part of the ever-growing body of right-wing mythmaking- how can we fight it? ------ John Bolton just might get his dream of war with Iran. ------ Tom Perez- chairman of the DNC- talks strategy for countering Bill Barr's lies and other aspects of Trump's authoritarian power grab. ------ Bob Ney- Iran expert and speaker of Farsi- reviews war-monger John Bolton's past actions- including that time he threatened to kill somebody's children if they didn't help start the Iraq war. What is Bolton saying now that the media is ignoring? What is the intention of the chickenhawk ultimatum our government has just threatened Iran with?

If we want to transform the United States in a socialist direction, we're going to need to do much more than elect Bernie Sanders as president. Nobody harps on this point more than Bernie himself. You can see it in his "not me, us" campaign slogan, or his emphasis in stump speeches on how massive industries like health insurance companies would mobilize against Medicare for All. President Bernie couldn't do much without a mass working-class movement at his back. But that doesn't mean that such a movement and the Sanders campaign are two separate things — Bernie's campaign can help and has already helped bring those movements into being. Micah talks with Jacobin staff writer Meagan Day about it. You can read Meagan's article "Bernie Sanders Wants You to Fight" here: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/03/bernie-sanders-movements-not-me-us And you can read her article "Wielding the Imperial Presidency" in the new print issue of Jacobin or here: https://jacobinmag.com/2019/02/wielding-the-imperial-presidency Subscribe to Jacobin: https://jacobinmag.com/subscribe

President Trump has vetoed the second bill of his presidency. Both vetoes have strengthened the Executive Branch at the expense of the Legislative Branch (and the Constitution). Yesterday's veto of S.J. Res. 7 means there will be no foreseeable end to US participation in the genocidal Saudi war on Yemen.

Donald Trump just declared a national emergency. Was this the justified action of a commander-in-chief? Or was this a powerContinue Reading

SE speaks to Sen. Ben Cardin and Rep. Adam Kinzinger to hear from both sides of the aisle in Congress as they look for ways to end the shutdown standoff; SE argues the immigration debate is, by design, "punted" by both parties; Rep. Marc Veasey talks about what he thinks his Republican colleagues need to do about the Steve King problem; Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Is it too late?; Democrat Julián Castro enters the 2020 race.

JCRH Episode #319 - Catching Up With Kresnak, Wrestling Stories, And The Imperial Presidency by Joey Clark

1. Mandy discusses "The Imperial Presidency." 2. Johnson and Johnson baby powder contained asbestos from the 1970's to the early 2000's. 3. Guest: David Garner SCORE on entrepreneurship. 4. Guest: Kristal Alfonso Holiday Wine and Spirits.

The concept of impeachment was not new at the time of the Constitutional Convention. The Framers thought including the ability to impeach the Chief Magistrate to the Constitution was extremely important. However, today it is hard to picture in our polarized political climate that there would ever be a super majority in the Senate in order to impeach and remove a president.Were there debates about including impeachment in the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention? What is the scope of the impeachment clause? What does the process of impeachment look like? What level of incompetence could be grounds for impeachment?Further Reading:Democrats Abandon the Constitution, written by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. CaseyIndispensable Remedy: The Broad Scope of the Constitution’s Impeachment Power, written by Gene HealyNixon v. U.S.Related Content:America’s Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power, Free Thoughts PodcastKing Obama, King Trump: The Dangers of an Imperial Presidency, Free Thoughts Podcast See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

