Podcasts about Marbury

This week on the Mark Levin Show, rouge federal district judges are issuing nationwide injunctions against President Trump's voter-supported policies. These judges overstep their constitutional authority, seizing power from elected branches by imposing policy preferences disguised as legal rulings, particularly on immigration and executive actions. The one big beautiful bill passed by the House would limit judges' ability to enforce contempt citations and would require plaintiffs to post financial bonds for injunctions. There's skepticism of any deal with Iran that doesn't destroy their nuclear sites and centrifuges, as they'll still get nuclear weapons like North Korea did. Iran's weak economy and defenses make now the time to act, but a deal lifting sanctions will let them rebuild. Any agreement must be a treaty and go to Congress—it's a constitutional necessity. If a deal is reached Iran will eventually announce they have a nuclear weapon, causing a Middle East proliferation crisis. Their ideology ignores mutually assured destruction, driven by a belief in the afterlife, and they'll never reveal all their nuclear assets to the world. Finally, the U.S. Constitution and historical documents like the Federalist Papers do not grant the judiciary, including lower federal courts like the U.S. Court on Trade, the final authority in disputes. Congress, as the representative body, holds the ultimate decision-making power, particularly in matters of national policy. The judiciary's self-assumed power, stems from cases like Marbury v. Madison (1803), asserts that the framers intended the courts to act as "traffic cops" ensuring other branches stay within their constitutional lanes, not to usurp their authority. Congress, not the courts, should have the final say, aligning with the republican structure of the government. If the Supreme Court does not stop what these lower courts are doing, and quickly, Mark is going to lead a movement to pressure Congress to remake the lower courts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show, the U.S. Constitution and historical documents like the Federalist Papers do not grant the judiciary, including lower federal courts like the U.S. Court on Trade, the final authority in disputes. Congress, as the representative body, holds the ultimate decision-making power, particularly in matters of national policy. The judiciary's self-assumed power, stems from cases like Marbury v. Madison (1803), asserts that the framers intended the courts to act as "traffic cops" ensuring other branches stay within their constitutional lanes, not to usurp their authority. Congress, not the courts, should have the final say, aligning with the republican structure of the government. If the Supreme Court does not stop what these lower courts are doing, and quickly, Mark is going to lead a movement to pressure Congress to remake the lower courts. And under the Constitution, we have every right as the people of this country to press our elected representatives to uphold the Constitution and give us our republic back. The lower courts are violating separation of powers, seizing authority they do not have, and have become populated with rogue lawyers/activists. The Constitution empowers we, the people, and through us, our representatives, to fix this. Also, the Civil War, with over 700,000 casualties in a nation of 24 million, was worth the cost to end slavery and preserve the Union. Similarly, Israel's ongoing conflicts justify decisive action to destroy Hamas and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, despite repeated ceasefires and attacks from groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis. Israel's fight is for survival, akin to the Civil War's existential stakes. Critics who label this a "forever war" or warmongering are dismissed, as some causes, like survival, demand fighting to the death. Later, Iran is actively advancing its nuclear weapons program. They are developing a sophisticated nuclear program and possesses a growing arsenal of ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads over long distances. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Professor French Tells What Gen Z Can Teach All of Us!   What happens when one of America's top legal minds steps back into the classroom—only to be schooled by Gen Z? New York Times columnist and Good Faith contributor David French joins Curtis Chang to reflect on what a year of teaching college students taught him about faith, over-parenting, and the future of American democracy. Together, they explore whether this rising generation is rejecting political tribalism in favor of ethical engagement—or simply afraid to speak up in polarized times. Could Gen Z's quiet shift reshape our fractured public square?   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: Lipscomb University's College of Leadership & Public Service Supreme Court case: Marbury v. Madison Gettysburg Address Brown v. Board of Education The Coddling of the American Mind (Chapter 1: pdf Download) John Locke Foundation Council for Christian Colleges & Universities More From David French: David French's New York Times pieces HERE Follow David French on Threads   Follow Us: Good Faith on Instagram Good Faith on X (formerly Twitter) Good Faith on Facebook   Sign up: Redeeming Babel Newsletter

Hour 1 The Knicks beat the Pistons on Brunson's big shot, but Gio's worried about Monday in Boston. Should we celebrate the win? Beating Boston requires last night's Bridges and Game 3 Towns. Jerry's first update includes Knicks win sounds. Shaq weighed in on the Knicks facing Boston. Clippers-Nuggets tied 3-3. Mets lost to D-Backs (4-2), despite Soto's 2 HRs; he feels no pressure, which Boomer likes. Joe Schoen will use the 'Josh Allen' model with Jaxson Dart. Malik Nabers discussed receivers wanting the ball. The hour ended with the Celtics' dominance over the Knicks this season and Boomer wanting more from their bench. Hour 2 More Knicks-Pistons talk sets up the Celtics series. Boomer noted their poor record against top teams like Boston, leading to an angry caller accusing them of being Nets fans due to negativity. The bench will be key against Boston, as starters are even. A caller questioned Achiuwa's absence. Jerry's update featured Ian Eagle's call of Brunson's winner and Thibs' comment. Clippers-Nuggets are tied 3-3. 'Bad Tiki', A-I Rodgers, and A-I Deion pranked A-I Shedeur Sanders. Next hour's Jerry update will include their Kentucky Derby pick. A caller criticized Towns' inconsistency. Boomer needs a Celtics jersey for the freezer - who should it be? Hour 3 Brunson's crossover was 'ridiculous' according to Boomer. Jordon Hudson won 'Miss Hancock' 2025 and is a 'Miss Maine' contestant. Jerry's update included a NC reporter on Dan Patrick discussing her impact on football. Jerry played sounds of the Knicks' win. Their 'horse guy' gave their Kentucky Derby pick. Redick mentioned some players not being in 'championship shape', which Boomer thinks is about Doncic. Nabers discussed receivers wanting the ball for pay on Melo's podcast. The Rangers are reportedly hiring Mike Sullivan, which Boomer likened to getting Pat Riley. Hour 4 The Knicks beat Detroit, Brunson scored 40 with a game-winning 3, and will face Boston Monday. Boomer sees the Boston series hinging on bench play. Jerry's update included Knicks win sounds, Marbury's reaction, and Shaq calling Brunson a superstar. The Knicks had contrasting home/away performances. Boomer loves the 'Fat Luka' narrative for Moment of the Day. Boomer thanked everyone for fundraising for Sunday's Five Borough Bike Tour in the final segment of the week.

The Knicks beat Detroit, Brunson scored 40 with a game-winning 3, and will face Boston Monday. Boomer sees the Boston series hinging on bench play. Jerry's update included Knicks win sounds, Marbury's reaction, and Shaq calling Brunson a superstar. The Knicks had contrasting home/away performances. Boomer loves the 'Fat Luka' narrative for Moment of the Day. Boomer thanked everyone for fundraising for Sunday's Five Borough Bike Tour in the final segment of the week.

Ántoni Daimiel es periodista deportivo. Lleva 30 años comentando la NBA. Charlamos en el hotel sobre Luka Doncic, McKinsey, Kawhi Leonard, Seattle, Agüero, JJ Redick, Pacho Maturana, Marbury, Iverson, Mágico González, Luis Aragonés, Phil Jackson y el peluquero de Valderrama en Valladolid.

Gabriel Custodiet speaks for a second time with James Wesley, Rawles, creator of the Survival Blog. They discuss hyperinflation, guns, how to prevent future civilizational collapse, pre-1899 guns, Rhodesia and the Portuguese Colonial War, Robert Heinlein   GUEST  → https://survivalblog.com/  → https://www.amazon.com/stores/James-Wesley-Rawles/author/B001K8HTVE  https://odysee.com/@WatchmanPrivacy:1/JamesWesleyRawles (Previous episode 80) WATCHMAN PRIVACY → https://watchmanprivacy.com (Including privacy consulting) → https://twitter.com/watchmanprivacy → https://escapethetechnocracy.com/ CRYPTO DONATIONS →8829DiYwJ344peEM7SzUspMtgUWKAjGJRHmu4Q6R8kEWMpafiXPPNBkeRBhNPK6sw27urqqMYTWWXZrsX6BLRrj7HiooPAy (Monero) →https://btcpay0.voltageapp.io/apps/3JDQDSj2rp56KDffH5sSZL19J1Lh/pos (BTC) TIMELINE 00:00 – Introduction 1:30 – Rawles' views of the threats facing the world today 2:55 – Tariffs ever a good idea? 4:50 – Weapons of war that Rawles fears 6:08 – What are the economic indicators Rawles looks at? 8:00 – How would people react in a hyper-inflationary event? 11:30 – US dollar is the best leper in the leper colony 13:03 – How to stave off societal collapse in the future 15:20 – Revolver vs semi-automatic 18:05 – Pre-1899 guns 25:05 – Constitutional carry vs. carry permit 27:55 – Consequences of traditional gun purchase with background check 29:30 – Fall of Spanish Empire comparisons to declining USA 32:40 – Rawles' thoughts on Portuguese Colonial War and Rhodesia 37:00 – Robert Heinlein 38:30 – Marbury v. Madison 40:30 – Individualism vs military hierarchy 43:45 – Rapid Fire Questions 44:55 – How important is belief in God in morality? 45:55 – Some favorite prepping tools 48:11 – Final Thoughts   Music by Karl Casey @ White Bat Audio

Presidentporträtt av USA:s 3:a president Thomas Jefferson. Det kommer handla om Virginia dynastin, revolutionen 1800, republikansk enkelhet, tona ner presidentposten, minimal federal stat, minska statsskulden, riksrätt av domare, Samuel Chase, Marbury vs. Madison och Barbareskkrig.Bild: Porträtt av Jefferson 1791 vid tiden som utrikesminister. Källa: WikipediaPrenumerera: Glöm inte att prenumerera på podcasten! Betyg: Ge gärna podden betyg på iTunes!Följ podden: Facebook (facebook.com/stjarnbaneret), twitter (@stjarnbaneret), Instagram (@stjarnbaneret)Kontakt: stjarnbaneret@gmail.comLitteratur:- The Glorious Cause, Robert Middlekauf- Empire of Liberty, Gordon Wood- The Creation of the American Repbulic, 1776-1787, Gordon Wood- The Federalist era, John Miller- The age of federalism, Stanley Elkins, Eric McKitrick- American Politics in the Early Republic, James Roger Sharp- The complete book on US presidents, Bill Yenne- To the best of my ability, James McPherson- John Adams, David McCullough- The cabinet, Lindsey Chervinsky- The presidency of Thomas Jefferson, Forrest Mcdonald- Den amerikanska drömmen, Claus Stolpe- USA:s alla presidenter, Karin Henriksson Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Partner: Stephanie Kalota – U.S. Army Reserve Sergeant First Class (Veteran), Founder of The Political Veteran Podcast & AHG Correspondent.In this special edition of America's Heroes Corp Roundtable, host Dr. Damon Arnold, U.S. Army National Guard (Ret.), sits down with veteran and political correspondent Stephanie Kalota to discuss the judicial system's role in reviewing executive orders and shaping military policy.

