Podcasts about Ninth Amendment

[2:00] The Ninth Amendment remains largely untested in challenges against restrictive registries' impact on personal freedoms. [09:26] Wisconsin’s lifetime GPS monitoring statute for repeat sex offenders was upheld despite contested Fourth Amendment claims. [27:03] Free speech protections have limits when laws restrict solicitation by individuals under public reporting obligations. [36:23] The California Court of Appeal...

The Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments to theConstitution of The United States, it was ratified on December 15, 1791.The Bill of Rights spells out Americans' rights in relationto their government. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to theindividual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion. It sets rules for dueprocess of law, and reserves all powers not delegated to the Federal Governmentto the people or the States. And it specifies that “the enumeration in theConstitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparageothers retained by the people.” The First Amendment provides several rights protections: toexpress ideas through speech and the press, to assemble or gather with a groupto protest or for other reasons, and to ask the government to fix problems. Italso protects the right to religious beliefs and practices. It prevents thegovernment from creating or favoring a religion. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and beararms. The Third Amendment prevents government from forcinghomeowners to allow soldiers to use their homes. Before the Revolutionary War,laws gave British soldiers the right to take over private homes. The Fourth Amendment bars the government from unreasonablesearch and seizure of an individual or their private property. The Fifth Amendment provides several protections for peopleaccused of crimes. It states that serious criminal charges must be started by agrand jury.  A person cannot be triedtwice for the same offense or have property taken away without justcompensation. People have the right against self-incrimination and cannot beimprisoned without due process of law. The Sixth Amendment provides additional protections topeople accused of crimes, such as, the right to a speedy and public trial, incriminal cases, trial by an impartial jury, and to be informed of criminalcharges. Witnesses must face the accused, and the accused is allowed his or herown witnesses and to be represented by a lawyer. The Seventh Amendment extends the right to a jury trial inFederal civil cases. The Eighth Amendment bars excessive bail and fines and a crueland unusual punishment. The Ninth Amendment states that listing specific rights inthe Constitution does not mean that people do not have other right, that havenot been spelled out. The Tenth Amendment says that the Federal Government onlyhas those powers delegated in the Constitution. If it isn't listed, it belongsto the states or to the people.

Atlas Shrugged seems to be everywhere today. Randian villains are in the news. Rand remains influential on the right, from the Reagan era to the modern libertarian movement. Perhaps most significantly, entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and Marc Andreessen who are moving into government with DOGE, have been influenced by Rand, and, fascinatingly, Andreessen only read the novel four years ago. Hollis Robbins (@Anecdotal) and I talked about how Atlas Shrugged is in conversation with the great novels of the past, Rand's greats skills of plotting, drama, and character, and what makes Atlas Shrugged a serious novel, not just a vehicle for ideology. Love it or loathe it, Atlas Shrugged is having a moment. Everyone brings a preconception of Ayn Rand, but she has been opposed by the right and the left ever since she first published. Other than Jennifer Burns' biography, academic study has largely declined to notice Rand. But Rand deserves our serious attention, both as a novelist, and as an influence on the modern world. Here are a couple of excerpts.We talk a lot these days about, “how can I be my best self?” That's what Rand is saying. She's saying, actually, it's not about earning money, it's not about being rich. It is about the perfection of the moral life. It's about the pursuit of excellence. It's about the cultivation of virtue. These are the important things. This is what Dagny is doing. When all the entrepreneurs at the end, they're in the happy valley, actually, between them, they have not that much money, right?Also this.What would Ayn Rand think about the influencer economy? Oh, she'd despise it. She would despise it… all these little girls wanting to grow up to be influencers, they're caught in some algorithm, which is awful. Why would you want to spend your life influencing others? Go create something. It's a hard medicine.And.Her aesthetic is very classical, draped. She doesn't wear flowery patterns. She wears draped, clearly close-fitting gowns and gray tailored suits and a minimum of jewelry, though she does have this bracelet chain made of Rearden metal. You don't know when she possibly has time to go shopping, but she's perfectly dressed all the time in the fashion that we would understand as feminist. She wears trousers, she wears suits, but when she goes out, this black velvet cape. I think it's important to see her as that, even though nobody talks about that in terms of this novel, what a heroine she is. I know that when I was reading her as a teenage girl, that's it.TranscriptHenry: Today, I am talking with Hollis Robbins, former dean of the humanities at Utah University and special advisor on the humanities and AI. We are talking about Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Hollis, hello.Hollis Robbins: Hello. I'm really glad to have this conversation with you. We've known each other for some years and follow each other's work. I was trained as a scholar of 19th-century