P.J. O’Rourke offers comedic relief about the state of our politics from his unique journalistic perspective influenced by the “sunshine” of the 1960s. O’Rourke has worked for many notable publications such as the National Lampoon and Rolling Stone Magazine. He has had two New York Times #1 Bestsellers; Parliament of Whores and Give War a Chance. He is currently a correspondent for the Atlantic as well as the H.L. Mencken Research Fellow at the Cato Institute.Why does show business and left-wing politics have an affinity for each other? What happened to politics in the 1960s? How did the baby boomers ruin the world? What does O’Rourke think of the state of journalism today? Are we more divided today, as a society, than we were in the latter half of the 1960s?Further Reading:None of My Business, written by P.J. O’RourkeAll the Trouble in the World: The Lighter Side of Overpopulation, Famine, Ecological Disaster, Ethnic Hatred, Plague, and Poverty, written by P.J. O’RourkeIt’s Worse than Vulgar, It’s Trendy, written by P.J. O’RourkeRelated Content:Is Liberalism in Danger?, Free Thoughts EpisodeHarambe to Trump: 2016 was the Worst, Free Thoughts EpisodeKing Obama, King Trump: The Dangers of an Imperial Presidency, Free Thoughts Episode See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Air Date: 9/14/2018 Today we take a look at the confirmation process of Brett Kavanaugh, his stance on several critical issues and his threat to democratic values and separation of powers in the federal government Be part of the show! Leave a message at 202-999-3991   Episode Sponsors: Newsvoice App| Amazon USA| Amazon CA| Amazon UK  Support Best of the Left on Patreon!   SHOW NOTES Ch. 1: Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings Prove It's Not About the Constitution, It's About Power - @RingOfFireRadio - Air Date 9-9-18 Dahlia Lithwick, law correspondent at Slate, joins Ring of Fire’s Sam Seder, to talk about the illegitimacy of Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings. Ch. 2: Garrett Epps on Kavanaugh's allegiance to executive power - Diane Rehm - On My Mind - Air Date 9-7-18 Constitutional law scholar Garrett Epps on protests, sparring over documents and questions about the limits of executive privilege during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Ch. 3: Kavanaugh and the threat he poses to women’s healthcare rights - Bradcast from @TheBradBlog - Air Date 9-7-18 Salon.com political reporter Amanda Marcotte discusses what we’ve learned — and haven’t — about Kavanaugh and the threat he poses to women’s health care rights Ch. 4: Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh To Deepen the 'Imperial Presidency' - @TheRealNews - Air Date 9-4-18 We discuss Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, the hearings and how they will affect executive power and international law with Marjorie Cohn Ch. 5: Report Finds Judge Kavanaugh Ruled Against Public Interest in Almost All of His District Court Cases - Democracy Now! - Air Date 9-5-18 Robert Weissman of Public Citizen on their analysis of Kavanaugh’s opinions in split-decision cases in which he sided against the public interest 87% of the time in split-decision cases dealing with consumer, environmental and worker rights. Ch. 6: Brett Kavanaugh is a threat to environmental standards and climate action - @GreenNewsReport - Air Date 9-6-18 Brett Kavanaugh on the U.S. Supreme Court spells big trouble for environmental standards and climate action Ch. 7: Explaining how Brett Kavanaugh will perpetuate structural racism - Boom! Lawyered - Air Date 9-5-18 Imani and Jess explain how we know what kind of a Justice Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh will be for people of color. Ch. 8: Jesse Lee explains the dangers of unrestrained executive power - @offkiltershow - Air Date 9-6-18 Jesse Lee, Vice President for Communications at CAPAF, explains the dangers of unrestrained executive power. Ch. 9: What You Can Do To Resist the Confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh - Thinking Cap - Air Date 9-6-18 Vanita Gupta on what listeners can do to say “no” to the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation. Ch. 10: Dahlia Lithwick discusses the protests surrounding the Brett Kavanaugh hearings - Trumpcast from @Slate - Air Date 9-6-18 Virginia Heffernan is joined by Slate's Dahlia Lithwick to discuss the protests surrounding the Brett Kavanaugh hearings. Ch. 11: THE MIDTERMS MINUTE- Pennsylvania’s Battleground Races! - Best of the Left Activism Take action! Click the title and/or scroll down for quick links and resources from this segment.   VOICEMAILS Ch. 12: Bernie Sanders helped me come back to politics - Sarah from Cool, CA   Ch. 13: Final comments asking for stories of getting inspired and engaged in politics   THE MIDTERMS MINUTE (Quick Links): REGISTER TO VOTE: RocktheVote.org  CONFIRM VOTER REGISTRATION: RocktheVote.org/voting-information  VOTER ID INFO/HELP: VoteRiders & 866ourvote.org Get Involved: Swing Left (Help flip districts from anywhere)  Red to Blue(DCCC program to flip seats)  When We All Vote(Michelle Obama’s initiative)  Voter Circle(friend-to-friend outreach tool)  Volunteer for Democrats  Abroad? Phone bank for Democrats   Let America Vote (voting rights focus)  Justice Democrats “Justice Dialer” Brand New Congress GOTV Dialer  National Democratic Redistricting Committee  Easily donate to candidates with DownTicket.comon your mobile browser.  “15 Ways to Help a Campaign Win Their Election”(Political Charge)  PENNSYLVANIA BATTLEGROUNDS: Pennsylvania Democratic Party Important Dates: Mustbe registered to vote by October 9th. Absentee ballot requests made by October 30th and received by November 2nd. Early voting NOT available. U.S. House:  PA-01 - Scott Wallace  Swing Left PA-01  |  Red to Blue PA-01 PA-05 - Mary Gay Scanlon  (no Swing Left or Red to Blue page) PA-06 - Chrissy Houlahan  Swing Left PA-06  |  Red to Blue PA-06 PA-07 - Susan Wild  Swing Left PA-07  |  Red to Blue PA-07 PA-17 - Connor Lamb  Swing Left PA-17 PA-16 - Ron DiNicola  Red to Blue PA-16 “SAFE” But Must Retain: U.S. SENATE - Bob Casey(D - incumbent) GOVERNOR - Tom Wolf(D - incumbent)  FURTHER PA MIDTERMS READING: What Pennsylvania’s new congressional map means for 2018(Vox) These 6 Pennsylvania Democratic nominees are key to the battle for House control(Vox) 5 States That Will Decide the House Majority(Roll Call) Pennsylvania voters prefer Democrats for Congress after choosing Trump in 2016: NBC/Marist poll(CNBC) Researched and written by BOTL Communications Director Amanda Hoffman    MUSIC: Opening Theme: Loving Acoustic Instrumental by John Douglas Orr  The Summit - K2 (Blue Dot Sessions) When We Set Out - Arc and Crecent (Blue Dot Sessions) Insatiable Toad - Origami (Blue Dot Sessions) Algea Trio - Algea Fields (Blue Dot Sessions) The Envelope - Aeronaut (Blue Dot Sessions) Surly Bonds - Aeronaut (Blue Dot Sessions) Moon Bicycle Theme - American Moon Bicycle (Blue Dot Sessions) The Rampart - Castle Danger (Blue Dot Sessions) Streamer - Arc and Crecent (Blue Dot Sessions) Voicemail Music: Low Key Lost Feeling Electro by Alex Stinnent Closing Music: Upbeat Laid Back Indie Rock by Alex Stinnent   Produced by Jay! Tomlinson Thanks for listening! Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com Support the show via Patreon Listen on iTunes | Stitcher| Spotify| Alexa Devices| +more Check out the BotL iOS/AndroidApp in the App Stores! Follow at Twitter.com/BestOfTheLeft Like at Facebook.com/BestOfTheLeft Contact me directly at Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com Review the show on iTunesand Stitcher!

