Podcasts about Judicial review

This is the seventh episode of our ongoing series breaking down the U.S. Constitution. This month, Roman and Elizabeth discuss Article IV, which outlines the relationship between states and between states and the federal government. They add the 10th Amendment to the conversation, because that also talks about the states. Then, California Attorney General Rob Bonta joins to talk about how his office is using Article IV and the 10th Amendment to protect the state from federal overreach. The 99% Invisible Breakdown of the Constitution Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of 99% Invisible ad-free and a whole week early. Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Efficient delivery of infrastructure is a critical issue for Ireland. In recent months, public debate around infrastructure delivery has been dominated by the claim that judicial review is a central bottleneck. But does the evidence tell a different story? Ahead of our Infrastructure Conference on 27 February, we're outlining the facts about judicial review. In this episode, Seán Guerin SC (Chair of the Council of The Bar of Ireland), Tom Flynn SC (Chair, Planning, Environmental and Local Government Bar Association) and Phoebe Duvall (Planning and Environmental Policy Officer at An Taisce) set out the risks of a recent proposal by the Government to change the environmental judicial review process. They argue that the proposals will create key issues for access to justice, risk breaching the State's obligations under EU law and potentially cause further delays rather than reducing them. To read The Bar of Ireland's submission and to join the waitlist for our conference ‘Accelerating Infrastructure and the Future of Judicial Review, click here: https://www.lawlibrary.ie/judicial-review-submission-published/ Read An Taisce and Friends of the Irish Environment's position on this issue here: https://www.antaisce.org/news/calling-on-minister-to-scrap-the-consulation-on-changes-to-legal-cost-rules-for-environmental-cases

On today's episode of Uncommon Sense with Ginny Robinson, we continue unpacking the devastating revelations found in the Epstein files. What's been exposed isn't just corruption, it's a system that protects powerful criminals while innocent victims are silenced.The facts are very disturbing. There has been absolutely no accountability. And the victims deserve more than headlines and non-answers.We're asking hard questions about leadership, responsibility, and why justice still feels so out of reach. If powerful names are involved, then powerful action must follow. No more silence. No more avoidance. The victims deserve truth, and they deserve justice. NOW.--https://www.bible.com/

This is the sixth episode of our ongoing series breaking down the U.S. Constitution.This month, Roman and Elizabeth discuss Article III, which establishes the judicial branch, alongside New York Times chief legal affairs correspondent, Adam Liptak. Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of 99% Invisible ad-free and a whole week early. Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Send us a textNavigating the Legal Maze of Schedule Three Cannabis ReschedulingIn this special episode of Cannabis Legalization News, the intricate process of moving cannabis to Schedule Three is thoroughly examined. The host breaks down the involved statutes, rules, and legal procedures, including key milestones such as interlocutory appeals, DEA hearings, and the final rescheduling rule. The episode highlights the delays and legal hurdles over recent years, explaining the role of administrative law judges, public comments, and the potential impact of the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The timeline for when cannabis might actually be rescheduled to Schedule Three under federal law is discussed, ranging from late 2026 to potentially 2028, depending on procedural and legal challenges.00:00 Introduction and Overview00:06 Current Status of Schedule Three Cannabis02:03 Legal Procedures and Statutes03:28 Steps to Reschedule Cannabis04:30 Interlocutory Appeal and Hearing06:45 Post-Hearing Procedures09:49 Congressional Review Act (CRA)11:47 Judicial Review and Final Thoughts13:40 Conclusion and Viewer InteractionSupport the showGet our newsletter: https://bit.ly/3VEn9vu