On Monday's Mark Levin Show, the Constitutional crisis we face right now is coming out of the lower courts of the federal judiciary and it must be stopped. We have a federal Judge who ordered President Trump to call back an airplane that was flying vicious criminals back to El Salvador and we have every right to call these Judges out. When Judges act like politicians they must be criticized. This all ties back to Marbury vs Madison and it affects you. Chief Justice John Marshall's decision, which established the Supreme Court's power to strike down laws deemed unconstitutional, was a dangerous overreach not intended by the Founding Fathers. The Constitution does not explicitly grant the judiciary this authority, portraying judicial review as an implied power that Marshall seized to expand the Court's influence. This decision in this case laid the groundwork for the judicial tyranny which has since undermined the republic, allowing unelected judges to override the will of the people and the legislative branch. Also, for the apologists of the Iranian terror regime, a nuclear warhead on an intercontinental missile has the capacity to kill millions of Americans. To pretend otherwise is unconscionable and insane. Trump is 100% right, Iran must never get a nuclear weapon, period! The official position of MAGA: Iran will not get nukes. The President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and National Security Advisor all said in the last 24-36 hours that by hook or by crook, Iran must not and will not get nuclear weapons. Then comes this bizarre claim - Israel's got nukes! Yes, but they've never dropped them on any of their enemies, never even waved them around as a threat because Israel's the core of the Holy Land. From The Mark Levin Show - 3/17/25 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Trump is at a crossroads. The most important and enduring accomplishment — perhaps the only enduring accomplishment — will be to break judicial supremacism. In today's action-packed show, I discuss the arguments Trump must make as to why judges have no jurisdiction over deportations and how he must fully ignore the courts. Such a posture will help us down the road when we push for red states to fight the next Democrat president. Next, I offer a unique history lesson on Marbury v. Madison to show how Chief Justice Marshall was not establishing judicial supremacism, but constitutional supremacism. When you understand the adjacent cases and the political events that led up to the decision, it becomes apparent that he was actually deferring to the Jefferson administration and refusing to interfere by enlarging the scope of judicial power. Based on the scholarship of 11th Circuit Judge William Pryor, I prove that Marbury actually shows the exact opposite of judicial supremacy. We are at a unique point in history to finally bury this myth.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Our recent episodes on constitutional questions such as the unitary executive have looked at founding history, but less so the cases of the founding period.  In this episode we take a look at one of the most famous cases of all, Marbury v. Madison.  But this isn't primarily a look at judicial review, but instead Marbury reveals itself, in Professor Amar's hands, as a key administrative law case, with surprising relevance for, among other things, questions of presidential transition and unitary executive theory.  How did a change of party in the White House lead to tension with an unpredictable, even rash, president?  The answers will surprise you, and may be further explored in briefs in the Supreme Court case that is sure to come before long.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

In this episode of Dave Does History on Bill Mick Live, we take a hard look at one of the most important Supreme Court cases in American history—Marbury v. Madison. You might remember our recent discussion about the Election of 1800 and John Adams' infamous “Midnight Judges.” Well, this is the moment when that political showdown reached its explosive conclusion, and the Supreme Court emerged with a new, game-changing power: judicial review.Chief Justice John Marshall didn't just decide whether William Marbury got his job—he redefined the power of the Supreme Court itself. With a legal sleight of hand, Marshall ruled that a part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional, marking the first time the Court struck down a law passed by Congress. This decision set the precedent that allows the Supreme Court to determine what laws stand and what laws fall.Fast forward to today, and judicial review remains one of the most debated aspects of American government. From Dred Scott to Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade to Dobbs v. Jackson, the Supreme Court has used this power to reshape American society—for better or worse.So, who really runs the government? The people? Congress? The President? Or nine unelected judges? We'll break it all down and explore why Marbury v. Madison still matters right now. Tune in for history, controversy, and a few surprises along the way.

Trump's mounting threats to defy the growing court decisions against his dictatorial program recall Andrew Jackson's famous words of defiance following the Supreme Court's 1832 decision in Worcester v Georgia, which upheld the sovereign rights of the Cherokee Nation. Jackson's subsequent forced relocation of the Cherokee in the Trail of Tears is now echoed in Trump's hubristic and criminal plan to clear Gaza of Palestinians. On the 222nd anniversary of Marbury v Madison, in which it was established that the Supreme Court has the last word on what is and isn't constitutional, Bill Weinberg explores the historical parallel. Listen on SoundCloud or via Patreon. Production by Chris Rywalt We ask listeners to support us at one of our three tiers via Patreon: Become a Basic Supporter for just $1 per weekly podcast ($5 per month), or a Special Supporter for $2 per podcast ($10 per month), or a Major Rant Enabler for $5 per podcast ($25 per month). We now have 68 paid subscribers. If you appreciate our work, please become Number 69!

David French joins to discuss upending the NATO alliance, attacks on the rule of law, and how the pardon power was one of the Founders' worst mistakes.  The Mona Charen Show is a weekly, one-on-one discussion that goes in depth on political and cultural topics. Ad-free editions are exclusively available for Bulwark+ members. Add the show to your player of choice, here, or find it wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. Join now Referred Works The Federalist Papers – A collection of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, referenced in discussions about constitutional powers, particularly the presidency. Anti-Federalist Papers ("An Old Whig" – Letter No. 5, 1787) – Cited as an early critique of the presidential pardon power and excessive executive authority. Marbury v. Madison (1803) – A landmark U.S. Supreme Court case establishing judicial review, mentioned in the context of legal authority over the president. U.S. Constitution – Indirectly referenced multiple times, particularly concerning executive powers, rule of law, and the balance of power. Learned Hand's Quote on Liberty – "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it." Quoted in reference to the fragility of democratic institutions. DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) – A concept from psychology and sociology used to describe manipulative tactics, discussed in relation to political rhetoric. "Everything Everywhere All at Once" (Film, 2022) – Referenced metaphorically to describe the chaotic state of global and domestic affairs.

Almost everything in modern "constitutional law" is based on a myth that dates back to Chief Justice John Marshall and the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. According to the myth, Marshall not only CREATED the power of judicial review but also established judicial SUPREMACY - giving the courts ultimate authority over the other branches, the states, and even the people. In this episode, we smash that myth to pieces and reveal the true story behind Marbury. The post Marbury v. Madison Exposed: The Shocking Truth Behind Judicial Review first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

This Day in Legal History: Marbury vs. Madison DecidedOn February 24, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, issued its landmark decision in Marbury v. Madison, establishing the principle of judicial review. The case arose when William Marbury, appointed as a justice of the peace by outgoing President John Adams, sued Secretary of State James Madison for failing to deliver his commission. The Court ruled that while Marbury had a right to his commission, the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus in such cases, was unconstitutional. By striking down this portion of the law, Marshall asserted that it was the judiciary's role to interpret the Constitution and invalidate any congressional acts that conflicted with it. This decision cemented the Supreme Court's authority as a coequal branch of government, ensuring that no law could override the Constitution. Though it limited the Court's immediate power by denying Marbury his commission, the ruling vastly expanded its long-term influence. Judicial review has since been used to strike down laws in areas ranging from civil rights to executive power. The case remains a cornerstone of American constitutional law, shaping the balance of power between the branches of government.A federal judge is set to hear the Associated Press's (AP) request to restore its journalists' access to the White House after President Trump's administration banned them for continuing to use the name "Gulf of Mexico" instead of "Gulf of America." The AP sued three senior Trump aides, arguing the ban violates the First Amendment by attempting to control the language journalists use in their reporting. The lawsuit seeks to reinstate AP's access to Air Force One and the White House press pool. White House officials dismissed the lawsuit as a publicity stunt, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defending the administration's position. Trump signed an executive order renaming the Gulf last month, but AP continued using the traditional name while noting the change. Several press freedom groups and the White House Correspondents' Association have condemned the ban. A hearing on the AP's motion for a temporary restraining order is scheduled for Monday in Washington federal court.US judge to hear AP challenge to Trump's ban over use of Gulf of Mexico name | ReutersThe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has closed its investigation into Robinhood's cryptocurrency division without taking any action, the company announced Monday. Robinhood's stock rose 2.9% in premarket trading following the news. The investigation began in May 2024 when the SEC warned Robinhood that it could face charges for potential securities law violations related to its crypto operations. The decision comes shortly after the SEC dropped a separate lawsuit against Coinbase, another major crypto firm.US SEC closes investigation into Robinhood with no action | ReutersThe federal judiciary has advised judges and staff to ignore an email from the Trump administration requesting they report five accomplishments from the past week. The email, sent by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) as part of a broader government efficiency effort, was shared by Elon Musk on X before reaching federal employees. Judiciary officials said they would address the matter with OPM but urged recipients not to respond. Legal experts criticized the request as a possible violation of the separation of powers, arguing that the executive branch has no authority over the judiciary. Some judges and clerks in Washington, D.C., and Texas confirmed receiving the email. Constitutional scholars warned that such an inquiry, particularly when federal courts are handling cases involving Trump's policies, could be an inappropriate intrusion by the executive branch. The request is part of an initiative to reduce government spending, which has already led to significant federal job cuts.Judiciary Tells Judges, Staff to Ignore Email to Explain Work This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Judiciary Act of 1801On February 13, 1801, the U.S. Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, a controversial law that reshaped the federal court system. Enacted in the final days of John Adams' presidency, the Act reduced the number of Supreme Court justices from six to five and created sixteen new federal judgeships. It also eliminated the justices' duty to "ride circuit" by establishing separate circuit courts with their own judges. The law expanded federal jurisdiction, making it easier for creditors to bring cases in federal courts and granting them broader enforcement powers. Federalists, who controlled Congress at the time, saw this as a way to strengthen the judiciary before Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson took office.Adams quickly filled the newly created judgeships with Federalist allies, leading to accusations of court-packing and what became known as the "Midnight Judges" scandal. Jefferson and his party viewed the Act as an illegitimate attempt to entrench Federalist power in the judiciary. In 1802, the newly elected Republican-majority Congress repealed the Act, effectively undoing the judicial restructuring. This marked one of the first major political battles over the structure and independence of the federal courts. It also set the stage for future conflicts over judicial appointments and reforms.The Judiciary Act of 1801 played a key role in shaping the relationship between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. It demonstrated how shifts in political power could influence the courts and foreshadowed later debates over judicial authority. The controversy surrounding the Act also contributed to the landmark 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, in which Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review. This episode remains a crucial moment in American legal history, illustrating the judiciary's evolving role in government.Cathy Harris, a Democratic appointee to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), has sued President Trump over her removal from office, arguing that the firing was unlawful. Trump also dismissed Ray Limon, the board's vice chair, and replaced Harris with Republican Henry Kerner as acting chair. The MSPB, an independent agency, hears appeals from federal workers who are fired or disciplined—a role that could become crucial as Trump pushes to shrink the federal workforce.Harris argues that her removal violates legal protections for independent agency officials, citing the Supreme Court's 1935 ruling in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which limits a president's ability to fire certain officials without cause. Trump's decision to involve Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency in identifying federal job cuts adds urgency to the case. The lawsuit is part of a broader legal battle, as Gwynne Wilcox, another Democratic official fired from the National Labor Relations Board, has filed a similar claim.A hearing is set for Thursday before U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, where Harris is seeking a temporary restraining order to regain her position. The White House defends Trump's authority to remove officials, setting up a potential Supreme Court fight over presidential power and the future of independent agencies.Member of US government employee appeals board sues over Trump firing | ReutersA federal court in Massachusetts has implemented new rules to curb "judge shopping" as lawsuits against President Trump's policies continue to mount. Chief U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor issued an order requiring that cases seeking to block federal laws or policies be randomly assigned across the entire district, preventing litigants from filing in single-judge courthouses in Springfield and Worcester to secure favorable rulings.This move aligns with a 2024 U.S. Judicial Conference policy aimed at discouraging strategic case filings, a practice criticized when conservatives challenged Democratic policies in Texas courts with Republican-appointed judges. Massachusetts, a frequent battleground for legal challenges to Trump's agenda, has seen its judges temporarily block his administration's efforts on government employee buyouts, research funding cuts, and prison transfers for transgender individuals.With most of Massachusetts' federal judges appointed by Democratic presidents, the concern was that plaintiffs could manipulate the system by filing in small courthouses with sympathetic judges. While some federal districts have adopted similar rules, others, including in Texas, have resisted. The issue remains contentious, with Senate Republicans and some conservative judges opposing the policy as unnecessary judicial interference.Massachusetts federal court curbs 'judge shopping' as Trump lawsuits mount | ReutersThe explosive growth of Bitcoin has brought with it a significant environmental toll, with mining now consuming up to 2.6% of U.S. electricity and producing emissions comparable to entire nations. Bitcoin's proof-of-work (PoW) system relies on energy-intensive mining, straining electrical grids, driving up prices, and using vast amounts of water for cooling. Despite these concerns, states like Texas have embraced miners, offering low-cost energy and deregulated markets.The Trump administration's January 2025 executive order on digital assets calls for “responsible growth,” but it remains unclear whether sustainability will be a priority. The order could enable states to integrate eco-friendly policies, such as tax incentives for green mining or licensing tied to renewable energy use. Addressing crypto's environmental impact could also be framed as an issue of energy independence and national security, potentially making it more politically viable.A carbon tax on PoW mining could be one way to push the industry toward cleaner energy, though it would be a tough sell under a deregulatory GOP administration. However, some conservatives, including economist Art Laffer, have supported carbon taxation in the past. If Bitcoin miners want to avoid future crackdowns, they may need to adopt sustainability measures before stricter policies are imposed. Whether the executive order leads to real change remains uncertain, but the environmental costs of crypto mining are only growing.Bitcoin's Boom Comes With Corresponding Booming Environmental Costs This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Today special guest is Jermaine Marbury.This show will feature host Tiffany as she interviews independent wrestlers/Promoters/Refs from all over! Twitter -https://x.com/JermaineMarburyFacebook-https://www.facebook.com/JermaineMarbury4.3?mibextid=LQQJ4dInstagram- @JermaineMarbury4.3Merch - https://linktr.ee/jermainemarbury«««« Official Theme Song by This Wolf (Enough is Enough) »»»» YouTube: [http://bit.ly/Thiswolf](http://bit.ly/Thiswolf) # Wrestling #WrestlingCommunity #Sports #IndieWrestling #IndieWrestling #JermaineMarbury