American, Victorian, and African-American literature, mostly novels, and love having conversations with you about big, deep novels. When I suggested that we read this book, I was hoping you would be enthusiastic about it, so I'm really happy to be having this conversation. It's hard to know who's interviewing you or what conversation this is, but for you coming at this middle-aged. Not quite middle-aged, what are you?Henry: I'm middle enough. No. This is not going to be an interview as such. We are going to have a conversation about Atlas Shrugged, and we're going to, as you say, talk about it as a novel. It always gets talked about as an ideology. We are very interested in it as a novel and as two people who love the great novels of the 19th century. I've been excited to do this as well. I think that's why it's going to be good. Why don't we start with, why are we doing this?Hollis: I wanted to gesture to that. You are one of the leading public voices on the importance of reading literature and the importance of reading novels particularly, though I saw today, Matt Yglesias had a blog post about Middlemarch, which I think he just recently read. I can credit you with that, or us, or those of us who are telling people read the big novels.My life trajectory was that I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead before I read Dickens, before I read Jane Austen, before I read Harriet Beecher Stowe or Melville or the Brontës. For me, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead were foundational novels as novels. I wondered what it would be like to talk to somebody whose experience was flipped.Henry: Right, I'm 38 and I'd never read this book. I was coming at it partly having read all those other books, but partly for my whole life, people have said, "Oh, that's really a bad book. That's so badly written. That book is no good." The number one thing I can say to people is this book is fun.Hollis: It's really fun. I was going to say usually what I forget to do in talking about books is give the summary. I'm going to hold up my copy, which is my dog-eared copy from high school, which is hilarious. It's got the tiniest print, which I couldn't possibly read now. No underlining, which is interesting. I read this book before I understood that you were supposed to underline when you liked passages in the book.It was interesting to me. I'd probably read it five or six times in my youth and didn't underline anything. The story is--- You can help me fill in the blanks. For readers who haven't read it, there's this young woman, Dagny Taggart, who's the heiress of the Taggart Transcontinental Railroad fortune. She's a woman. This takes place in about, I think, the '40s, '50s. Her older brother, Jim Taggart, is CEO. She's COO, so she's the operations person. It is in some ways the story of her-- It's not quite a bildungsroman. This is the way I tell the story. It's the story of her coming to the realization of how the world works. There's many ways to come at this story. She has multiple boyfriends, which is excellent. Her first boyfriend, his name is Francisco d'Anconia. He's the head of d'Anconia Copper. He too is an heir of this longstanding copper fortune. Her second is a metals magnate, Hank Rearden, who invents this great metal, Rearden metal.Really, it's also the story of the decline of America, and the ways that, in this Randian universe, these villainous group of people who run the country are always taking and extracting from producers. As she's creating and building this great railroad and doing wonderful things and using Rearden metal to do it, something is pulling all the producers out of society, and she's like, "What is going on?"It turns out there's this person, John Galt, who is saying, "I don't like the way the country is run. I don't like this extractive philosophy. I am going to take all the producers and lure them voluntarily to a--" It's a hero's lair. It's not like a James Bond villain lair. It's a hero lair in Colorado called Galt's Gulch. He is John Galt. It ends up being a battle between who is right in a wrong world. Is it the ethical person, Dagny Taggart, who continues to strive and try to be a producer and hold on to her ethics in this corrupt world, or is it somebody saying, "To hell with this. I am going on strike. You guys come with me and let the world collapse." How's that for summary?Henry: No, I think that's great. I couldn't have done a better job. One thing that we can say is that the role of reason, of being a rational person, of making reason the sole arbiter of how you make choices, be they practical, ethical, financial, whatever, that's at the heart of the book, right?Hollis: That's the philosophy. We could go there in a second. I think the plot of the book is that she demonstrates this.Henry: What she has to learn, like what is the big lesson for Dagny, is at the beginning, she hasn't fully understood that the good guys use reason and the bad guys do not, as it were.Hollis: Right. I think that's right. I like thinking about this as a bildungsroman. You said that the book is fun. Her part of the book is fun, but not really fun. The fun part of the book, and you can tell me because every time you kept texting me, "Oh my God, Jim Taggart. Oh my God, Jim Taggart. Oh my God, Jim Taggart."