Yet another push for the Government to intervene and shut Gloriavale's school down for good. The school's licence was due to expire on Friday, but the Ministry of Education agreed to keep it open after the School Board applied to the High Court for a judicial review. Gloriavale Leaver's Trust Founder Liz Gregory shares her concerns with Ryan. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Crisis That Shaped the ConstitutionThis conversation delves into the foundational principles of constitutional law, exploring the historical context of the Articles of Confederation, the influence of Enlightenment thinkers, the structure of government established by the Constitution, and the ongoing evolution of federalism and judicial review. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the amendment process as essential components of American governance.The journey of American constitutional law is a fascinating exploration of governance, power, and rights. It begins with the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a system that left the young nation vulnerable and fragmented. This failure set the stage for the creation of the Constitution, a document that would redefine governance by establishing a strong federal structure while balancing state autonomy.The Articles of Confederation: A Failed ExperimentThe Articles of Confederation were designed to preserve the independence of states, but they resulted in a weak central government incapable of addressing national issues. The inability to levy taxes or regulate commerce led to economic turmoil and highlighted the need for a more robust framework.The Constitution: A New FrameworkIn response, the framers crafted the Constitution, drawing heavily on Enlightenment ideas, particularly those of John Locke. This new framework introduced the separation of powers, dividing authority among legislative, executive, and judicial branches to prevent tyranny.Separation of Powers and Checks and BalancesThe Constitution's architecture ensures that no single branch becomes too powerful. Through checks and balances, each branch has the means to limit the others, fostering a system of accountability and preventing the concentration of power.Federalism: Balancing State and National PowerFederalism emerged as a key principle, dividing power between national and state governments. This dual sovereignty allows for diversity in policy and governance, with states acting as "laboratories of democracy."Judicial Review and Landmark CasesThe doctrine of judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison, empowers courts to interpret the Constitution and invalidate laws that conflict with it. This power is a cornerstone of American law, ensuring that legislative and executive actions remain within constitutional bounds.The 14th Amendment and Individual RightsThe 14th Amendment marked a significant shift, extending federal protection of individual rights against state actions. It laid the groundwork for landmark decisions that have shaped civil rights and liberties.Modern Constitutional Interpretation and ChallengesToday, constitutional interpretation continues to evolve, reflecting societal changes and challenges. The balance between state and federal power remains a dynamic negotiation, influenced by judicial decisions and political will.The American constitutional system is designed for conflict and negotiation, not swift efficiency. Its enduring strength lies in its ability to adapt and respond to new challenges while maintaining the foundational principles of liberty and justice.Understanding the foundational architecture of American governance is crucial.The Articles of Confederation highlighted the need for a stronger central government.Judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison, is a key mechanism for checks and balances.Federalism allows for both national unity and state diversity.The 14th Amendment significantly altered the relationship between citizens and states.The amendment process is intentionally difficult to ensure stability in governance.Conflict and negotiation are inherent in the constitutional system.constitutional law, separation of powers, federalism, judicial review, Articles of Confederation, 14th Amendment, Marbury v. Madison, checks and balances, amendment process, governance

Notes: https://thelawschoolofamerica.com/ConstitutionLaw2025.htmlUnderstanding Equal Protection: A Roadmap for Law StudentsThis conversation delves into the complexities of the Equal Protection Clause, exploring its historical context, the three tiers of scrutiny, and the nuances of applying these standards in legal analysis. The discussion emphasizes the importance of categorization, the rigorous demands of strict scrutiny, and the implications of remedial racial classifications. It also addresses the challenges posed by facially neutral laws and the frameworks used to prove discriminatory intent, providing a comprehensive roadmap for law students preparing for exams.Navigating the complexities of constitutional law can be daunting, especially when it comes to the Equal Protection Clause. This blog post aims to demystify the intricate frameworks and standards that govern equal protection analysis, providing law students with a structured approach to mastering this critical area of law.The Three-Tiered Framework: At the heart of equal protection analysis is the three-tiered framework of judicial review. This framework helps determine the level of scrutiny a court will apply to a law that classifies individuals based on characteristics such as race, gender, or age. Understanding these tiers—strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis review—is essential for any law student.Strict Scrutiny: The most rigorous standard, strict scrutiny, applies to laws that classify individuals based on race or national origin. Under this standard, the government must prove that the classification serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. This level of scrutiny is often described as "strict in theory, fatal in fact," as laws rarely survive this analysis.Intermediate Scrutiny: Intermediate scrutiny is applied to classifications based on gender and legitimacy. The government must demonstrate that the classification serves an important governmental interest and is substantially related to achieving that interest. This standard is less demanding than strict scrutiny but more rigorous than rational basis review.Rational Basis Review: The default standard, rational basis review, applies to all other classifications. Under this standard, the government only needs to show that the classification is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Laws are almost universally upheld under this deferential standard, except in cases where animus is the sole motivation.Mastering the equal protection framework is crucial for law students preparing for exams or the bar. By understanding the nuances of each tier and applying them to hypothetical scenarios, students can confidently tackle any equal protection question. As the legal landscape evolves, particularly with the rise of algorithmic decision-making, staying informed and adaptable is key to success.Subscribe Now: Stay updated with the latest insights and analysis on constitutional law by subscribing.TakeawaysThe Equal Protection Clause demands structural precision.Identifying classification is the first step in analysis.Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous standard applied to suspect classes.Intermediate scrutiny applies to gender and illegitimacy classifications.Rational basis review is the default standard for most classifications.Remedial racial classifications must show specific past discrimination.Rational basis with bite addresses laws motivated by animus.Facially neutral laws require proof of discriminatory intent to challenge.The Arlington Heights framework helps prove intent through circumstantial evidence.The McDonnell Douglas framework is used for individual discrimination claims.Equal Protection, 14th Amendment, Scrutiny Standards, Discrimination, Law School, Constitutional Law, Affirmative Action, Judicial Review, Legal Framework, Civil Rights