Today Pete and Luke are discussing John Dickerson's argument in May issue of The Atlantic that the modern presidency is too unwieldy for any individual to succeed. Implicitly he is pushing back against the idea that Trump's personality is ill-fitted to the job: Anyone would be overwhelmed by the office, he thinks.

In Part 2 of our discussion with Dr. Christopher McMillion, host Mike Schutt asks him to elaborate on the joys of federalism. Dr. McMillion begins by explaining why now-- the age of Trump-- might be an opportunity for those on both the left and the right to recognize its benefits and jump on board. He explains the 10th amendment, offers a brief definition of what we mean by "federalism," and then outlines some specific examples in which federalism would operate in a way that is appealing to the goals of those on both ends of the political spectrum.  Topics range from "the Imperial Presidency" to marijuana laws, and the discussion closes with some practical suggestions for recovering this lost ideal.    Dr. Christopher McMillion is a graduate of Baylor University. He did his master's and doctoral work at the University of Notre Dame, earning an M.A. in Political Science and his PhD in the field of Constitutional Studies and Political Theory. In his scholarship, he focuses on constitutional law, federalism, and American political thought. He is particularly interested in the connections between political theory and the American constitutional and political experience. He also serves as a manuscript referee for American Political Thought. Chris and his wife Heather have three children.  Cross & Gavel Audio is a project of the Christian Legal Society and Regent University School of Law. Mike Schutt is host of Cross & Gavel. He is Associate Professor of Law at Regent University, and he directs both Attorney Ministries and Law Student Ministries for the Christian Legal Society. Email him at mschutt@clsnet.org.

Jacki speaks with Todd Young, Executive Director for Southeastern Legal Foundation.

Educating, entertaining and engaging America on all things energy!The Jacki Daily Show airs Sundays, 2-4p ET on theblaze.com/radio!