--Henry: These guys are so awful. [laughs]Hollis: They're so awful. The fun parts of the book, the Rand villains are the government entities and the cabals of business leaders who she calls looters and second-handers who run the country and all they do is extract value. Marc Andreessen was on a podcast recently and was all about these Rand villains and these looters. I think, again, to get back to why are we doing this and why are we doing this now, Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged is in the air with the second Trump administration.Henry: Yes. In a way, we're doing this because the question is, is this the novel of the future? Right? What we're seeing is it's very influential on the right. Rand's ideas have long been a libertarian inspiration. Elon Musk's read her. You mentioned Andreessen, Peter Thiel, all these people. It goes back to the Reagan days. People in the Republican Party have been quoting Ayn Rand. Then more broadly, we see all these worries about social collapse today. What happens in the plot of Atlas Shrugged is that society does slowly collapse.Dagny has to realize it's because of these people who are not using their reason and they're nationalizing things and taking resource away from proficient entrepreneurs and stuff. It's all about infrastructure, energy, people doing exploitation in the name of the common good, ineffective political leaders, people covering up lies and misdemeanors, people being accepting of what is obviously criminal behavior because it's in the cause of the greater good. We have free speech, all these topics, energy production. We're seeing this in the headlines. When I was reading this book, I was like, "Oh my God, how did she know?"Hollis: How did she know?Henry: How did she know.Hollis: I think the bildungsroman aspect of this as a novel. It's hard to read it as a novel. I think it's hard. By the way, I have to really I applaud you for not, until you got almost to the end of the book, texting me about this person or that person, or how it's political. I admire you for looking at the book and coming to the book as an expert in novels.What she comes to terms with, and it's a real slowly-- It's not even scales falling from her eyes. She doesn't sit and say, "Oh my God, the world is corrupt." She just is like, "That person's corrupt. I'm not going to deal with them. That person's corrupt. I'm not going to deal with them." She just keeps going, but she doesn't ever accept with a fatalism that she's living in this world where every single person who's in charge is going to let her down.Henry: It's also interesting to me that she doesn't complain.Hollis: No.Henry: Now, that reminded me of I wrote about Margaret Thatcher in my book. She was another big one for however hard it was, however difficult it was, why would you complain? Let's just go to work. A lot of people found her difficult for that reason. When I was reading this, I was like, "Ayn Rand clearly has the same idea. You can nationalize every last inch of the economy. I'm going to get up and go to work and try and beat you. I'm not going to sit around and complain." It's a very stern attitude in a way. She's very strict with herself. I found the book to be-- I know Rand is very atheist, but a very Protestant book.Hollis: Yes, it really is.Henry: Intensely Protestant, yes.Hollis: That's a nice way to think about it. A certain kind of Protestant, a Weberian Protestant.Henry: Sure.Hollis: Not a Southern Baptist Protestant who believes in the absence of reason. I was thinking I was teaching in Mississippi years ago. I was teaching a course on Wordsworth and had to do a unit on Voltaire because you can't really understand Wordsworth unless you understand Voltaire. There was a woman in my class. She was a version of Presbyterian who doesn't believe in reason, believes that in the fall, man lost their reason.Therefore, she asked if she could be excused from class because I was talking about Voltaire and the importance of reason. She said, "This is against my religion. If you believe that man has reason, you are actually going about it wrong, so may I be excused?" Which in all the years I've had people ask for excuses to miss class, that was a memorable one.Henry: That's unique. [laughs]Hollis: It's interesting because, again, I should get back to the novel, the opposition from Rand is as strong on the religious right as it is on the left. In fact, very strong. When Atlas Shrugged came out, William F. Buckley famously had Whittaker Chambers write the review. He hated her. He despised her. He despised the fact that she put reason first.Henry: Yes. I think that's worth emphasizing that some people listening will think, "I'm Rand. These nasty ideas, she's on the right." She's been ideologically described in that way so many times. Deirdre McCloskey in the Literary Review has just in the most recent edition written an absolutely scathing article about Rand. That's libertarian opposition to Rand.McCloskey is saying Hayek is the real thing here and Rand would have hated everything that Hayek did. She got everything wrong. I think the opposition to her, as you say, it's on both sides. One thing that's interesting about this novel is that because she created her own philosophy, which people will have different views on how well that went, but there isn't anyone else like this. All the other people like this are her followers.Hollis: Exactly.Henry: She's outside of the other systems of thought in a way.Hollis: We should talk about Rand. I'm going to quote a little bit from this book on feminist interpretation of Ayn Rand. Let's talk a little bit, if we can, about Dagny as the heroine of a novel, or a hero, because one of the really interesting things about reading Rand at this moment is that she's got one pronoun, he, him, man. She is in this era where man means man and women. That there isn't men and women, he and she, and now it's he, she, and them. She is like, "There's one pronoun." Even she talks about the rights of man or man believes. She means everybody, but she only means man too. It's interesting.I was very much part of the first pronoun wars in the 1980s when women scholars were like, "He and she." Now we're thrown out the window with that binary. Again, we don't need to talk about pronouns, but it's really important to understanding Rand and reading this novel, how much she embraces men and the male pronoun, even while she is using it both ways, and even while her story is led by this woman. She's beautiful. She's beautiful in a very specific way. She's tall, she's