Unless we terminate the erroneous notion of judicial supremacism, we will be left with tyranny, and Trump and red states will be powerless to change anything. In today's extra-long episode, I offer the definitive history, legal case, and philosophical argument against judicial supremacism and in favor of constitutional decompartmentalization. I explain the system our founders adopted and rejected, the true lesson of Marbury v. Madison, and the difference between judicial review and judicial supremacism. There is no such thing as a judicial veto on a law and policy, and the other branches have an even greater obligation and power to push back against bad rulings that affect broad political questions. I explain how Trump can "walk before running" and slowly inch away from judicial supremacism in cases where judges try to mandate affirmative executive actions on issues that are clearly out of their jurisdiction.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: George Washington Unanimously ElectedOn February 4, 1789, George Washington was unanimously elected as the first President of the United States by the Electoral College, setting a precedent for democratic governance under the newly ratified Constitution. His election marked the formal beginning of the executive branch, shaping the legal and political framework of the young nation. On the same date in 1801, John Marshall was sworn in as Chief Justice of the United States. Marshall's tenure, spanning 34 years, would profoundly influence American law, particularly through landmark decisions like Marbury v. Madison, which established judicial review. His leadership solidified the Supreme Court as a coequal branch of government. Decades later, on February 4, 1945, the Yalta Conference began, with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin meeting to discuss Europe's post-World War II reorganization. The conference had lasting legal implications, shaping international law, the formation of the United Nations, and the division of Germany. More recently, on this day in 1997, a civil jury found O.J. Simpson liable for the wrongful deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, a stark contrast to his earlier criminal trial acquittal. This verdict highlighted the differing burdens of proof in civil versus criminal law. Each of these events reflects the evolving nature of law and governance, from the founding of the presidency to the expansion of judicial power and international legal agreements.President Donald Trump has announced plans to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 as part of his strategy to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. The law, originally passed during rising tensions with France, gives the president broad authority to detain, deport, or impose restrictions on foreign nationals deemed a threat during wartime. It can be activated when the U.S. is at war or facing an “invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign government. Trump has directed his administration to assess whether drug cartels operating in the U.S. qualify as an invasion, which could serve as the legal basis for invoking the act.Historically, the Alien Enemies Act has been used in wartime, including during the War of 1812 and both World Wars. President Woodrow Wilson imposed restrictions on foreign nationals, and President Franklin Roosevelt used the law to justify the internment of Japanese, German, and Italian Americans during World War II. The Supreme Court has upheld the law's constitutionality, even allowing deportations after wartime, as seen in the 1948 case of a former Nazi, Kurt Ludecke. However, courts have been reluctant to define “invasion” broadly, previously ruling that large numbers of migrants crossing the border do not meet the founders' definition of an armed threat.Democratic lawmakers have recently pushed to repeal the act, citing its historical use in violating civil rights. If Trump proceeds with his plan, legal challenges will likely arise over whether cartel activity constitutes an invasion and whether the law can be used outside of traditional wartime contexts.What is the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 that Trump wants to use in deportations? | ReutersA Trump-appointed federal prosecutor, Edward Martin, has warned that anyone obstructing Elon Musk's government efficiency initiative could face criminal charges. In a letter posted on X, Martin assured Musk that his office would take legal action against anyone threatening or hindering the work of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Musk responded with a public thank-you.The warning follows reports that career government officials tried to block DOGE employees from accessing sensitive information. At the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), two top security officials were removed after preventing DOGE representatives from entering secure areas. Similarly, a Treasury Department official reportedly resisted efforts by DOGE to access financial systems.Martin revealed that his office had been working with DOGE but did not provide specifics. He also encouraged Musk to report any “questionable conduct” for potential legal action. The Trump administration has been expanding its control over the Justice Department, recently launching an investigation into a sheriff's office for releasing an undocumented immigrant in defiance of federal orders. Martin, who previously dropped all Jan. 6-related cases, has been outspoken in support of Trump, a departure from the typical neutrality of U.S. attorneys.US prosecutor warns of legal risk for anyone hindering Musk's efficiency effort | ReutersLawyers representing plaintiffs in a $2.8 billion antitrust settlement with Blue Cross Blue Shield have asked a federal judge in Alabama to approve over $754 million in legal fees and expenses. The legal team, led by Joe Whatley and Edith Kallas, is requesting $657.1 million in fees—equal to 23.47% of the settlement fund—along with at least $97 million in expenses. They argue this percentage is consistent with a similar $2.7 billion Blue Cross settlement in 2020, which awarded lawyers a comparable fee.The case, which has been in litigation for over a decade, accuses Blue Cross of dividing the country into exclusive territories to avoid competition, which allegedly drove up insurance costs and lowered reimbursements. Blue Cross has denied any wrongdoing. The lawyers claim they have worked 373,000 hours and spent $100 million on expert witnesses and other expenses.A previous $2.7 billion settlement involving Blue Cross, which addressed overcharging claims, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court last year and resulted in $667 million in legal fees. The current settlement agreement permits lawyers to request up to 25% of the total fund for legal fees, leaving the judge to decide whether the request is reasonable.Lawyers seek $754 million in new Blue Cross antitrust settlement | ReutersA U.S. judge has extended a pause on the Trump administration's plan to freeze federal loans, grants, and financial aid after advocacy groups challenged the policy in court. Judge Loren AliKhan warned that cutting off funding would be "catastrophic" for organizations serving the public interest. The extension follows an earlier short-term pause, which was set to expire Monday.The funding freeze originated from a White House budget office memo directing agencies to halt funding in line with Trump's executive orders on immigration, climate change, and diversity. The memo was later withdrawn, but some grant recipients reported ongoing difficulties accessing funds.A Rhode Island judge issued a separate restraining order last week in response to a lawsuit from 22 Democratic attorneys general and Washington, D.C. Despite these rulings, a Trump administration lawyer argued that the president has the right to direct agencies under his executive authority. The legal battle over whether the funding freeze can move forward remains unresolved.US judge extends pause on Trump's plan to freeze federal grants, loans | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The U.S. Constitution establishes the framework of the federal government and divides power among three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review, empowering the judiciary to strike down unconstitutional laws. Federalism divides power between the federal government and the states. The federal government has enumerated powers, while states retain reserved powers. The Supremacy Clause resolves conflicts between state and federal law, with federal law being supreme. The Separation of Powers doctrine outlines the powers and responsibilities of each branch of government, with checks and balances to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. Key cases illustrate the evolution and interpretation of these powers over time. Individual rights, including First Amendment freedoms, Due Process, and Equal Protection, are protected by the Constitution. Landmark Supreme Court cases have shaped the interpretation and application of these rights, balancing individual liberties with government interests. The lectures emphasize the importance of understanding these constitutional concepts for success on the bar exam and in legal practice.