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica breaks down the Trump administration's move to federalize the National Guard in Oregon amid Portland protests. She explains Oregon's lawsuit against the federal government, outlining key arguments such as the improper use of federal authority, possible violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, and state sovereignty issues. Jessica evaluates each argument's strength, noting that courts usually defer to presidential discretion in these cases. The episode offers a clear overview of the unfolding legal battle and what's at stake for both state and federal powers.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:1. Federalization of the National Guard in OregonThe episode opens by discussing the Trump administration's decision to federalize the National Guard in Oregon—specifically Portland. This move was made over local objections and parallels previous situations, such as federal intervention during protests in Los Angeles.2. Oregon's Legal Arguments Against FederalizationThe majority of the episode breaks down the legal case Oregon is making in its suit against the federal government.3. Legal Analysis of Oregon's ChancesEach argument is weighed in terms of likely success. The host points out that courts have historically given substantial deference to presidential discretion in these national security and public order matters, making Oregon's position a difficult one.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we delve into the high-stakes legal battle over the attempted removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Jessica explains the Trump administration's push to fire Cook, the court's decision to reinstate her, and the looming emergency appeal. Tune in as we explore the legal protections for Fed governors, the fight over presidential power, and why this showdown could impact both the central bank's independence and the broader economy.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Legal Battle Over Federal Reserve Independence: Jessica discusses the attempt by the Trump administration to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. She explains this centers on whether a president can remove a sitting Fed governor and under what circumstances, which is a pivotal question about the independence of the central bank.The Law and Statutory Interpretation: The conversation delves into the Federal Reserve Act, which only allows removal of board members “for cause.” There's debate on what “for cause” means—whether it should be restricted to on-the-job misconduct or include actions before taking office. The district court judge sided with the narrower reading, that it should only pertain to conduct while in office.Due Process and Rights of the Removed Official: A significant part of the discussion is about whether Lisa Cook was given due process. The judge found she likely wasn't given adequate notice or opportunity to respond to the allegations, which could be a violation of her rights.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

Professor Kozlowski finally reaches the American Experiment. Today we discuss the Declaration of Independence, several of the Federalist Papers (and the response by the mysterious "Brutus"), the American Constitution, and the legend of Hiawatha the Unifier*. Along the way we will discuss the current state of the American Experiment and how the decisions of the founders may have overlooked potential abuses or exploits, as well as the concerns and preoccupations of the founders in their own time.*(I include the link to the Erdoes and Ortiz book where I found the myth; it's not in the public domain, and the downloads I found were pretty dodgy)EDIT: The doctrine of Judicial Review (i.e. the Supreme Court determining that laws are unconstitutional) is NOT originally laid out in the Constitution, but is a product of the landmark case Marbury v. Madison. As expected, I've already been corrected by more knowledgeable scholars of American History.Additional Readings include: Common Sense by Thomas Paine, the other writings of Thomas Jefferson (I don't have a specific collection or writing in mind, though...), and "What is the Slave to the 4th of July?" by Frederick Douglass. And today you get a double game recommendation: A Few Acres of Snow (board game - good luck finding it, though...), and Assassin's Creed III.If you're interested in Professor Kozlowski's other online projects, check out his website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠professorkozlowski.wordpress.com