slender, she's got great cheekbones, she's got great shoulders, she's got long legs.Her aesthetic is very classical, draped. She doesn't wear flowery patterns. She wears draped, clearly close-fitting gowns and gray tailored suits and a minimum of jewelry, though she does have this bracelet chain made of Rearden metal. You don't know when she possibly has time to go shopping, but she's perfectly dressed all the time in the fashion that we would understand as feminist. She wears trousers, she wears suits, but when she goes out, this black velvet cape. I think it's important to see her as that, even though nobody talks about that in terms of this novel, what a heroine she is. I know that when I was reading her as a teenage girl, that's it.Henry: I want to be Dagny.Hollis: I want to be Dagny. I want to have capes, right?Henry: There's a very important scene, it's not too much of a plot spoiler, where Hank Rearden has invented this new metal. It's very exciting because it's much more efficient and it's much stronger and you can build new bridges for the trains and everything. He makes a bracelet of his new metal. It's a new steel alloy, I think, and gives it to his wife. His wife basically doesn't care.She's not really interested in what it takes to earn the money, she just wants to have the money. You get the strong impression throughout the book that some of the people that Rand is most scathingly disapproving of are wives who don't work. None of those people come out well. When Dagny goes to a party at the Rearden house and she is romantically involved with Hank Rearden, she sees the bracelet.Hollis: She isn't then, right? Isn't she not then?Henry: No, but they have feelings for each otherHollis: Right. Reasonable feelings for each other.Henry: That's right, reasonable feelings, but they're not currently acting on those feelings. She sees the bracelet and she exchanges her, I think, diamonds-Hollis: Diamond bracelet.Henry: -for the Rearden metal bracelet with the wife. It's this wonderful moment where these two opposite ideals of womanhood that Rand is presenting. It's a great moment of heroism for Dagny because she is saying, "Who cares about glittering diamonds when you have a new steel alloy that can make this incredible bridge?" It sounds crazy, but this is 1957. Dagny is very much what you might call one of the new women.Hollis: Right.Henry: I think in some ways, Rand-- I don't like the phrase she's ahead of her time. I've read a lot of 1950s fiction. This is not the typical woman.Hollis: No, this is not Cheever. This is not a bored suburban housewife at a time when the way the '50s are taught, certainly in America, it's like women could work during the war, then they were suburban housewives, there was bored, there were key parties and all sorts of Cheever sorts of things. This is not that. I read this first. I was only 15 years after it was published, I think, in the '60s, early '70s reading it.This, to me, seemed perfectly normal and everything else seemed regressive and strange and whiny. There's a lot to be said for reading this novel first. I think if we can talk a little bit about these set pieces because I think for me reading it as a novel and hearing you talk about it as a novel, that novels, whether we're thinking about-- I want to see if you want to compare her to Dorothea or just to any other Victorian women novel that you can think of. That's the closest, right? Is there anybody that's closest to Dorothea from Middlemarch? Is that there are these set pieces. People think that Rand-- the idea is that she's not a great writer. She is a great writer. She started in Hollywood. Her first book, The Fountainhead, was made into a movie. She understands plotting and keeping the reader's attention. We go forward, we go backwards. There's her relationship with Francisco d'Anconia that we see her now, years after, then we have flashbacks to growing up and how they became lovers.There are big meeting set pieces where everybody's in the room, and we have all the backstories of the people in the room, what is going to happen. There are these big party scenes, as you say. For example, this big, glorious, glamorous party at the Rearden house, Francisco is there. Francisco and Hank Rearden get in a conversation, and she's like, "I want to go see what my old boyfriend is talking to the guy I like about."There are these moments where you're not supposed to come at the book that way in this serious philosophical way. Then later on when there's this wonderful scene where Francisco comes to see Dagny. This is much later. Hank and Dagny are lovers, so he has a key to her apartment. He walks in and everybody sees immediately what's going on. It's as good as any other farce moment of somebody hiding behind a curtain, right?Henry: Yes.Hollis: Everything is revealed all at once. She's very good at scenes like that.Henry: Yes, very good. She's very good at high drama. One of the phrases that kept coming back to me was that this book is a melodrama of ideas.Hollis: Yes.Henry: Right? It's not a novel of ideas as such, it's a melodrama of ideas. I think one thing that people who think she's a bad writer will say is it's melodrama, the characters are flat, the prose is not lyrical, all these different things. Whereas when I read it, I was like, "She's so good at melodrama." I feel like, in some ways, it does not feel like a 1950s novel because there's so much excitement about technology, so much feminism, just so many things that I do not associate--Maybe I'm being too English, but I don't read John Cheever, for example, and think, "Oh, he loves the train." Whereas this book is very, very exciting as a story about inventing a new kind of train that goes really fast," which sounds silly, but that's a really Dickensian theme, that's in Middlemarch. Actually, that's what Matt Yglesias was talking about in his excellent piece today. What does feel very 1950s is you've got