Constitutional Law Lecture 1 – Structure of Government and Separation of Powers Source: Excerpts from "Constitutional Law Lecture 1: The Structure of Government and Separation of Powers" I. Foundational Overview I begin by noting that the U.S. Constitution creates a structure of government designed to prevent tyranny. The three branches—Congress (legislative), the President (executive), and the courts (judicial)—operate under a system of separation of powers. This arrangement is complemented by checks and balances, whereby each branch can restrain the others. Federalism further divides power between the federal government and the states. Key Themes: Separation of Powers: This doctrine ensures that no single branch amasses unchecked authority. “Separation of powers is … the bedrock of the American constitutional system.” Checks and Balances: Each branch has devices (like vetoes or judicial review) to limit the other branches. “These interlocking mechanisms create a dynamic tension that fosters a balance of power.” Federalism: The Constitution specifies certain powers (enumerated) for the federal government and reserves others for the states. Judicial Review: Established in Marbury v. Madison, it empowers courts to strike down unconstitutional laws or actions. “Without Marbury, the checks and balances system would lack a critical enforcement mechanism.” Supremacy Clause: Federal law preempts conflicting state law, unifying legal standards throughout the nation. II. Constitutional Foundations Articles I, II, III, and VI Article I defines Congress's powers, including the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Article II vests executive power in the President, granting authority as Commander-in-Chief and in foreign affairs. Article III establishes the judiciary, anchored by the Supreme Court. Article VI contains the Supremacy Clause, ensuring federal law supremacy. Federalism and Division of Power Enumerated Powers: Taxation, regulation of interstate commerce, defense. Reserved Powers: Those retained by states (e.g., police powers, education). Key Cases: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) upheld implied federal powers. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) expanded Congress's reach over interstate commerce. III. Separation of Powers Doctrine Legislative Powers (Congress) Commerce Clause: Broad authority over interstate activities, yet subject to judicial limits (United States v. Lopez). Taxing and Spending: Congress can attach conditions to federal funds (South Dakota v. Dole). Necessary and Proper Clause: Permits laws essential to carrying out enumerated powers. Nondelegation Doctrine: Congress must not transfer its core legislative function to another branch (INS v. Chadha). Executive Powers (President) Commander-in-Chief: Authority over military decisions. Appointment: Nominates judges and officials (with Senate approval). Veto: Power to reject legislation. Foreign Affairs: Treaties, diplomacy; recognized as broad in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. Key Cases: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) – limited executive power over private property without legislative authorization. United States v. Nixon (1974) – limited executive privilege in criminal investigations. Judicial Powers Judicial Review: Power to invalidate unconstitutional statutes (Marbury v. Madison). Justiciability: Requires standing, ripeness, and mootness for a federal court to hear a case (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife). Federal Question Jurisdiction: Authority over federal issues; example: Brown v. Board of Education (1954) advanced civil rights jurisprudence. IV. Checks and Balances in Practice Interbranch Conflicts Congress → Executive: Impeachment, budgetary control. Executive → Congress: Veto power, executive orders. Judiciary → Both: Judicial review of legislative acts and executive actions (Cooper v. Aaron). Balancing National Security and Civil Liberties Key examples include Korematsu v. United States (1944) and Ha --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Constitutional Law Lecture 1 - Structure of Government and Separation of Powers Introduction This lecture provides an overview of the structure of the U.S. government, emphasizing the doctrines of separation of powers and checks and balances, alongside foundational constitutional principles like federalism, judicial review, and constitutional supremacy. Key themes include: Separation of Powers: Division of authority among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to prevent tyranny. Checks and Balances: Mechanisms for interbranch accountability. Federalism: Division of powers between the federal government and states. Judicial Review: Courts' power to declare laws unconstitutional. Constitutional Supremacy: Federal law and the Constitution take precedence over state law. Part 1: Constitutional Foundations Overview of the Constitution: Articles I, II, and III establish legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Article VI's Supremacy Clause ensures federal law overrides state laws. Marbury v. Madison (1803) established judicial review, making courts coequal enforcers of the Constitution. Federalism: Balances federal and state authority: Federal powers: Taxation, interstate commerce, national defense (e.g., Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)). State powers: Police powers, education, intrastate commerce (reserved via the 10th Amendment). Key cases: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Established federal supremacy and implied powers. Arizona v. United States (2012): Reinforced federal preemption over conflicting state laws. Printz v. United States (1997): Limited federal overreach on states' autonomy. Part 2: The Separation of Powers Doctrine Legislative Powers (Article I): Bicameral Congress enacts laws using powers such as: Commerce Clause (e.g., Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) expanded federal power; United States v. Lopez (1995) limited it). Taxing and Spending Power (e.g., South Dakota v. Dole (1987) upheld conditional federal funding). Necessary and Proper Clause: Authorizes laws to execute enumerated powers. Limits: Nondelegation Doctrine: Congress must set clear guidelines when delegating authority. Presentment Clause: Bills must pass both chambers and be presented to the President (INS v. Chadha (1983) invalidated legislative vetoes). Executive Powers (Article II): Includes: Commander-in-Chief authority. Appointment power (subject to Senate confirmation; limited by NLRB v. Noel Canning (2014)). Veto power and foreign affairs authority (United States v. Curtiss-Wright (1936)). Limits: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952): Prohibited unauthorized presidential seizure of private property. United States v. Nixon (1974): Limited executive privilege, affirming no one is above the law. Judicial Powers (Article III): Supreme Court exercises judicial review (Marbury v. Madison) and hears cases involving federal law or constitutional issues. Justiciability doctrines: Standing: E.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992). Ripeness, mootness, and political questions limit courts' jurisdiction. Federal judges' independence is ensured through life tenure and salary protections. Part 3: Checks and Balances in Practice Interbranch Conflicts: Legislative Checks on Executive: Impeachment (e.g., impeachments of Johnson, Clinton, Trump). Control of funding and oversight hearings. Executive Checks on Legislative: Veto power, executive orders, and signing statements. Judicial Checks on Both: Judicial review (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education, Cooper v. Aaron (1958) reaffirmed federal judicial supremacy). Balancing National Security and Civil Liberties: Cases such as: Korematsu v. United States (1944): Upheld controversial wartime actions, later repudiated by Trump v. Hawaii (2018). Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004): Affirmed detainees' due process rights. Ex parte Milligan (1866): Limited military tribunals where civilian courts are operational. Practical Applications and Exam Strategies Hypotheticals to Consider: Delegation of power to agencies --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Join us as we explore the fascinating case of an Amish Family facing legal challenges due to their religious beliefs and traffic violations, alongside law students Troy and Bella from Capital University Law School. The episode kicks off with a discussion on the Amish family's predicament, where a traffic violation escalated into a criminal charge of child endangerment. This case serves as a perfect backdrop to explore the intricacies of legal procedures, the different types of pleas, and the consequences of each. Our host provides an insightful breakdown of how traffic violations can lead to criminal charges, illustrating the complexities that often arise in the legal system. As the conversation unfolds, we delve deeper into constitutional rights and the challenges of self-representation in court. The Amish family's refusal to hire an attorney due to religious beliefs adds another layer of complexity to the case. This scenario prompts a discussion on the importance of understanding one's rights and the potential pitfalls of navigating the legal system without professional guidance. The discussion turns to the value of having an advocate who can maintain objectivity and provide sound legal advice, something that individuals representing themselves often lack. The episode also touches on the historical context of judicial review, referencing the landmark case of Marbury vs. Madison. This historical perspective enriches the discussion, providing listeners with a broader understanding of how constitutional challenges are addressed within the legal framework. For aspiring lawyers and legal enthusiasts, this episode offers a treasure trove of insights. It underscores the importance of practical experience and the need to continually learn beyond the classroom. Key Moments(01:00) The Amish Traffic Case(05:30) Legal Procedures and Pleas(15:00) Constitutional Challenges(25:45) Judicial Review and Historical Context(35:20) Representing Yourself in Court(45:00) Legal Clinics and ResourcesSubmit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2024 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

Constitutional Law - Day 1 Main Themes: Judicial Review: The power of the courts to interpret the Constitution and invalidate laws/actions of other branches. Sources of Federal Power: How the Constitution grants and limits federal authority. Separation of Powers: The division of government functions into distinct branches to prevent tyranny. Checks and Balances: Mechanisms ensuring each branch limits the power of the others, maintaining equilibrium. key Ideas/Facts: I. Judicial Review: Established by Marbury v. Madison (1803), giving courts power to "say what the law is" and strike down unconstitutional acts. Ensures the Constitution is supreme and protects individual rights from unchecked legislative/executive power. Quote: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is." - Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison Limitations on Judicial Power: Standing: Parties must have a direct stake in the case's outcome, preventing advisory opinions on hypothetical issues. Ripeness: Cases must be sufficiently developed with a present controversy, not premature or theoretical. Mootness: Cases where the issue is already resolved are dismissed, as no practical relief can be offered. Political Question Doctrine: Courts avoid inherently political matters best left to other branches (e.g., foreign policy). II. Sources of Federal Power: Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8): Grants Congress power to regulate interstate commerce. Broadly interpreted to cover activities affecting interstate commerce, even if local (Wickard v. Filburn). Used to address national issues like civil rights (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.) and environmental protection. Taxing and Spending Power (Article I, Section 8): Allows Congress to levy taxes and spend for general welfare. Used to raise revenue and incentivize state policies (South Dakota v. Dole - drinking age tied to highway funds). Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8): Grants Congress implied powers to execute its enumerated powers. McCulloch v. Maryland: Upheld Congress's power to establish a national bank, even though not explicitly listed. III. Separation of Powers: Executive Branch (President): Enforces laws, conducts foreign relations, commands armed forces. Checks: Congress can override vetoes, control funding, declare war; Judiciary can review actions for constitutionality. Legislative Branch (Congress): Makes laws, levies taxes, declares war, oversees the budget. Checks: Bicameral structure requires approval from both chambers; can impeach officials; confirms appointments. Judicial Branch (Courts): Interprets laws, ensures constitutionality through judicial review. Checks: Life tenure for judges insulates from political pressure; Congress can impeach; President appoints judges. IV. Checks and Balances: Ensures no branch becomes too powerful and maintains accountability within the system. Examples: Congress can override Presidential vetoes. President can veto legislation. Courts can declare laws/actions unconstitutional. Congress controls federal spending, influencing executive policy. Senate confirms judicial appointments, shaping the judiciary. Overall: This session highlights the dynamic tension inherent in the U.S. government's structure. The Constitution establishes a framework for power but relies on judicial interpretation and inter-branch checks to ensure balance and protect individual rights. Understanding these principles is crucial for comprehending how the U.S. system functions and evolves. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Representing most of Michigan's 83 Counties with various products, this Traverse City-based organization supports local business!Listen to Christina Marbury of Taste the Local Difference and discover its unique services. Taste the Local Difference is a women-owned, women-led local food marketing agency specializing in tailored strategies for agriculture, food, and beverage producers. Their mission is to support local businesses by ensuring that money stays within the local economy, fostering job creation and strengthening communities. By collaborating with farms and food-related enterprises, they not only boost visibility but also educate consumers on the importance of local food systems and how their choices can have a positive impact.

For a lot of our small business owners, we've got good news: noncompetes are legal again. Today we interview John Sauer, attorney and expert on business law. John and Nate discuss the legal implications of a sudden direction shift legalizing popular agreements employers sign with key employees; and stay for the end when they discuss the future. Is this a new era in American Law, where judges are kings? Find out their opinions. As always, it is good to have an expert on your side. 00:03 FTC ban on non-compete agreements is struck down by the Ryan Court 00:10 Chevron deference 14:30 Marbury vs. Madison 18:00 an ever-expanding government, is this era coming to a close? 21:00 cold comfort…now appointed judges have “power of kings” 25:00 litigation is going to explode As a quick reminder, the Expert Network Team provides free consultations. We would love the opportunity to be of service to you or someone you care about. Just scroll the liner notes to contact one of our experts or today's guest. And please share this podcast with anyone who you think might find it interesting. — Expert Network team provides free consultations. Just mention that you listened to the podcast.  Nathan Merrill, attorney Working with affluent families and entrepreneurs in implementing tax-efficient strategies and wealth preservation Goodspeed, Merrill (720) 473-7644 nmerrill@goodspeedmerrill.com www.goodspeedmerrill.com   Jeff Krommendyk, Insurance Expert Working with business owners and successful families in transferring risk One Digital Insurance Agency (303) 730-2327 jeff.krommendyk@onedigital.com   Karl Frank Financial planner helping a small number of successful families grow and protect their wealth and choose how they want to be taxed CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ A&I Wealth Management (303) 690.5070 karl@assetsandincome.com   Webcasts, Podcasts, Streaming Video, Streaming Audio A&I webcasts, podcasts, streaming video, or streaming audios are provided free of charge solely for use by individuals for personal, noncommercial uses, and may be downloaded for such uses only, provided that the content is not edited or modified in any way and provided that all copyright and other notices are not erased or deleted. All webcasts, podcasts, streaming video, or streaming audios are subject to and protected by U.S. and international copyright laws and may not be sold, edited, modified, used to create new works, redistributed or used for the purpose of promoting, advertising, endorsing or implying a connection with A&I. A&I reserves the right, at any time and for any reason, to stop offering webcasts, podcasts, streaming video, or streaming audios and to stop access to or use of webcasts, podcasts, streaming video, or streaming audio and any content contained therein A&I shall not be liable for any loss or damage suffered as a result of, or connected with, the downloading or use of the webcasts, podcasts, streaming video, or streaming audios.   - A&I Wealth Management is a registered investment adviser that only conducts business in jurisdictions where it is properly registered, or is excluded or exempted from registration requirements. Registration as an investment adviser is not an endorsement of the firm by securities regulators and does not mean the adviser has achieved a specific level of skill or ability. The firm is not engaged in the practice of law or accounting. - The information presented is believed to be current. It should not be viewed as personalized investment advice. All expressions of opinion reflect the judgment of the presenter on the date of the podcast and are subject to change. The information presented is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell, any of the securities discussed. You should consult with a professional adviser before implementing any of the strategies discussed. Any legal or tax information provided in this podcast is general in nature. Always consult an attorney or tax professional regarding your specific legal or tax situation.