In just the past week, the legal battles swirling around Donald Trump have reached a new level of intensity, drawing the nation's attention back to a courthouse drama that seems never-ending. On July 23, the Supreme Court stepped in yet again—this time granting the Trump administration's emergency request for a stay in Trump v. Boyle. The decision, delivered without a full briefing or oral argument, reflected a split on the bench, with Justice Kagan writing in dissent. The outcome means the administration can press ahead with removing federal officials—part of a broader campaign by Trump's White House to reshape the executive branch and its agencies. This is happening as the judiciary weighs a surge of legal challenges, not just to Trump personally, but to the policies he's enacted since returning to office.Just before that, the Supreme Court handed down a blockbuster decision on July 9, clearing the way for President Trump to push forward with plans for dramatic reductions in the federal workforce. According to SCOTUSblog, this order lets agencies initiate what Trump described as “large-scale reductions in force”—RIFs—across government. The move came even as lower courts had temporarily blocked it, citing the risk of irreversible damage. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stood alone in her dissent, warning of “an apparently unprecedented and congressionally unsanctioned dismantling of the Federal Government.” Labor unions and advocacy groups vow to keep fighting the order in court, but for now, the Trump administration has the green light.Meanwhile, in New York, the repercussions of Trump's criminal conviction are still rippling outward. The New York Unified Court System's January 2025 audio and filings document the intensity of those final courtroom moments. There's an active appeals process challenging both the verdict and orders in the high-profile Manhattan case overseen by Judge Juan Merchan, as well as appeals stemming from the related Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg prosecution. Despite Trump's attempts to move proceedings to federal court and to dismiss charges on procedural grounds, those efforts have been repeatedly denied. The appeals now move forward on a consolidated docket, setting up a pivotal next chapter.On multiple fronts, Trump's team is locked in appellate battles not only over the handling of state cases but also the fallout from the civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. After Justice Engoron's major summary judgment and subsequent damages order, both sides are set for a protracted fight in the Appellate Division, which could bring new revelations and risks for Trump's business empire.Layered atop all this is the stream of litigation documented by the Lawfare Litigation Tracker, which notes nearly 300 cases still winding their way through the courts—many challenging executive actions and personnel moves made in Trump's second term. Judges across the country are being asked to rule on the bounds of presidential discretion, the reach of federal courts, and the meaning of separation of powers, as the nation watches with no clear sense of when it all will settle.Thank you for tuning in and staying informed on these unprecedented court battles. Come back next week for more updates—this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease dot AI.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Walter Sofronoff KC - former celebrity barrister and rockstar judge - was found to have engaged in ‘serious corrupt conduct’ in his inquiry into the Bruce Lehrmann matter. Now he’s before the Federal Court, fighting for his reputation. Find out more about The Front podcast here. You can read about this story and more on The Australian's website or on The Australian’s app. This episode of The Front is presented by Claire Harvey, produced by Kristen Amiet and edited by Tiffany Dimmack. Our team includes Lia Tsamoglou, Joshua Burton, Stephanie Coombes and Jasper Leak, who also composed our music. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For this special episode I'm joined by Ciaran Shiels, human rights lawyer for the Madden & Finucane law firm. For almost 30 years, Ciaran he has  represented the majority of the Families and Wounded throughout the Saville Inquiry, the subsequent civil actions, and in all of the Judicial Review challenges related to the criminal investigations and prosecutions of those responsible for the shootings of 27 unarmed  young men and a woman on Bloody Sunday, as well as approximately 500 of the civilian witnesses who gave evidence at Saville. He has been immersed in the case against Soldier F, with all of its twists and turns, and is recognised as one of  leading legal authorities on the events of Bloody Sunday.This episode will be an extremely in-depth analysis of Bloody Sunday's events with a particular focus on the notorious “Soldier F” due to his upcoming trial in September, and that of his fellow British Paratroopers, none of whom are facing trial. Ciaran takes us through each of Soldier F's victims, as well as all those m*rdered in a day that would have long-lasting effects on Irish history.Ciaran talks about how Soldier F's account of his actions that day have changed over the years, how Soldier F lied about the innocent people he arrested on the day and the various attempts by the British establishment to avoid a putting Soldier F in court to face justice. This episode is 3 hours long and is obviously a very deep-dive into the entire case, myself and Ciaran wanted to create one video, available to everyone online, that goes through the existing evidence and testimony regarding Bloody Sunday with a degree of thoroughness previously unseen in a podcast/YouTube video. This episode is for those who wish to get into the weeds of the case and get a clear idea of what Solider F and his men did that day and why they, mostly, got away with it.This episode contains graphic description of violence and may be upsetting to some. 00:00 Why we can discuss the case and Soldier F's Anonymity Order 05:53 Ciaran Shiel's background 16:00 Soldier F & his unit 50:15 SOLDIER F ON BLOODY SUNDAY (SH*OTING STARTS)1:24:10 How many did Soldier F sh*ot and how his account of the day has changed? 2:07:47 Belfast incident involving anti-tank platoon 2:17:00 Was Soldier F ordered to sh*ot innocent people ?2:50:40 Predictions for trial 2:58:00 Tape of bugged calls from Victoria Barracks (Derry) on the day PLEASE HELP OUT THE SHOW IF YOU CAN SPARE IT.. THANK YOUhttps://www.buymeacoffee.com/goodlistenerpodcast CONTACT THE SHOW: thegoodlistenerpodcast@gmail.com