the Hollywood influence. The dialogue, I think, is not always great, but it is often great.I often would read pages and think, "This would actually be really good in, not an A++ movie, but in a decent crime movie or something. This would be quite good dialogue." There's a comic book aesthetic to it in the way that the scenes play out. Just a lot of these '50s aesthetics actually are present in the book. I'm going to read one paragraph. It's from part one. I think we should read out loud a few bits to give people a sense.Hollis: Yes.Henry: This is when Dagny has built a new train line using grid and metal to make the bridge so that it can go over a valley. I think that's right. The train can do 100 miles an hour. It's this very, very exciting new development. It means that energy can be supplied to factories, and so it's a huge, big deal. This is when she's on the train going at 100 miles an hour and she just can't believe it's happening."Things streaked past a water tank, a tree, a shanty, a grain silo. They had a windshield wiper motion. They were rising, describing a curve, and dropping back. The telegraph wires ran a race with the train, rising and falling from pole to pole, in an even rhythm like the cardiograph record of a steady heartbeat written across the sky. She looked ahead at the haze that melted rail and distance, a haze that could rip apart at any moment to some shape of disaster.""She wondered why she felt safer than she had ever felt in a car behind the engine. Safer here where it seemed as if should an obstacle rise, her breast and the glass shield would be the first to smash against it. She smiled, grasping the answer. It was the security of being first with full sight and full knowledge of one's own course, not the blind sense of being pulled into the unknown by some unknown power ahead."That's not MFA prose or whatever, but it turns the pages. I think she's very good at relating we're on the train and it's going very fast to how Dagny is thinking through the philosophical conundrum that is basically going to drive the whole plot forwards. I was reminded again and again of what Virginia Woolf said about Walter Scott, where she compared Scott to Robert Louis Stevenson. She said that Stevenson had beautiful sentences and dapper little adjectives. It was all jeweled and carefully done. You could marvel over each sentence.She said, "Whereas Scott, it's just page after page and no sentence is beautiful," but she says, "He writes at the level of the page. He's not like Stevenson. He's not writing at the level of the sentence. You have to step into the world." You can say, 'Oh, that wasn't a very good sentence,' but my goodness, the pages keep turning and you're there in the world, right?Hollis: Exactly.Henry: I think she made a really important point there and we just undervalue that so much when we say, oh, so-and-so is not a good writer. What we mean is they're not a Robert Louis Stevenson, they're a Walter Scott. It's like, sure, but Walter Scott was great at what he did. Ayn Rand is in the Walter Scott inheritance in the sense that it's a romance, it's not strictly realistic novel. You have to step into the world. You can't spend your whole time going, "Was that a great sentence? Do I really agree with what she just--" It's like, no, you have to go into this utopian sci-fi universe and you have to keep turning the pages. You get caught up and you go, "Wow, this is this is working for me."Hollis: Let me push back on that-Henry: Yes, good.Hollis: -because I think that was a beautiful passage, one of my favorite passages in this book, which is hard to say because it's a really, really big book. It's a memorable passage because here she is in a place at this moment. She is questioning herself. Isn't she questioning why? Why do I feel safe? Then it strikes her. In this moment, all interior while all this stuff is happening. This whole Rearden metal train bridge set piece is one of the highlights of at least the first half of the book. You come away, even if we've had our entire life up to her, understanding her as a philosophical this woman. How is that different from Dorothea or from Elizabeth Bennet? Yes, Elizabeth Bennet, right?Henry: Oh, no, I agree. My point was purely about prose style, which was to say if you say, "Oh, she writes like a Walter Scott, not like a Robert Louis Stevenson," you're going to deny yourself seeing what you've just said, which is that actually, yes, she has the ability to write philosophical characters.Hollis: When I first read Pride and Prejudice, I read it through the lens of Rand. Now, clearly, these heroines had fewer choices. Dorothea marries Casaubon, I don't know how you pronounce it, because she thinks he's a Randian expert, somebody who's got this grand idea. She's like, "Whoa, I want to be part of this endeavor, the key to all mythologies." Then she's so let down. In the Randian sense, you can see why she would have wanted him.Henry: That's right. I think George Eliot would have strongly disagreed with Rand philosophically. The heroines, as you say, what they're doing in the novel is having to realize that there are social conventions I have to understand and there are things I have to learn how to do, but actually, the key to working all that out is more at the moral philosophical level. This is what happens to Dagny. I think it's on the next page from what I just read. There's another passage where it says that she's in the train and she's enjoying. It's working and she's thrilled that her train is working. She was trying not to think, but she couldn't help herself.She said, "Who made the train. Is it the brute force of muscle? Who can make all the dials and the levers? How is it possible that this thing has even been put together?" Then she starts thinking to herself, "We've got a government who's saying it's wrong to do this, you're taking resources, you're not doing it for the common good." She