On today's episode, we welcome New York Knicks legends, Stephon Marbury & Mikal Bridges, live from Central Park! The guys talk about Mikal's offseason, share untold Knicks stories, and more! You don't want to miss this one, make sure you're subscribed to never miss an episode of the ROOMMATES SHOW!Our NEW merch drop is LIVE at: http://RoommatesMerch.comGet 25% off your first order at http://www.TommyJohn.com/ROOMIESStay hyped and hydrated with BODYARMOR!! Available in stores nationwide but you can head on over now to the BODYARMOR Store on Amazon & get yours today!New Bet365 customers now get $200 in bonus bets when you bet $5. Download the Bet365 app today.TT: https://www.tiktok.com/@roommatesshowIG: https://www.instagram.com/theroommatesshowX/TW: https://twitter.com/roommates__showChapters:0:00-1:54 Block Party Intro1:55-2:56 Walkout entrance2:57-3:15 MVP Chant Central Park3:16-4:19 Mikal Entrance4:20-6:20 BKN-NYK Trade reaction6:21-7:38 Mikal's offseason7:39-8:08 Mikal # Change8:09-9:15 "BKN made me better"9:17-9:45 DAMN9:46-11:20 the FaceTime11:21-13:06 "would you try breastmilk?"13:07-15:09 Growth since NOVA15:10-16:28 474 game streak16:29-18:06 NBA Finals18:07-19:04 I love the Garden19:05-21:37 high & lows21:38-22:45 OG-Kale Defense22:46-23:37 "I've bust yo ass for years"23:38-24:06 who has best swag?24:07-25:07 best 3pt celly?25:08-25:52 Mikal's promise25:53-26:57 Tommy John26:58-27:25 Marbury entrance27:26-28:28 Hometown Kid28:29-29:37 NYC Flavor29:38-30:28 Which teams runs NY?30:29-31:12 Michael Jordan at MSG31:13-31:42 Best game @ MSG31:43-33:00 Starbury shoe33:01-34:31 What Steph said courtside34:32-36:30 China hoops36:31-38:11 Best draft class ever?38:12-39:20 Courtside at Olympics39:21-40:55 truth about KG40:56-41:48 Best trash talker ever41:49-43:44 Chamelo & business43:45-45:07 NBA Comparisons45:08-46:33 82 Games/48 mins46:34-48:07 sacrifices/ bball gateway48:08-48:36 Body Armor48:38-49:14 Macy's49:15-49:33 Bet36549:34-52:24 top 5 toughest matchups52:25-52:32 outro52:32-53:34 Part 2 previewMB01CGL4LBKK8ZT#nba #jalenbrunson #joshhart #knicksnba #mikalbridges #stephonmarbury #basketball #newyorkcity #nyc #roommates #blockparty #liveshow #newyorkknicks #knicksGAMBLING PROBLEM? CALL OR TEXT 1-800-GAMBLER (AZ, CO, IN, KY, LA, NC, NJ, OH, PA, VA) or 1-800-BETS OFF (IA). 21+ only (18+ in KY). T&C's apply. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Our economy is crippling due to violence, discrimination and unfair justice  through many political practices. Many issues can be resolved with unity because color and gender are detrimental factors in evolution, we as people must learn the systemic design and creation of division. Making the world great again with understanding the systemic manipulations created for division is the beginning phase for change. Facts will reveal the economy built for separation to control our outcome. Maurice maximized his time by furthering his education and double majored in psychology and theology to find out why we, as a black people, have been targeted and brainwashed to have a black inferior complex that we have collectively been groomed to accept and live by. Maurice began to change his life from a gangster being feared in the streets and prison, and his own brainwashing to becoming humble in a world where humbleness is conceived to be a sign of weakness. Living by examples he never had was now the focus.Maurice began to assist with putting on plays for ‘scared straight' in prison, learned and taught “Anger Management” and “Don't Sweat the Small Stuff,” along with receiving certification from the Chemical Dependency board as a Chemical Dependency Counselor Assistant (CDCA), became a certified mental health specialist and several other programs to assist in changing the mindset that we have been groomed to have which causes us to act as we do. Maurice studied business management and copyrighted several businesses from 1997-2000, including COLLECTIVE MINDS, LLC. Collective Minds, LLC. was born from the passion Marbury has overall for black people. Maurice came home from prison October 12, 2004 with a mind that was changed and ready for society. Maurice realized that he could change his learned thought process to one that allows him to make better decisions in life and knowing it can do the same for others. Maurice formulated the plan for Collective Minds LLC., while in prison but began to apply it as a business in 2015 based on the attributable foundations: “Cultural Awareness, Education, Economic Development, and Empowerment” of US that we as a black people need to acknowledge and digest in order to stop being divided, and to become a united people, COLLECTIVELY.Visit our Instagram at:IG: @financial_legacy_leaYou can reach us at:Email: president@aleashelpinghand.visionTo learn more, visit:http://www.aleashelpinghand.vision/Listen to more episodes on Mission Matters:https://missionmatters.com/author/lea-smith

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Moore v Harper. In this case, the court considered this issue: Under the U-S Constitution, does the state legislative body, independent of any constraints by state courts or other laws, have sole authority to regulate federal elections?  The case was decided on June 27, 2023. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. First, the Court confirmed that it had jurisdiction to review the case. The North Carolina Supreme Court's decision to overrule its previous judgment did not moot the case because there remains a live dispute between the parties. Second, the Court concluded that the Elections Clause does not grant state legislatures exclusive authority to regulate federal elections. Judicial review has been an accepted practice since Marbury v Madison, and under the Court's precedents, the Elections Clause authority of state legislatures is subject to checks and balances provided by the state constitution. State legislatures are not wholly independent bodies, and they are bound by the constraints imposed by the state constitutions. Third, state courts have the authority to interpret state laws affecting federal elections, but they cannot sidestep federal law. The Court declined to decide whether the North Carolina Supreme Court in this case overstepped its authority because that issue was not properly before it. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a concurring opinion noting that while the Court need not answer the question of which standard a federal court should employ to review a state court's interpretation of state law in a case implicating the Elections Clause, there are three standards from which to choose that all convey the same point—deference but not abdication. Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito joined, arguing that the question presented in the case was moot, and that the writ of certiorari should be dismissed. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Explore the minds of pro wrestlers as we engage in thought-provoking conversations about their wrestling styles, character development, and the artistry behind their performances. #3countpodcast #3count #reddawg #chazthedon #nowenteringthering #chazandfriends #ProWrestling #WrestlingInterviews #WrestlingLegends #BehindTheRing#WrestlingCommunity #WrestlingFans #WrestlingTalk #WrestlingInsider #InsideTheSquaredCircle #WrestlingLifestyle --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/the3count/support

Send us a Text Message.Join Boozy and Alkali as we discuss how a long running feud of two founding fathers constantly trying to piss off the other one led to the concept of judicial review and the creation of a court that has daily reminded the American public they are essentially black-robed gods as we discuss the case of Marbury v. Madison live at Anthrocon 2024 in Pittsburgh!HUGE shoutout this episode to Silvergatomon, who saved the day by providing us with a clean copy of the audio when Boozy's cheap mic that he refused to replace gave up in the middle of recording, and almost created a lost episode!Legal Funhouse Theme by Status Ferret. Check out his stuff here!Support the Show.Support Boozy over on Patreon, or maybe watch him at Twitch If you want to support Alkali, you can do that at his Twitch channel or on their Patreon!

Chapter 6: Judicial Powers Chapter 6 explores the role and authority of the judicial branch of the United States government, emphasizing its critical function in interpreting the law, safeguarding the Constitution, and ensuring justice. The chapter delves into the jurisdiction of federal courts, the powers of the Supreme Court, and the principles of judicial independence and accountability. Jurisdiction of Federal Courts Federal courts in the United States have a specific jurisdiction that allows them to hear and decide cases involving federal law, disputes between states, and issues that cross state boundaries. The chapter outlines the structure of the federal judiciary, which includes three main levels: District Courts: Trial Courts: These are the primary trial courts of the federal system, handling both civil and criminal cases. They have original jurisdiction over cases involving federal statutes, constitutional rights, and other federal matters. Scope: District courts determine the facts of a case, apply relevant laws, and issue judgments. There are 94 district courts across the United States, each serving a specific geographic area. Courts of Appeals: Appellate Courts: Also known as Circuit Courts, they review decisions made by District Courts. The Courts of Appeals focus on legal errors and procedural issues rather than re-evaluating factual evidence. Structure: There are 13 appellate courts in the U.S., including 12 regional circuits and one Federal Circuit. These courts play a critical role in developing federal law and ensuring consistency across the judiciary. Supreme Court: Highest Court: The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutional and federal legal issues. It has discretionary appellate jurisdiction, meaning it can choose which cases to hear. Judicial Review: The Court's power of judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison, allows it to declare laws and executive actions unconstitutional, reinforcing the supremacy of the Constitution. Principles of Federal Jurisdiction The jurisdiction of federal courts is governed by several principles: Justiciability: Federal courts only hear actual cases or controversies, ensuring judicial power is exercised in the context of real disputes. Standing: Parties must demonstrate a personal stake in the case's outcome, showing they have suffered or will suffer a concrete injury that the court can remedy. Federal Question and Diversity Jurisdiction: Federal courts handle cases involving significant federal legal questions or disputes between citizens of different states, ensuring national legal standards are applied consistently. Powers of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court's powers are extensive and pivotal to shaping American law and society: Judicial Review: Constitutionality: The Supreme Court can assess the constitutionality of laws and executive actions, striking down those that violate constitutional principles. Landmark Cases: Decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and Obergefell v. Hodges illustrate the Court's role in advancing civil rights and shaping societal norms. Interpretation of the Constitution: Philosophies: Justices may follow interpretive philosophies like originalism or the "living Constitution" approach, influencing how they view the Constitution's application to contemporary issues. Setting Precedents: The Court establishes legal precedents through its rulings, guiding lower courts and shaping future legal interpretations. Appellate and Original Jurisdiction: Certiorari Process: The Supreme Court selectively hears cases of national significance, resolving conflicting decisions among lower courts. Original Jurisdiction: The Court hears limited cases, such as disputes between states or involving ambassadors, addressing matters of immediate national importance. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Show #2188 Show Notes: Dennis Green in Court: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10169207021715537&set=a.10150723464450537 Rolling Back the Administrative State: https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/rolling-back-the-administrative-state/ Marbury v. Madison: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/marbury-v-madison Greg Stenstrom: 2020 Election Was an Intel Agency Coup: https://rumble.com/v55b4gi-greg-stenstrom-freedom-of-information-act-confirms-that-2020-election-was-a.html Oath […]

Maurice saw how many black men were incarcerated leaving single mothers at home and children to grow up without fathers like he did which assisted in creating the monster he was called, and became. With this knowledge, came the desire for Maurice to reverse some of the chaos he created. However, instead of Maurice allowing his time to do him, he did his time. He maximized his time by furthering his education, and double majored in psychology, and theology to find out why we, as a black people, have been targeted, and Brainwashed to have a “black inferior complex” that we have collectively been groomed to accept and live by. Changing from gangster, and feared in the streets and prison, Maurice began to change his life, and his own brainwashing to become humble in a place where humbleness is considered to be a weakness so that he could begin to live by the examples he never had. Maurice began to assist with putting on plays for the scared straight in prison, learned and taught “Anger management” Don't Sweat the Small Stuff,”  received a certificate in C.D.C.A, became a certified mental health specialist and several other programs to assist him in changing the mindset that we have been groomed to accept and live by which causes us to act as we do, and to be viewed as we do by the world. Maurice studied business management, and formed and or copyrighted several businesses from 1997-2000, including COLLECTIVE MINDS LLC which was born from the passion Marbury has for black people as a whole. Marbury came home from prison October 12th 2004 with a mind that was changed, and ready for society. Maurice realized that he could change his learned thought process to one that allows him to make better decisions in life, and that it can and will do the same for others. Message Maurice at:infinnitefinancesgroup@yahoo.comVisit our Instagram at:IG: @financial_legacy_leaYou can reach us at:Email: president@aleashelpinghand.visionTo learn more, visit:http://www.aleashelpinghand.vision/Listen to more episodes on Mission Matters:https://missionmatters.com/author/lea-smith