Gene Healy joins us for a special Inauguration Day episode of Free Thoughts. We assess Barack Obama’s legacy as President of the United States and think about what we might expect in the coming years from President Trump.What will Obama’s presidential legacy be? How will recent expansions of executive power under Obama affect the actions of a Donald Trump administration?How hawkish has Obama’s foreign policy been? What happened to the anti-war movement during Obama’s presidency? Can we expect them to come back during a Trump administration?Show Notes and Further ReadingGene Healy’s article in the February 2017 issue of Reason is “Goodbye, Obama”.Other episodes of Free Thoughts that are mentioned in this episode:America’s Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power with Gene HealyWhat Are the Risks of Terrorism? with John MuellerHealy mentions Jack Goldsmith and Matthew Waxman’s “The Legal Legacy of Light-Footprint Warfare” (2016).He also mentions Party in the Street (2015) by Michael T. Heaney and Fabio Rojas, National Security and Double Government (2014) by Michael Glennon, and “The Two Presidencies” (1966) by Aaron Wildavsky. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

12:30 – 2:00 p.m.Luncheon Address The Dangers of the Imperial Presidency Tom Campbell, Dean, Chapman University School of Law; Former Member of Congress See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

. The post The Imperial Presidency with Sam Kazman & Frank Buckley appeared first on RealClear Radio Hour.

Alan discusses the Imperial Presidency. Todd looks for a mild selloff. Redmond Weisenberger of the Mises Institute of Canada talks about the view many Canadians have towards the fiscal policy of the U.S. Federal Government. Mike Larson of Money and Markets discusses the Fed and the impact tapering will have on the bond market. Doug Altner of the Ayn Rand Institute talks about a variety of topics. Brett Bitner weighs in on current events. Alan ends the show with some events in U.S. history.

2016 (or, rather, not!), the regrettable focus on the presidency, the minimum wage.

Taking lessons from Nixon and the concept of the Imperial Presidency, Dr. Mitton asks the question "Are the American people fit for world leadership? And does the world need a leader at all?"

This is an archived copy of The Daily Standard podcast. Please note that advertisements, links and other specific references within the content may be out of date.

Every failed civilization began its mythical origins, its Genesis, its founding mythical doctrines within archaic understanding of JUSTICE. This podcast exposes how this ultimately begets the destruction of The Republic.

A look at how the American left is building a Constitutional CRISIS by permitting Team Obama to create an Imperial Presidency.

American author and political activist, Noam Chomsky, speking at a benefit for Canadian Dimension Magazine, delivers a talk entitled The Imperial Presidency. Recorded at University of Toronto on Nov 21/04.

American author and political activist, Noam Chomsky, speking at a benefit for Canadian Dimension Magazine, delivers a talk entitled The Imperial Presidency. Recorded at University of Toronto on Nov 21/04.

We have another great line up for you this week at AWOP Radio! This week we will be talking #OCCUPY with AWOP contributing editor and President of Life O Mike.org, Leslie Boyd. Leslie was on the ground in DC with the contingent of people who were pepper sprayed at the Museum during the Oct 2011 event. Leslie will be on our panel to give us a first hand account of what it was like on on the ground in DC for the convergence of a number of different social justice groups on the capital. Please take a moment to check out her blog where she works tirelessly to make sure no more families ever have to lose a son because they can't afford healthcare.   We are also excited to welcome David Swanson of the Site "Let's try Democracy" to our #OCCUPY panel! David is a Co-Founder of AfterDowningStreet.org, creator of ProsecuteBushCheney.org and Washington Director of Democrats.com, a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, the Backbone Campaign, Voters for Peace, and the Liberty Tree Foundation for the Democratic Revolution, and chair of the Robert Jackson Steering Committee. In addition to being an activist, David is the author of "War Is A Lie" and "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union." He blogs at http://davidswanson.org and http://warisacrime.org and works for the online activist organization http://rootsaction.org.   Check our AWOP Radio Shop and get cool progressive gear that helps support the show!