says, "How can they regard this as evil? How can they believe that this is ignoble to have created this incredible thing?"She says she wants to be able to toss the subject out of the window and let it get shattered somewhere along the track. She wants the thoughts to go past like the telegraph poles, but obviously, she can't. She has this moment of realization that this can't be wrong. This type of human accomplishment can't be against the common good. It can't be considered to be ignoble. I think that is like the Victorian heroines.To me, it was more like Fanny Price, which is that someone turns up into a relatively closed system of ideas and keeps their own counsel for a long time, and has to admit sometimes when they haven't got it right or whatever. Basically, in the end, they are vindicated on fairly straightforward grounds. Dagny comes to realize that, "I was right. I was using my reason. I was working hard. I was being productive. Yes, I was right about that." Fanny, it's more like a Christian insight into good behavior, but I felt the pattern was the same.Hollis: Sure. I'll also bring up Jane Eyre here, right?Henry: Yes.Hollis: Jane Eyre, her relationship, there's a lot to be said of both Mr. Darcy and Mr. Rochester with Hank Rearden because Hank Rearden has to come to his sense. He's married. He doesn't like his wife. He doesn't like this whole system that he's in. He wants to be with a woman that's a meeting of the mind, but he's got all this social convention he has to deal with. Rochester has to struggle, and of course, Bertha Mason has to die in that book. He ends up leaving his wife, but too late. If we're going to look at this novel as a novel, we can see that there are these moments that I think have some resonance. I know you don't seem to want to go to the Mr. Darcy part of it.Henry: No. I had also thought about Jane Eyre. My thought was that, obviously, other than being secular because Jane Eyre is very Christian, the difference is that Hank Rearden and Dagny basically agree that we can't conduct our relationship in a way that would be morally compromising to her. They go through this very difficult process of reasoning like, "How can we do this in a good way?"They're a little bit self-sacrificing about it because they don't want to upset the moral balance. Whereas Mr. Rochester, at least for the first part of the book, has an attitude that's more like, "Yes, but she's in the attic. Why does it matter if we get married?" He doesn't really see the problem of morally compromising Jane, and so Jane has to run away.Hollis: Right.Henry: One of the interesting things about Rand, what is different from like Austen and the Brontës and whatever, is that Dagny and Hank are not in opposition before they get together. They have actually this unusual thing in romance and literature, which is that they have a meeting of minds. What gets in the way is that the way their minds agree is contra mundum and the world has made this problem for them.Hollis: I think in a way, that's the central relationship in--Henry: Yes. That was how I read it, yes.Hollis: Yes. The fact as we think about what the complications are in reading this novel as a novel is that here is this great central romance and they've got obstacles. She's got an old boyfriend, he's married. They've got all these things that are classic obstacles to a love story. Rand understands that enough to build it, that that will keep a lot of readers' interest, but then it's like, "That's actually not the point of my book," which is how the second half or the last third of the novel just gets really wiggy." Again, spoiler alert, but Hank is blackmailed to be, as the society is collapsing, as things are collapsing--Henry: We should say that the government has taken over in a nationalizing program by this point.Hollis: Right, because as John Galt is pulling all the thought leaders and the industrialists and all the movers of the world into his lair, things are getting harder and harder and harder, things are getting nationalized. Some of these big meetings in Washington where these horrible people are deciding how to redistribute wealth, again, which is part of the reason somebody like Congressman Paul Ryan would give out copies of Atlas Shrugged to all of his staffers. He's like, "You've got to read this book because we can't go to Washington and be like this. The Trumpian idea is we've got to get rid of people who are covering up and not doing the right thing."They've blackmailed Hank Rearden into giving up Rearden Metal by saying, "We know you've been sleeping with Dagny Taggart." It's a very dramatic point. How is this going to go down?Henry: Right. I think that's interesting. What I loved about the way she handled that romance was that romance is clearly part of what she sees as important to a flourishing life. She has to constantly yoke it to this idea that reason is everything, so human passion has to be conducted on the basis that it's logically reasonable, but that it therefore becomes self-sacrificing. There is something really sad and a little bit tragic about Hank being blackmailed like that, right?Hollis: Yes. I have to say their first road trip together, it's like, "Let's just get out of here and go have a road trip and stay in hotels and have sex and it'll be awesome." That their road trip is like, "Let's go also see some abandoned factories and see what treasures we might find there." To turn this love road trip into also the plot twist that gets them closer to John Galt is a magnificent piece of plot.Henry: Yes. I loved that. I know you want to talk about the big John Galt speech later, but I'm going to quote one line because this all relates to what I think is one of the most central lines of the book. "The damned and the guiltiest among you are the men who had the capacity to know yet chose to blank out reality." A lot of the time, like in Brontë or whatever, there are characters