This week we talk about the APA, the Supreme Court, and Marbury v. Madison.We also discuss the Chevron Doctrine, government agencies, and the administrative state.Recommended Book: A City on Mars by Kelly and Zach WeinersmithTranscriptThe Supreme Court's 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision was pivotal to US legal theory and practice because it established the concept of judicial review, which essentially said that US courts could assess laws passed through the typical legislative system, through Congress, and, if they determined those laws were unconstitutional, strike them down.This was a huge rewiring of the US government, as it gave a substantial amount of new power to the court system, and it provided a new check on the legislative system that recentered the Constitution as the source of all law; if the judges decided new laws didn't line up with that original Constitutional intent, according to their interpretation of said intent, the new laws would be a no-go.This is true of statutes that declare policy, as well, which are generally part of the law-making process, and also help shape regulations, guidelines, and other things of that nature—the fuzzier stuff that goes on to effect things, even when some of those fuzzy statements and implications aren't formalized in law, yet.So any and all of this stuff that Congress decides on could, at some point, be looked into by the US court system, and that system can say, nope, that doesn't line up with what's in the Constitution—it's not Constitutional—and that means the Constitution, following Marbury v. Madison, became a lot more of a legal reality in the country, rather than just a collection of principles and ideals, which is how some legislators and legal scholars thought of it before this ruling.Within this same entwined governmental/legal system, Congress sometimes delegates policy decision-making powers to US agencies, allowing them to make legal decisions in cases where Congress passes a law that it is some way ambiguous—saying that there need to be emissions standards on cars, for instance, but leaving the task of coming up with those standards to the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA.This delegation ability was reinforced by a 1984 Supreme Court decision, Chevron v. The Natural Resources Defense Council, today usually referred to as "Chevron" or the "Chevron decision," the justices unanimously deciding against the DC judicial circuit's ability to set government policy, reminding those justices that judges are unelected officials and thus shouldn't be making law, and that when Congress isn't specific enough in their lawmaking, this can represent an implicit desire for the agencies in charge of implementing the relevant laws in the real world to figure out the specifics for themselves; after all, they would probably know better how to do so than a bunch of lawmakers who are not experts on the subject matter in question.That case also limited the US court system's ability to review an agency's interpretation of the law, which in that specific case meant that judges shouldn't have the right to look into how US agencies decide to do things, willy-nilly, just because they don't like the outcome.Instead, they have to adhere to what has become known as the Chevron Doctrine or Chevron Deference, which says, first, the judges have to decide if Congress was clear on the matter—and if so, they go with what Congress said, no questions asked. If Congress was unclear on something, though, then they have to decide if the agency in charge of executing Congress' decision has made reasonable and permissible decisions on that implementation; and if the answer is yes in both cases, the court must accept the agency's decision on the matter.If not, though, then the court can step in and make some kind of judgement; but it's a fairly ponderous process to get to that point, because of this doctrine, and they will almost always defer to the decision made by the relevant agency, because of that 1980s-era court case.The Chevron decision is generally considered to be one of the most formative in modern case-law because it empowered US agencies with all sorts of responsibilities and rights they wouldn't have otherwise enjoyed.The Chevron case, itself, was predicated on a disagreement about the 1963 Clean Air Act, which failed to specifically define what "source" meant, in terms of emitted pollutants; Congress didn't specify. And this ambiguity led to a clarification in 1981, by then-President Reagan's EPA, that allowed companies to bypass the Act's procedures by building-out new, highly polluting components to their plants and factories, as long as they also modified other aspects of those plants and factories in such a way that emissions were reduced.An environmentalist advocacy group challenged this new definition, which amounted to a loophole that allowed companies to get around otherwise sterner emissions rules, and that's how we got the Chevron court case.What I'd like to talk about today is a recent, successful challenge to that Chevron ruling, and what it might mean for the powerful regulatory state that emerged in the US in the wake of that decision.—On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court announced their decision in a case that was originally argued in January of the same year—Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, along with a companion case on a connected matter, Relentless Inc v. Department of Commerce—the Court's decision being that the Chevron deference, which says agencies can define fuzziness left in law by Congress, conflicts with the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA, which itself says the US court system has oversight powers when it comes to all agency actions.The long and short of this decision—which was made along what are generally considered to be ideological lines within the court, the more conservative 6 justices ruling against the Chevron doctrine, the 3 more liberal justices ruling to keeping it—is that federal agencies will now have far less wiggle-room and legally backed authority when it comes to the laws and policies they enforce.And while the court also said this doesn't immediately strip prior judgements of their impact and consequences, it does mean—according to most experts who have responded to and analyzed to this ruling, at least—that we're likely to see a wave of lawsuits against agencies that have done things or refined regulations in a way that individuals or companies didn't like, which could amount to the same thing within the next couple of years: many such regulations being done away with, those agencies becoming husks of their former selves because their capabilities will be pruned back significantly.This is being seen as a victory by mostly conservative activists and lawmakers who are keen to see the regulatory components of the US government shrunk, their powers and funding depleted as a much as possible, doing away with what they sometimes derisively call the "administrative state," which they consider to be a limit on the free market and in some cases their own powers within politics and the economy.And among many other regulations, thousands of them, by some estimates, this could impact the government's ability to regulate environmental pollution, safety measures for cars and airplanes, workers' rights and health considerations, and even somewhat more wonky things like net neutrality and the legality or illegality of very specific aspects of the e-cigarette and crypto industries.For decades, these regulations have been to greater and lesser degrees interpreted—in their specifics, at least—by regulatory bodies like the FDA, the FCC, the EPA, and other such agencies. Congress has mapped out the broad strokes, leaving the details for the relevant agencies to sort out, because they knew this ruling would give those agencies the power to do so.So those laws passed in this way by a Congress that knew this was how things worked, legally, will suddenly find themselves incredibly challengeable, the legal basis of their specifics now based on flimsy justifications that the court no longer supports.These policies won't immediately disappear, then, but all of them, in their details and as a whole, are now more vulnerable to lawsuits from anyone who wants to bring them, and those who bring them will likely win, because the court system has taken away the protections those agency powers formerly leaned-upon.Consequently, there are fresh concerns from folks working in environmental spaces, those attempting to incentivize the deployment of renewable energy infrastructure, and those who are trying to protect workers' rights, that they could soon be tied up in endless court cases, many aspects of the legal understanding they've worked in accordance with other the past four decades pulled out from under them—their capacity to enforce anything not spelled out in detail by congress, which is very little because congress has gotten used to leaving that to them, in many cases, dramatically reduced.There are parallel concerns that standards that have made the US market relatively trustworthy, compared to other global marketplaces, at least, in terms of the safety of foods and medicines and all sorts of other products, might be diminished, leading to a bunch of new safety challenges, but also a demotion of American goods on the global market, because fewer sturdy regulations, at least in the short-term, could lead to more rip-offs and fakes, lower-quality items subbed in for higher-quality ones, and a bunch of risky, and even dangerous new products and services hitting the market, because these agencies are suddenly less empowered to check them out before approving them.One of the larger concerns, especially amongst folks on the political left in the US, is the impact this could have on health care.The Affordable Care Act, which provides reduced-cost insurance plans to folks who make less than a set amount of income, is enabled by a huge jumble of regulations that determine how things are paid for, who can and must participate—citizens and hospitals and pharmaceutical companies and so on—and how everything fits together, ensuring Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA can continue to function, despite relying upon often arcane methods and cost overruns.The US Treasury and IRS, too, rely heavily on regulatory powers to draft new rules and enforce the tax code, which allows for the management of money throughout government agencies and other bodies, but which also helps the government develop and deploy sticks and carrots throughout its portfolio of laws, acts, and policy-based nudges.The deployment of clean energy tax credits and incentives to help push solar and wind power development, and to encourage the construction of chip-making facilities on US soil, for instance, are all reliant on the ability to divvy out those credits, to decide how big they should be, and to determine who should get them, based on what criteria.The general outline of most of these programs is still on solid ground, because Congress decides that sort of thing, even today, but so many specific details and numbers and implementation strategies are left to agencies, and though it's possible to shore those up, Congress stepping in to vote on and pass new details into law, it will take time to do that, and especially in highly competitive spaces like chip-making, and arguably time-sensitive spaces like those related to healthcare and climate change, a gap in implementation and legality could be incredibly meaningful, and even devastating to some of these projects and their outcomes.In addition to having grown accustomed to being able to leave those sorts of details to agencies, which has impacted how they make law, the US Congress, too, has become highly polarized and at times somewhat stagnant, moving sluggishly on controversial areas, in particular, one side or the other bogging down even debate about things they don't like, rather than working with the other side to find a middle-ground they can agree upon.So while many lawmakers may want to move fast to fill in some of these gaps that have suddenly appeared across US law and capability, that desire may be held up by the reality of US politics at the moment, and systems that are often weighed-down by the people who operate them, and the systems meant to keep them ticking along, but which sometimes do the opposite.One way of looking at all this—through the lens of those who generally support this decision—is that this ruling could force Congress to get more specific in its laws, and in the meantime it could reduce the amount of bloat that can accumulate within any regulatory system; some of the sluggishness in getting new products to market, building-out new infrastructure, and passing new laws could actually be reduced, streamlining processes that currently, arguably, take too long, cost too much, and provide little benefit, all because these agencies have developed too many hoops to jump through and piles of paperwork to fill out.Another way of looking at it, from the perspective of those who generally decry this outcome, is that this will lead to a huge shock, bordering on chaos, throughout the US legal and governmental system, will do away with all sorts of government supports, leaving us with fewer protections and filters that help keep people safe, and which keep businesses from abusing their positions of power, and that it puts more power in the hands of judges, who—especially at the very top, within the Supreme Court, which made this decision—are usually put into their positions by whomever happens to be in power, occupying the presidency, when one of their predecessors retires or dies. Which is why there's such a huge 6 to 3 imbalance between conservative and liberal justices in the Supreme Court at the moment, that imbalance unlikely to go away any time soon, because those unelected positions are for life; though Republicans during the Trump administration also made it a priority to fill lower rungs of the justice system with ideological fellow travelers, so the justice system in the US, broadly, is more conservative than it has historically been, at this particular moment.There's a chance, then, that this ruling could lead to a period of reduced regulatory bloat, which could help some industries and governments cruise forward with things they've long wanted to do, but have been unable to make progress on because of all the bureaucracy standing between them and their intended goals. There's also a chance this could shake the foundations of some of the agencies that have been essentially captured by the industries they're meant to regulate, messing with those relationships in a way that's arguably better for citizens and institutions, and worse for the businesses that lobbied their way into informal regulatory power over themselves.On the other hand, it could also be that progress on much of anything will be almost impossible until these laws can be revisited and made more specific at the Congressional level, because there will be so many court challenges to everything, from all sides, that the US justice system will have a full dance card for years just sorting out the basics, and everyone will be too afraid to proceed with anything in the meantime, lest they make investments that ultimately turn out to be illegal.Notably, the Supreme Court decision in this case did say that Congress could still delegate decision-making powers to federal agencies: they just have to specifically say that's what they're doing, rather than leaving things fuzzy and assuming that will be implied. So we may also see a brief period of relative chaos, followed by basically more of the same, everything going back to how it is today because Congress makes sure to include a line of text in every law they pass that specifies that delegatory intent.One more major consideration here is that the court system, and especially the Supreme Court up at the top of the pecking order, is only so big, and already often moves at a relatively sluggish pace. That means it could have trouble addressing all the little issues Congress fails to address, regulatorily, and that it will likely take the court system a while to weed through all the cases that are expected to pop up in the wake of this decision.And that means we could see a somewhat slowed-down implementation of this new, anticipated reality—whichever version we get—which could also mean Congress, and the other facets of the government that will have to change the way they operate, has more time to get their ducks in a row, maybe reducing the impact of the shock the legal system is expected to experience over the next few years as a result of this decision.Show Noteshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Raimondohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Acthttps://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chevron-regulations-environment-4ae73d5a79cabadff4da8f7e16669929https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/politics/chevron-deference-decision-meaning.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/06/28/supreme-court-chevron-environmental-rules/https://thehill.com/homenews/ap/ap-health/ap-what-it-means-for-the-supreme-court-to-throw-out-chevron-decision-undercutting-federal-regulators/https://www.axios.com/2024/06/28/supreme-court-chevron-doctrine-rulinghttps://www.theverge.com/2024/6/28/24180118/supreme-court-chevron-deference-decision-opinionhttps://www.theverge.com/24188365/chevron-scotus-net-neutrality-dmca-visa-fcc-ftc-epahttps://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/19/climate/supreme-court-climate-epa.htmlhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdfhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madisonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