In this week's episode, the Dalai Lama says Ti-bet on his reincarnation, Dr. Phil needs chapter 11 protection on more than just his morality, and Marsh will try to prove his country doesn't have the wooiest sovereign. --- To make a per episode donation at Patreon.com, click here: http://www.patreon.com/ScathingAtheist To buy our book, click here: https://www.amazon.com/Outbreak-Crisis-Religion-Ruined-Pandemic/dp/B08L2HSVS8/ If you see a news story you think we might be interested in, you can send it here: scathingnews@gmail.com To check out our sister show, The Skepticrat, click here: https://audioboom.com/channel/the-skepticrat To check out our sister show's hot friend, God Awful Movies, click here: https://audioboom.com/channel/god-awful-movies To check out our half-sister show, Citation Needed, click here: http://citationpod.com/ To check out our sister show's sister show, D and D minus, click here: https://danddminus.libsyn.com/ Report instances of harassment or abuse connected to this show to the Creator Accountability Network here: https://creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org/ --- Guest Links: Check out more from Marsh on Skeptics with a K and the Know Rogan Experience. --- Headlines: IRS says churches can endorse candidates: https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/irs-declares-johnson-amendment-dead Dalai Lama confirms he will have a successor after his death: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvjjd7xw8go Trump's DOJ moves to protect child molestors: https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/trump-justice-department-files-lawsuit Council threatened with Judicial Review over transgender road crossing https://christianconcern.com/news/council-threatened-with-judicial-review-over-transgender-road-crossing/  ‘Wokeminster Council' approves Progress Pride Flag on London's Regent Street https://christianconcern.com/news/wokeminster-council-approves-progress-pride-flag-on-londons-regent-street/  Dr. Phil's media company goes bankrupt and sues Trinity Broadcasting: https://deadline.com/2025/07/dr-phil-merit-street-media-jv-bankruptcy-sues-trinity-1236448188/ https://ew.com/dr-phil-tv-network-files-for-bankruptcy-sues-christian-broadcasting-corporation-11766623