like Rochester's like that. The center of their romance is that they will never do that to each other because that's what they believe philosophically, ethically. It's how they conduct themselves at business. It's how they expect other people to conduct themselves. They will never sacrifice that for each other.That for them is a really high form of love and it's what enables huge mutual respect. Again, it's one of those things I'm amazed-- I used to work in Westminster. I knew I was a bit of a libertarian. I knew lots of Rand adjacent or just very, very Randian people. I thought they were all insane, but that's because no one would ever say this. No one would ever say she took an idea like that and turned it into a huge romance across hundreds of pages. Who else has done that in the novel? I think that's great.Hollis: It really is hard. It really is a hard book. The thing that people say about the book, as you say, and the reason you hadn't read it up until now, is it's like, "Oh, yes, I toyed with Rand as a teenager and then I put that aside." I put away my childish things, right? That's what everybody says on the left, on the right. You have to think about it's actually really hard. My theory would be that people put it away because it's really, really hard, what she tried is hard. Whether she succeeded or not is also hard. As we were just, before we jumped on, talking about Rand's appearance on Johnny Carson, a full half hour segment of him taking her very seriously, this is a woman who clearly succeeded. I recently read Jennifer Burn's biography of her, which is great. Shout out to Jennifer.What I came away with is this is a woman who made her living as a writer, which is hard to do. That is a hard thing to do, is to make your living as a writer, as a woman in the time difference between 1942, The Fountainhead, which was huge, and 57, Atlas Shrugged. She was blogging, she had newsletters, she had a media operation that's really, really impressive. This whole package doesn't really get looked at, she as a novelist. Again, let me also say it was later on when I came to Harriet Beecher Stowe, who is another extraordinary woman novelist in America who wrote this groundbreaking book, which is filled--I particularly want to shout out to George Harris, the slave inventor who carried himself like a Rand hero as a minor character and escapes. His wife is Eliza, who famously runs across the ice flows in a brave Randian heroine escape to freedom where nobody's going to tell them what to do. These women who changed literature in many ways who have a really vexed relationship or a vexed place in academia. Certainly Stowe is studied.Some 20 years ago, I was at an event with the great Elaine Showalter, who was coming out with an anthology of American women writers. I was in the audience and I raised my hand, I said, "Where's Ayn Rand?" She was like, "Ha, ha, ha." Of course, what a question is that? There is no good reason that Ayn Rand should not be studied in academia. There is no good reason. These are influential novels that actually, as we've talked about here, can be talked about in the context of other novels.Henry: I think one relevant comparison is let's say you study English 19th-century literature on a course, a state-of-the-nation novel or the novel of ideas would be included as routine, I think very few people would say, "Oh, those novels are aesthetically excellent. We read them because they're beautifully written, and they're as fun as Dickens." No one's saying that. Some of them are good, some of them are not good. They're important because of what they are and the barrier to saying why Rand is important for what she is because, I think, people believe her ideas are evil, basically.One central idea is she thinks selfishness is good, but I think we've slightly dealt with the fact that Dagny and Hank actually aren't selfish some of the time, and that they are forced by their ethical system into not being selfish. The other thing that people say is that it's all free-market billionaire stuff, basically. I'm going to read out a passage from-- It's a speech by Francisco in the second part. It's a long speech, so I'm not going to read all eight pages. I'm going to read this speech because I think this theme that I'm about to read out, it's a motif, it's again and again and again.Hollis: Is this where he's speaking to Hank or to Dagny?Henry: I think when he's speaking to Dagny and he says this."Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he want. Money will not give him a code of values if he has evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose if he has evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent."The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him with his money replacing his judgment ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered, that no man may be smaller than his money."Hollis: That's a good--Henry: Right? It's a great paragraph. I feel like she says that in dozens of ways throughout the book, and she wants you to be very clear when you leave that this book is not a creed in the name of just make money and have free market capitalism so you can be rich. That paragraph and so many others, it's almost biblical in the way she writes it. She's really hammering the rhythms, and the tones, and the parallels. She's also, I think, trying to appropriate some of the way the Bible talks about money and turn it into her own secular pseudo-Aristotelian idea, right?Hollis: Yes.Henry: We talk a lot these days about, how can I be my best self? That's what Rand is saying. She's saying, actually, it's not about earning money, it's not about being rich. It is about the perfection of the moral life. It's about the pursuit of excellence. It's about the cultivation of virtue. These are the important things. This is what Dagny is doing. When all the entrepreneurs at the end, they're in the happy valley, actually, between