This is where we fight. Was this on your bingo card? A major party is dismissing election laws. The DNC is making their move with some appalling Governor overreach. Is there premeditated intent? It is also a violation of Ohio election law. It's easily perceived as discriminatory and differential when candidates can be presented at any time. They can't ignore thousands of letters and emails from each state. A mockery of fair and transparent. This was the reason for the Maras campaign for SOS in Ohio. It's the whole reason for equal protection and due process. 14th Amendment please. Maras for Ohio is armed to the teeth. Marbury versus Madison is the case establishing judicial authority. The DNC convention was positioned for the swap. How about that independent that ran? The integrity of elections is paramount. When it comes to documentation, we've got it all. Their planned intent is shown by your emails and letters. We will prove their plan to swap out Biden. The fraud begins at the petition stage. This is a major opportunity for us. Imagine the amount of tears cried over the trafficked children. To save them, save fair elections. What have you done to make the world a better place? Everyone needs to get involved and do their part. Remember that God's plan is always the best one.

Clayton County police announced the arrest of Michale Edwards for the murder of Briana Winston, his girlfriend, in their College Park, Georgia apartment. The incident, which occurred on March 17, took a macabre turn as Edwards allegedly strangled Winston to death after she confronted him about secretly marrying another woman. What followed was a ghastly cover-up orchestrated with the help of his own family. Lt. Ashanti Marbury of the Clayton County Police Department described the crime as anything but a "crime of passion," highlighting the evident malice and intent behind Edwards' actions. According to Lt. Marbury, Edwards, 23, engaged in a heated argument with Winston over his infidelity before fatally choking her. The aftermath of the murder unfolded gruesomely. Edwards purportedly stuffed Winston's lifeless body into a suitcase and drove to Gates, Tennessee, with the assistance of an accomplice. There, they burned her body in a barrel, using a shovel to hasten the process of incineration. "Together, the two men placed a suitcase inside of a burned barrel located behind the home, they doused it with accelerant, lit a fire, and they kept their fire burning from the early afternoon until nightfall," Marbury further said. Marbury revealed that prosecutors granted immunity to the accomplice in exchange for vital information leading to the arrests of Edwards and his family members. Subsequent investigations unveiled a sinister family involvement in the cover-up. Edwards' wife, Brieanna Phillips-Edwards, allegedly aided him by allowing the use of their car for transporting Winston's body.  According to Clayton County police, during the investigation, Edwards was already in jail on an unrelated charge. He was caught on a jail call instructing his wife, Brieanna Phillips-Edwards, to dispose of a pair of shoes and gloves.  Phillips-Edwards is now facing several charges, including being party to the commission of a crime - murder. Additionally, investigators have charged Edward's mother, Ebony Anderson, and his brother, Keilan Wright, with aiding in the destruction of evidence The timeline of events paints a horrifying picture. Winston, a mother of a 4-year-old child with Edwards, was reported missing by her family on April 1. Upon visiting her apartment, they discovered it had been completely cleared out, emanating the smell of bleach. Further inquiry revealed Winston had not shown up for work on March 17. Police intensified their investigation, eventually leading them to Ripley, Tennessee, where they recovered Winston's remains at a cemetery and along a road, approximately 430 miles from the murder scene. Edwards is currently being held at Clayton County Jail on numerous charges, including malice murder, felony murder, concealing death, and tampering with evidence. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Karen Read Trial, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Clayton County police announced the arrest of Michale Edwards for the murder of Briana Winston, his girlfriend, in their College Park, Georgia apartment. The incident, which occurred on March 17, took a macabre turn as Edwards allegedly strangled Winston to death after she confronted him about secretly marrying another woman. What followed was a ghastly cover-up orchestrated with the help of his own family. Lt. Ashanti Marbury of the Clayton County Police Department described the crime as anything but a "crime of passion," highlighting the evident malice and intent behind Edwards' actions. According to Lt. Marbury, Edwards, 23, engaged in a heated argument with Winston over his infidelity before fatally choking her. The aftermath of the murder unfolded gruesomely. Edwards purportedly stuffed Winston's lifeless body into a suitcase and drove to Gates, Tennessee, with the assistance of an accomplice. There, they burned her body in a barrel, using a shovel to hasten the process of incineration. "Together, the two men placed a suitcase inside of a burned barrel located behind the home, they doused it with accelerant, lit a fire, and they kept their fire burning from the early afternoon until nightfall," Marbury further said. Marbury revealed that prosecutors granted immunity to the accomplice in exchange for vital information leading to the arrests of Edwards and his family members. Subsequent investigations unveiled a sinister family involvement in the cover-up. Edwards' wife, Brieanna Phillips-Edwards, allegedly aided him by allowing the use of their car for transporting Winston's body.  According to Clayton County police, during the investigation, Edwards was already in jail on an unrelated charge. He was caught on a jail call instructing his wife, Brieanna Phillips-Edwards, to dispose of a pair of shoes and gloves.  Phillips-Edwards is now facing several charges, including being party to the commission of a crime - murder. Additionally, investigators have charged Edward's mother, Ebony Anderson, and his brother, Keilan Wright, with aiding in the destruction of evidence The timeline of events paints a horrifying picture. Winston, a mother of a 4-year-old child with Edwards, was reported missing by her family on April 1. Upon visiting her apartment, they discovered it had been completely cleared out, emanating the smell of bleach. Further inquiry revealed Winston had not shown up for work on March 17. Police intensified their investigation, eventually leading them to Ripley, Tennessee, where they recovered Winston's remains at a cemetery and along a road, approximately 430 miles from the murder scene. Edwards is currently being held at Clayton County Jail on numerous charges, including malice murder, felony murder, concealing death, and tampering with evidence. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Karen Read Trial, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Meet Jermaine Marbury from Rucker Park. This upcoming wrestling star is tearing it up and building his fanbase in the New England region of the United States. Find out where he trained, who his influences are, and how Benny the Basketball was created! NEW SHOWS: Every Monday & Thursday! Find all of Vinny Berry's books at wrestleville.com --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/rick252/support

Liz talks to podcaster Andrew Torrez about Trump's Manhattan prosecution and the debacle at the Supreme Court Thursday when Trump made his magical, perpetual, presidential immunity argument.   Links: Arizona v. Ward — Indictment https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/Indictment.pdf  People v. Trump — Transcripts https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/  People v. Trump — Evidence https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/Evidence/  Trump  v. US — SCOTUS Docket https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-939.html  SCOTUS oral argument https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-939 Trump DC MTD Presidential immunity https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.74.0_3.pdf SCOTUS docket in US v. Trump (DC) https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-united-states-3/ DC Circuit Opinion https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/1AC5A0E7090A350785258ABB0052D942/$file/23-3228-2039001.pdf Trump SCOTUS Brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/303418/20240319150454815_23-939%20-%20Brief%20for%20Petitioner.pdf US SCOTUS Opposition https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/306999/20240408191803801_United%20States%20v.%20Trump%20final%20for%20filing.pdf Trump Reply Brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/307578/20240415133854183_USSC%2023-939%20-%20Reply%20Brief%20of%20Petitioner.pdf Constitutional Scholars Amicus https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/306994/20240408102651774_Trump%20v.%20US%20CAC%20Scholars%20Brief%2023-929.pdf Marbury v. Madison https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/#tab-opinion-1958607   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod Patreon: patreon.com/LawAndChaosPod  

It's an EmMajority Report Thursday! She speaks with Gretchen Sisson, sociologist at the University of California, San Francisco, to discuss her recent book Relinquished: The Politics of Adoption and the Privilege of American Motherhood. Then, she speaks with Ryan Doerfler, law professor at Harvard University, to discuss his recent piece in Dissent Magazine entitled "We Are Already Defying the Supreme Court", co-authored with Samuel Moyn. First, Emma runs through updates on Trump's immunity and hush money cases, the US' new foreign aid package, Israel's impending invasion of Rafah, continuing crackdowns on anti-war student protests in the US, Arizona politics, Harvey Weinstein, the TikTok ban, the resignation of Ariel Henry, and repression of dissent in Iran, before expanding on the conversation about activism on campuses, and the GOP's insistence on maintaining the parallels with the 1960s anti-war movement. Gretchen Sisson then joins, first walking through extensive research she conducted with women who have relinquished children to the private adoption system, exploring how and why they make the decision, and how they reflect on the process some years later. Next, Sisson walks Emma through the myth of the relationship between abortion and adoption, and the reality of a distinct divide between those who seek the two options, alongside the myth of a “high supply” in the adoption market, with (once again) the inverse seeing many adoption clinics closing due to a lack of available children for adoption. Expanding on this, Gretchen explores how the “market” influence of the adoption industry shapes a largely coercive and exploitative relationship between adoption agencies and women who would often prefer to keep their children, a relationship that is largely reflective of the industry's roots in the family separation projects practiced against Indigenous and Black communities in the US. After touching on the major role that major Christian religious institutions have played throughout the history of the private adoption industry, and the relationship between private adoption and the foster care system, Emma and Gretchen wrap up the interview with an exploration of how many mothers come to feel very critical of the adoption system and how it failed both them and their child. Professor Ryan Doerfler and Emma then look to the long history of non-compliance – and even outright defiance – in the face of Supreme Court rulings considered unjust, with Professor Doerfler walking us through the more extreme precedents set by the presidencies of Abraham Lincoln and FDR to issue direct challenges to the court, alongside the much more recent tradition of administrative non-compliance or policy loopholes as seen in the fights for affirmative action, student loan forgiveness, and more. After stepping back to look at the myth of Marbury v. Madison's role in legitimizing judicial activism – a tactic that the Supreme Court would not truly take on until the Civil War era, Professor Doerfler explores how the conversation around the ever-changing scope of the Supreme Court became isolated from the public to solely and intra-governmental affair over the second half of the 20th Century, in a weird conflation of the rule of law and the rule of the courts. Ryan and Emma look at the current era of backlash to the Supreme Court, from the Hobbs decision to attacks on the administrative state, and what we can do to get Democrats to start fighting back, before wrapping up with a brief conversation on the stunning bravery of anti-war student activists at Harvard and across the US. And in the Fun Half: Emma is joined by Matt Binder as they watch Channel 4's interview with an anonymous IDF member on the prevailing perspectives within Israel's military, also diving into the continuing wave of student protests against Israel's genocide in Gaza, and the violent police repression seen at UT Austin, USC, and Emory that has continued the parallels with the 1960s anti-war movement on campuses like Kent State. They also dive into the continuing smears against students from both Netanyahu and the ADL alike, and watch Edward Said attempt to grapple with the same double standards some four decades ago. Chris from the Bay Area debates which generation killed American class politics, and Wisconsin Senate candidate Eric Hovde botches his public pledging of the ‘legiance, plus, your calls and IMs! Check out Gretchen's book here: https://www.relinquishedbook.com/ Check out Ryan's piece in Dissent here: https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/we-are-already-defying-the-supreme-court/ Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Check out Seder's Seeds here!: https://www.sedersseeds.com/ ALSO, if you have pictures of your Seder's Seeds, send them here!: hello@sedersseeds.com Check out this GoFundMe in support of Mohammad Aldaghma's niece in Gaza, who has Down Syndrome: http://tinyurl.com/7zb4hujt Check out the "Repair Gaza" campaign courtesy of the Glia Project here: https://www.launchgood.com/campaign/rebuild_gaza_help_repair_and_rebuild_the_lives_and_work_of_our_glia_team#!/ Get emails on the IRS pilot program for tax filing here!: https://service.govdelivery.com/accounts/USIRS/subscriber/new Check out StrikeAid here!; https://strikeaid.com/ Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: Nutrafol:  Take the first step to visibly thicker, healthier hair. For a limited time, Nutrafol is offering our listeners ten dollars off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you go to https://Nutrafol.com  TMR. That's https://Nutrafol.com, promo code TMR. Fast Growing Trees: This Spring Fast Growing Trees has the best deals online, up to half off on select plants and other deals. And listeners to our show get an ADDITIONAL 15% OFF their first purchase when using the code MAJORITY at checkout. That's an ADDITIONAL 15% OFF at https://FastGrowingTrees.com using the code MAJORITY at checkout. https://FastGrowingTrees.com code MAJORITY. Offer is valid for a limited time, terms and conditions may apply. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