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson unpacks two pressing legal issues. First, she explores whether the President can legally bomb Iran, looking at the balance of war powers between Congress and the President, the War Powers Resolution, and recent historical precedents. Then, Jessica provides an update on the legal showdown between California Governor Newsom and the Trump administration over federalizing the National Guard, analyzing a recent Ninth Circuit decision and the role of the Posse Comitatus Act. Tune in as Jessica breaks down these timely constitutional questions and their real-world implications.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Presidential War Powers Are Limited—But Vague: Under Article 2 of the Constitution, the President can order military action in response to imminent threats or sudden attacks, but only Congress can declare war. The limits of what constitutes “imminent threat” or “war in the constitutional sense” are not clearly defined, leading to ongoing legal gray areas.Congressional Oversight Remains Weak: While laws like the War Powers Resolution were intended to check the President's power, in practice Congress often cedes authority, rarely using funding powers to halt military action even in constitutionally questionable situations.Judicial Review Is Highly Deferential: Courts are reluctant to second-guess military decisions, frequently relying on the political questions doctrine and issues of legal standing. This means even if constitutional boundaries are tested, legal recourse is rare.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson unpacks the legal battle between California and the Trump administration over the federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles. She explains the statutes at play, including the limits of the Posse Comitatus Act and the potential use of the Insurrection Act. Jessica details Judge Breyer's ruling in favor of California, outlines the key legal questions for the upcoming Ninth Circuit hearing, and gives insight into the judges involved in this high-profile case.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss: Presidential Power to Federalize the National Guard: Jessica Levinson opens by explaining the legal mechanisms the president attempted to use to federalize the National Guard and send them, along with Marines, into Los Angeles. She breaks down the relevant federal statute (Title 10, Section 12406), which gives the president limited power to federalize the National Guard under specific conditions, such as responding to rebellion or when federal law can't be enforced with regular forces.The Scope and Limits of Military Involvement – The Posse Comitatus Act: Jessica addresses the significance of the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. Even if the National Guard is federalized, their direct involvement in law enforcement (like making arrests) is limited unless a separate statute (the Insurrection Act) is invoked.The Insurrection Act as an Exception: She describes how the Insurrection Act is an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, allowing the military to more directly handle law enforcement under certain conditions (such as widespread unlawful conduct or when state authorities can't protect federal rights). She provides historical examples, such as federal intervention during desegregation in the 1950s and 1960s, and the Rodney King riots in 1992.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

On the sixty-second episode of the Constitutionalist, Ben, Shane, and Matthew discuss the Mayflower Compact, and its implications for American political life as one of the nation's earliest constitutional compacts. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast co-hosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

On the sixty-first episode, Shane and Ben are joined by Joseph Natali, a Ph.D. student at Baylor University dissertating on the constitutionalism of bureaucracy and how Presidents succeed or fail in exercising control over the executive branch. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew K. Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

This lecture series explores the critical role of the Supreme Court in the American constitutional system, focusing on judicial review, interpretive methods, landmark cases, and the relationship between the judiciary and political branches. It discusses the origins, scope, and limits of judicial review, as well as major debates surrounding judicial activism and reform proposals.TakeawaysThe Supreme Court's role is central to the constitutional system.Judicial review allows courts to invalidate unconstitutional laws.The doctrine of standing limits who can bring cases to court.Interpretive methods include originalism, living constitutionalism, and textualism.Landmark cases illustrate the power of judicial review.The judiciary is an independent branch but interacts with political branches.Judicial activism and restraint are ongoing debates in constitutional law.Substantive due process protects rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.The politicization of judicial appointments raises concerns about legitimacy.Reform proposals include term limits and changes to court jurisdiction.Supreme Court, Judicial Review, Constitutional Law, Interpretive Methods, Landmark Cases, Political Branches, Judicial Activism, Judicial Restraint, Legal Reform, Constitutional Interpretation