Originally, the title Czar (derived from Caesar) meant Emperor in the European medieval sense of the term, that is, a ruler who claims the same rank as a Roman emperor, with the approval of another emperor or a supreme ecclesiastical official (the Pope or the Ecumenical Patriarch). Occasionally, the word could be used to designate other, non-Christian, supreme rulers. In Russia and Bulgaria the imperial connotations of the term were blurred with time and, by the 19th century, it had come to be viewed as an equivalent of King.[3][4]

Originally, the title Czar (derived from Caesar) meant Emperor in the European medieval sense of the term, that is, a ruler who claims the same rank as a Roman emperor, with the approval of another emperor or a supreme ecclesiastical official (the Pope or the Ecumenical Patriarch). Occasionally, the word could be used to designate other, non-Christian, supreme rulers. In Russia and Bulgaria the imperial connotations of the term were blurred with time and, by the 19th century, it had come to be viewed as an equivalent of King.[3][4]

This is an exclusive Media Roots Radio interview with David Swanson conducted on May 19, 2011. David is the co-author of "The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush". He was press secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, and is the co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org, creator of ConvictBushCheney.org and Washington Director of Democrats.com, a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, the Backbone Campaign, and Voters for Peace, and a member of the legislative working group of United for Peace and Justice. He has written two best selling books: Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union, and War is a Lie. http://www.mediaroots.org/

Marty Lasden of California Lawyer Magazine welcomes American constitutional law scholar and Yale professor Bruce Ackerman for a discussion of his new book "The Decline and Fall of the American Republic," in which he argues that the American presidency is becoming too powerful for our own good. Series: "Legally Speaking" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 20909]

Marty Lasden of California Lawyer Magazine welcomes American constitutional law scholar and Yale professor Bruce Ackerman for a discussion of his new book "The Decline and Fall of the American Republic," in which he argues that the American presidency is becoming too powerful for our own good. Series: "Legally Speaking" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 20909]

We discuss Wikileaks, then BG diagnoses Obama as being the victim of his own high-functioning autistic experiment, working with good intentions to undo the "Imperial Presidency". [BG then gets so mad at Congress that we actually have to bleep her.] Why FOX news is like the Catholic Church, and DG tells of the best jobs program you've never heard of. More at professionalleft.blogspot.comSupport the show (https://www.paypal.me/proleftpodcast)

Bill Lindley will interview David Swanson on his latest book: Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union.Daybreak is a prescription for political reform that literally ends with a to-do list for citizens, and draws inspiration from the misdeeds and missteps of the Bush and Obama presidencies. What powers were stripped from Congress and handed to the White House while George W. Bush lived there, and what would it take to permanently move them back? Which of these powers is Barack Obama making use of or even expanding upon? And in the future, how can we expand our rights, create democratic representation in Congress, and make presidents into executives rather than emperors? This is a citizens' guide to the long-term task of removing power from the hands of one person, placing it in a body of representatives, and (here's the hard part) making that body truly representative of the American people. Swanson's analysis makes clear that the imperial presidency, which advanced so dramatically during the Bush-Cheney era, will not be stopped merely by electing better presidents. Major structural changes are needed in our system of government to rein in both the imperial presidency and, at the same time, the presidential empire. Only through the active efforts of citizens, Swanson argues, can we restore and protect our rights, and expand our conception of political rights to meet new challenges.The publisher is Seven Stories Press. Purchase a copy now at Amazon and other books stores

Bill Lindley will interview David Swanson on his latest book: Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union.Daybreak is a prescription for political reform that literally ends with a to-do list for citizens, and draws inspiration from the misdeeds and missteps of the Bush and Obama presidencies. What powers were stripped from Congress and handed to the White House while George W. Bush lived there, and what would it take to permanently move them back? Which of these powers is Barack Obama making use of or even expanding upon? And in the future, how can we expand our rights, create democratic representation in Congress, and make presidents into executives rather than emperors? This is a citizens' guide to the long-term task of removing power from the hands of one person, placing it in a body of representatives, and (here's the hard part) making that body truly representative of the American people. Swanson's analysis makes clear that the imperial presidency, which advanced so dramatically during the Bush-Cheney era, will not be stopped merely by electing better presidents. Major structural changes are needed in our system of government to rein in both the imperial presidency and, at the same time, the presidential empire. Only through the active efforts of citizens, Swanson argues, can we restore and protect our rights, and expand our conception of political rights to meet new challenges.The publisher is Seven Stories Press. Purchase a copy now at Amazon and other books stores

On this week's Tell Somebody, David Swanson, co-founder of www.AfterDowningStreet.org, talks about his new book Daybreak, Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union. After that, we climb aboard the Mad As Hell Doctors motor home as it angrily speeds down I-80 towards Des Moines, ultimately headed for Washington D.C.  Dr. Paul Hochfeld tells why they're mad as hell about sham healthcare reform.  www.madashelldoctors.com But before all that, I have a comment on the twice-delayed appointment of Mary Lindsay to the Kansas City, MO Tax Increment Financing Commission.  Lindsay's appointment was finally approved by the city council two days after the broadcast. And stick around to the end of the broadcast - former CIA analyst Ray McGovern has a few quick words about the importance of supporting community radio and shows like Tell Somebody. Tom Klammer mail@tellsomebody.us www.tellsomebody.us

President Bush has extended the powers of his office beyond what many believe the Constitution allows, with unauthorized spying, the treatment of prisoners and the denial of legal rights. Was it necessary and justified to protect the country or should there be high-level criminal trials to re-establish the rule of law? Also, the unemployment rate continues to climb, and same-sex marriage advocates take to the streets. 