You might think you know why Marbury v Madison is important: it set the precedent whereby the Supreme Court decides whether laws are constitutional or not, a power known as judicial review. But what else does this landmark decision say? And why is this case from more than two hundred years ago cited so prominently in former president Donald Trump's current Supreme Court brief? In this episode, host Hannah McCarthy "Hansplains" the connection between this famous case and current events, with the help of Quinnipiac University's Wayne Unger.  CLICK HERE: Visit our website to donate to the podcast, sign up for our newsletter, get free educational materials, and more!

Shannon Sharpe & Gilbert Arenas discuss Allen Iverson's response to Brian Windhorst's comments, debate whether or not Stephon Marbury should be in the Basketball Hall of Fame and much much more! 0:00 Brian Windhorst says Iverson wouldn't be as good in this era3:00 Isiah Thomas says Stephon Marbury should be in the Hall of Fame -12:00 Ariana Grande to pay ex husband $1.25M in divorce17:40 Q and Ayyyyy24:45 Gil tells story about Saucy Santana28:00 Favorite March Madness teams/moments41:00 Unc talks about eating raccoon, quail, gator and other strange foods #Club #VolumeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Shannon Sharpe & Gilbert Arenas discuss Allen Iverson's response to Brian Windhorst's comments, debate whether or not Stephon Marbury should be in the Basketball Hall of Fame and much much more! 0:00 Brian Windhorst says Iverson wouldn't be as good in this era3:00 Isiah Thomas says Stephon Marbury should be in the Hall of Fame -12:00 Ariana Grande to pay ex husband $1.25M in divorce17:40 Q and Ayyyyy24:45 Gil tells story about Saucy Santana28:00 Favorite March Madness teams/moments41:00 Unc talks about eating raccoon, quail, gator and other strange foods #Club #VolumeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A Note from James: I'm confused. There are so many national and international issues being debated on constitutional grounds lately. For example, issues at the Texas border and federal versus state powers—like the case of friends versus the state of Colorado. Does a state have the right to decide who appears on the national presidential ballot?Regarding COVID-19, I'm wondering if it was constitutional to close down all the businesses. It might have been the right decision, but does it infringe on our right to life, liberty, and property without due process? I posed these questions to a renowned constitutional expert, the author of "The Odd Clauses," who is also a professor of constitutional law at Boston University, Jay Wexler. He provided insights into which recent events were constitutional and which may not have been. Here's what he had to say.Episode Description:James leads an enlightening conversation with Jay Wexler, a professor of constitutional law at Boston University and author of 'The Odd Clauses'. They explore topics ranging from state rights in decision-making, such as Texas' border policies and Colorado's stance on the national presidential ballot, to significant constitutional debates such as the power of the Supreme Court, the implications of COVID-19 business shutdowns, and the increasingly prominent discussions around freedom of speech and presidential powers. Wexler provides deep insights into each topic, shedding light on the constitutional underpinnings and contemporary interpretations that inform these critical national discussions. The discussion also touches on potential constitutional conflicts and the nuanced understanding required to navigate these issues, with particular emphasis on the importance of Constitution's adaptability over time and the ongoing debate between originalism versus evolutionary interpretation. Episode Summary:01:00 Introduction: The Constitution in the News01:46 Interview with Constitutional Expert Jay Wexler02:33 The Life of a Law Professor03:13 Challenges of Teaching in the Digital Age04:49 Constitutional Battles in Recent Years06:16 The Power of the Supreme Court07:00 The Intricacies of Marbury v. Madison08:34 The Role of the Supreme Court in the Executive Branch11:38 The Texas Border Issue and Constitutional Merit24:46 The Power of States in Deciding Presidential Candidates33:18 Understanding the Qualifications for Presidential Candidates36:06 Exploring the Impact of COVID-19 on Businesses and Constitutional Rights37:34 The Lochner Era and its Influence on Business Regulations40:20 Religious Rights and Restrictions during the COVID-19 Pandemic44:22 The Controversial Topic of State Secession51:31 The Intricacies of Freedom of Speech and its Boundaries54:51 The Power and Limitations of Presidential Executive Orders01:05:51 The Unusual Third Amendment and its Interpretation ------------What do YOU think of the show? Head to JamesAltucherShow.com/listeners and fill out a short survey that will help us better tailor the podcast to our audience!Are you interested in getting direct answers from James about your question on a podcast? Go to JamesAltucherShow.com/AskAltucher and send in your questions to be answered on the air!------------Visit Notepd.com to read our idea lists & sign up to create your own!My new book, Skip the Line, is out! Make sure you get a copy wherever books are sold!Join the You Should Run for President 2.0 Facebook Group, where we discuss why you should run for President.I write about all my podcasts! Check out the full post and learn what I learned at jamesaltuchershow.com------------Thank you so much for listening! If you like this episode, please rate, review, and subscribe to “The James Altucher Show” wherever you get your podcasts: Apple PodcastsiHeart RadioSpotifyFollow me on social media:YouTubeTwitterFacebookLinkedIn

A Note from James: I'm confused. There are so many national and international issues being debated on constitutional grounds lately. For example, issues at the Texas border and federal versus state powers-like the case of friends versus the state of Colorado. Does a state have the right to decide who appears on the national presidential ballot?Regarding COVID-19, I'm wondering if it was constitutional to close down all the businesses. It might have been the right decision, but does it infringe on our right to life, liberty, and property without due process? I posed these questions to a renowned constitutional expert, the author of "The Odd Clauses," who is also a professor of constitutional law at Boston University, Jay Wexler. He provided insights into which recent events were constitutional and which may not have been. Here's what he had to say.Episode Description:James leads an enlightening conversation with Jay Wexler, a professor of constitutional law at Boston University and author of 'The Odd Clauses'. They explore topics ranging from state rights in decision-making, such as Texas' border policies and Colorado's stance on the national presidential ballot, to significant constitutional debates such as the power of the Supreme Court, the implications of COVID-19 business shutdowns, and the increasingly prominent discussions around freedom of speech and presidential powers. Wexler provides deep insights into each topic, shedding light on the constitutional underpinnings and contemporary interpretations that inform these critical national discussions. The discussion also touches on potential constitutional conflicts and the nuanced understanding required to navigate these issues, with particular emphasis on the importance of Constitution's adaptability over time and the ongoing debate between originalism versus evolutionary interpretation. Episode Summary:01:00 Introduction: The Constitution in the News01:46 Interview with Constitutional Expert Jay Wexler02:33 The Life of a Law Professor03:13 Challenges of Teaching in the Digital Age04:49 Constitutional Battles in Recent Years06:16 The Power of the Supreme Court07:00 The Intricacies of Marbury v. Madison08:34 The Role of the Supreme Court in the Executive Branch11:38 The Texas Border Issue and Constitutional Merit24:46 The Power of States in Deciding Presidential Candidates33:18 Understanding the Qualifications for Presidential Candidates36:06 Exploring the Impact of COVID-19 on Businesses and Constitutional Rights37:34 The Lochner Era and its Influence on Business Regulations40:20 Religious Rights and Restrictions during the COVID-19 Pandemic44:22 The Controversial Topic of State Secession51:31 The Intricacies of Freedom of Speech and its Boundaries54:51 The Power and Limitations of Presidential Executive Orders01:05:51 The Unusual Third Amendment and its Interpretation ------------What do YOU think of the show? Head to JamesAltucherShow.com/listeners and fill out a short survey that will help us better tailor the podcast to our audience!Are you interested in getting direct answers from James about your question on a podcast? Go to JamesAltucherShow.com/AskAltucher and send in your questions to be answered on the air!------------Visit Notepd.com to read our idea lists & sign up to create your own!My new book, Skip the Line, is out! Make sure you get a copy wherever books are sold!Join the You Should Run for President 2.0 Facebook Group, where we discuss why you should run for President.I write about all my podcasts! Check out the full post and learn what I learned at jamesaltuchershow.com------------Thank you so much for listening! If you like this episode, please rate, review, and subscribe to "The James Altucher Show" wherever you get your podcasts: Apple PodcastsiHeart RadioSpotifyFollow me on social media:YouTubeTwitterFacebookLinkedIn

Sarah and David address a few corrections from Tuesday's episode before turning to the oral argument on Trump's prosecutorial immunity. On the Agenda: —Can presidents order Seal Team Six to assassinate rivals? —Who is going to win this case? —Did we just fix qualified immunity? (No.) —Political advertising at the Ninth Circuit —Should I go to law school? Pt. 97 Show notes: —Marbury v. Madison —Mississippi v. Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

After the War of Independence, the new American government created the Supreme Court to be the final word on disputes that the states couldn't settle. But at first, the Court was anything but Supreme.For nearly a decade, Congress and the President held the real power. In practice the Supreme Court was weak, ineffectual and disorganized – a post so unappealing that many men turned down nominations to serve on its bench.All that would change with the appointment of Chief Justice John Marshall and the arrival of a case called Marbury v. Madison — a political drama that would embroil the new President Thomas Jefferson, outgoing president John Adams, the U.S. Congress, and even the Chief Justice himself.Listen ad free with Wondery+. Join Wondery+ for exclusives, binges, early access, and ad free listening. Available in the Wondery App. https://wondery.app.link/historytellersSupport us by supporting our sponsors!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.