This lecture outlines the foundational principles of federalism in the United States, explaining the division of power between the federal government and individual states. It defines federalism by contrasting it with unitary and confederate systems, then details how the U.S. Constitution establishes this structure through enumerated powers for the federal government and reserved powers for the states via the Tenth Amendment. The lecture also highlights crucial constitutional clauses like the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and the Commerce Clause, discussing their impact on the balance of power and examining their interpretation through landmark Supreme Court cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland, Gibbons v. Ogden, and United States v. Lopez, showcasing the evolving nature of federal authority.Federalism as a Core Principle: The lecture emphasizes that federalism is not merely a theoretical concept but is "at the very core of the United States constitutional system." It represents a "sophisticated division of powers" between the national government and the individual states, designed to achieve a "balance between national unity and the preservation of state autonomy." This system contrasts with unitary systems (centralized power) and confederations (states retaining dominant sovereignty).Constitutional Basis for Federalism: The document outlines the specific constitutional provisions that establish and delineate federalism:Enumerated Powers (Article One, Section Eight): The Constitution lists specific powers granted to the federal government, such as regulating interstate commerce, coining money, declaring war, and raising armies. These are presented as a "carefully selected set of responsibilities deemed essential for the national government to effectively function."Implied Powers (Necessary and Proper Clause, Article One, Section Eight): This clause grants Congress the power to enact laws "necessary and proper" for carrying out its enumerated powers. It is described as a "vital source of flexibility," allowing the federal government to adapt and effectively exercise its responsibilities.Reserved Powers (Tenth Amendment): This amendment states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This reinforces the principle of limited federal power and affirms the states' broad authority over matters not specifically assigned to the national government, including "health, safety, welfare, and morals" (police powers).Supremacy Clause (Article Six, Clause Two): This clause establishes the hierarchy of law, declaring the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties as the "supreme Law of the Land." It ensures that "federal law will prevail" in cases of direct conflict with state law and prevents states from undermining valid federal laws.The Significance of the Commerce Clause: The Commerce Clause (Article One, Section Eight, Clause Three), granting Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes," is highlighted as a "most significant and frequently litigated sources of federal authority." Its interpretation has "profoundly influenced the balance of power between the federal government and the states," reflecting "evolving societal needs and philosophical perspectives."Landmark Supreme Court Cases and their Impact: The lecture reviews key cases illustrating the evolution of federalism and the interpretation of federal power:Federalism, Division of Powers, Constitutional Law, Supreme Court, State Sovereignty, Commerce Clause, Judicial Review, Implied Powers, Sovereign Immunity, Civil Rights

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

This lecture explores the concept of federalism and the division of powers between the federal government and the states, highlighting constitutional provisions, landmark Supreme Court cases, and ongoing debates surrounding the balance of power. It emphasizes the practical applications of federalism in areas such as civil rights and environmental regulation, while also addressing criticisms and proposals for reform.TakeawaysFederalism is a system where power is divided between national and state governments.The Constitution enumerates specific powers for the federal government.The Necessary and Proper Clause allows for implied powers.The Supremacy Clause establishes federal law as the highest authority.The Commerce Clause has been interpreted in various ways by the Supreme Court.Landmark cases like McCulloch v. Maryland shaped federalism.Debates continue over the balance of power between state and national governments.Sovereign immunity limits individuals' ability to sue states.Federalism can promote local solutions but may also entrench inequality.Reform proposals include re-examining sovereign immunity and federal power limits.Federalism, Division of Powers, Constitutional Law, Supreme Court, State Sovereignty, Commerce Clause, Judicial Review, Implied Powers, Sovereign Immunity, Civil Rights

The Government's being accused of rushing a greyhound racing ban, affecting hundreds of jobs. Racing Minister Winston Peters gave the industry 20 months to wind down from November. Greyhound Racing NZ is applying for a judicial review, saying the Government failed to inform, prepare, and consult on the ban. CEO Edward Rennell says many only found out shortly before the announcement. He told Mike Hosking they've had no engagement from the Government and nothing in writing on the decision – the only way they've been able to determine how it was made was through the Official Information Act. Based on that information, Rennell says the paper that went to cabinet was highly selective and didn't present complete facts. “When you're looking to take away $159 million from the economy and 1,054 jobs, surely you have an obligation to review the full facts.” LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the sixtieth episode, Matthew and Ben are joined by Shilo Brooks, Executive Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, to discuss his immensely popular course "The Art of Statesmanship and the Political Life." We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew K. Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

On the fifty-ninth episode of the Constitutionalist, Ben and Matthew discuss Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 7 of Alexis De Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" on the omnipotence of the majority. They discuss Tocqueville's warnings of the detrimental effects of democracy on the citizen. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast co-hosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

On the fifty-eighth episode, Shane, Matthew, and Ben are joined by William B. Allen, Professor Emeritus of Political Philosophy at Michigan State University, to discuss Montesquieu's political philosophy and its influence on the American Founding and eighteenth-century British politics. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew K. Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

On the fifty-seventh episode of the Constitutionalist, Shane and Matthew discuss Volume 1, Chapter 2 of Alexis De Tocqueville's "Democracy in America." We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast co-hosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

On the fifty-sixth episode of the Constitutionalist, Shane, Ben, and Matthew discuss Federalist 37, and Madison's teachings on political and epistemological limits. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast co-hosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.