We talked with Jonathan Mahler of the New York Times about how Obama can reverse the absues of power of the Bush administration.

This conference seeks to examine these critical questions in an expansive way, drawing together scholars from a number of different subfields in political science as well By bringing together former government officials, leading legal scholars and political scientists with a range of backgrounds and perspectives, this conference hopes to present a systematic, balanced analysis of the proper place of the president in the political system. The conference itself will examine what role the courts, Congress, and the public have played in checking presidential actions historically, and what role they should play in the Iraq War and beyond in a world where the opponent in a military conflict may not be a sovereign state. We plan to move the debate over presidential power well beyond the conventional discussion of whether we have an "imperial presidency." This conference will include: Three panels, luncheon speaker, and keynote panel.   Featured Speakers: Jon Cohen, Director of Polling, Washington Post; John Podesta, CEO, Center for American Progress & former White House Chief of Staff (1998-2001); Ken Mehlman, Managing Director & Head of Global Public Affairs, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co and former White House Director of Public Affairs, 2001-04 Speakers: Matthew Baum, Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government; Adam Berinsky, MIT; John Mueller, Ohio State University; Louis Fisher, Law Library of the Library of Congress; Jack Rakove, Stanford University; John Yoo, UC Berkeley School of Law; Philip C. Bobbitt, Columbia Law School; William Howell, University of Chicago, Harris School of Public Policy; Stephen Krasner, Stanford University; Stephen Skowronek, Yale University; Christopher Edley, Dean, UC Berkeley School of Law Panelist/Discussants: Gary Jacobson, UC San Diego; Gordon Silverstein, UC Berkeley Chair: Terri Bimes, UC Berkeley Chair: Jesse Choper, UC Berkeley School of Law Chair: Daniel Farber, UC Berkeley School of Law

This conference seeks to examine these critical questions in an expansive way, drawing together scholars from a number of different subfields in political science as well By bringing together former government officials, leading legal scholars and political scientists with a range of backgrounds and perspectives, this conference hopes to present a systematic, balanced analysis of the proper place of the president in the political system. The conference itself will examine what role the courts, Congress, and the public have played in checking presidential actions historically, and what role they should play in the Iraq War and beyond in a world where the opponent in a military conflict may not be a sovereign state. We plan to move the debate over presidential power well beyond the conventional discussion of whether we have an "imperial presidency." This conference will include: Three panels, luncheon speaker, and keynote panel.   Featured Speakers: Jon Cohen, Director of Polling, Washington Post; John Podesta, CEO, Center for American Progress & former White House Chief of Staff (1998-2001); Ken Mehlman, Managing Director & Head of Global Public Affairs, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co and former White House Director of Public Affairs, 2001-04 Speakers: Matthew Baum, Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government; Adam Berinsky, MIT; John Mueller, Ohio State University; Louis Fisher, Law Library of the Library of Congress; Jack Rakove, Stanford University; John Yoo, UC Berkeley School of Law; Philip C. Bobbitt, Columbia Law School; William Howell, University of Chicago, Harris School of Public Policy; Stephen Krasner, Stanford University; Stephen Skowronek, Yale University; Christopher Edley, Dean, UC Berkeley School of Law Panelist/Discussants: Gary Jacobson, UC San Diego; Gordon Silverstein, UC Berkeley Chair: Terri Bimes, UC Berkeley Chair: Jesse Choper, UC Berkeley School of Law Chair: Daniel Farber, UC Berkeley School of Law

     Jim Wallis is in Iowa speaking for Iowans for Sensible Priorities,  on "God's Politics".     Then, require motorcyclists to wear helmets?  Then, Charlie Savage with "Takeover: the Return at the Imperial Presidency".

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Recorded at the Reassessing the Presidency seminar; March 2004. [43:26]