them, they have not that much money, right?Hollis: Right.Henry: The book does not end in a rich utopia, it's important to say.Hollis: It's interesting. A couple of things. I want to get this back since we're still in the novel. Let me say when we get to Galt's great speech, which is bizarre. He says a similar thing that I'll bring in now. He says, "The mother who buys milk for her baby instead of a hat is not sacrificing because her values are feeding the baby. The woman who sacrifices the hat to feed her baby, but really wants the hat and is only feeding the baby out of duty is sacrificing." That's bad. She's saying get your values in order. Understand what it is you want and do that thing, but don't do it because somebody says you have to. She says this over and over in many ways, or the book says this.Henry: We should say, that example of the mother is incidental. The point she's always making is you must think this through for yourself, you must not do it because you've been told to do it.Hollis: Right, exactly. To get back to the love story aspects of the book because they don't sit and say they love each other, even all the great romances. It's not like, "I love you. I love you." It's straight to sex or looks and meetings of the minds. It's interesting. We should deal with the fact that from The Fountainhead and a little bit in this book, the sex is a little rapey. It's a difficult thing to talk about. It's certainly one of the reasons that feminists, women writers don't approve of her. In the book, it's consensual. Whatever one wants to think about the ways that people have sex, it is consensual in the book. Also in The Fountainhead.I'm sure I'll get hate mail for even saying that, but in her universe, that's where it is. What's interesting, Francisco as a character is so interesting. He's conflicted, he's charming, he's her first lover. He's utterly good in every way. He ends up without her. Hank is good. Hank goes through his struggles and learning curve about women prioritizing. If you don't like your wife, don't be married to your wife. It's like he goes through his own what are my values and how do I live them.I know you think that this is bizarre, but there's a lot of writing about the relationship of Hank and Francisco because they find themselves in the same room a lot. They happen to have both been Dagny's lovers or ex-lovers, and they really, really like each other. There's a way that that bonding-- Homosexuality does not exist in her novels, whatever, but that's a relationship of two people that really are hot for one another. There is a lot of writing. There are queer readings of Rand that make a lot of that relationship.Again, this isn't my particular lens of criticism, but I do see that the energy, which is why I asked you which speech you were reading because some of Francisco's best speeches are for Hank because he's trying to woo Hank to happy valley. Toward the end when they're all hanging out together in Galt's Gulch, there's clearly a relationship there.Henry: Oh, yes. No, once you pointed out to me, I was like, "That makes sense of so many passages." That's clearly there. What I don't understand is why she did that. I feel like, and this is quite an accomplishment because it's a big novel with a lot of moving parts, everything else is resolved both in terms of the plot, but also in terms of how it fits her philosophical idea. That, I think, is pretty much the only thing where you're left wondering, "Why was that in there? She hasn't made a point about it. They haven't done anything about it." This I don't understand. That's my query.Hollis: Getting ready to have this conversation, I spent a lot of time on some Reddit threads. I ran Atlas Shrugged Reddit threads where there's some fantastic conversations.Henry: Yes, there is.Hollis: One of them is about, how come Francisco didn't end up with anybody? That's just too bad. He's such a great character and he ends up alone. I would say he doesn't end up alone, he ends up with his boyfriend Hank, whatever that looks like. Two guys that believe in the same things, they can have whatever life they want. Go on.Henry: Are you saying that now that they're in the valley, they will be more free to pursue that relationship?Hollis: There's a lot of things that she has said about men's and women's bodies. She said in other places, "I don't think there'll ever be a woman president because why would a woman want to be president? What a woman really wants is a great man, and we can't have a president who's looking for a great man. She has to be a president." She's got a lot of lunacy about women. Whatever. I don't understand. Someplace I've read that she understands male homosexuality, but not female homosexuality. Again, I am not a Rand scholar. Having read and seen some of that in the ether, I see it in the book, and I can see how her novel would invite that analysis.I do want to say, let's spend a few seconds on some of the minor characters. There are some really wonderful minor characters. One of them is Cherryl Taggart, this shop girl that evil Jim Taggart meets one night in a rainstorm, and she's like, "Oh, you're so awesome," and they get married. It's like he's got all this praise for marrying the shop girl. It's a funny Eliza Doolittle situation because she is brought into this very wealthy society, which we have been told and we have been shown is corrupt, is evil, everybody's lying all the time, it's pretentious, Dagny hates it.Here's the Cherryl Taggart who's brought into this. In the beginning, she hates Dagny because she's told by everybody, "Hate Dagny, she's horrible." Then she comes to her own mini understanding of the corruption that we understand because Dagny's shown it in the novel, has shown it to us this entire time. She comes to it and she's like, "Oh my God," and she goes to Dagny. Dagny's so wonderful to her like, "Yes. You had to come to this on your own, I wasn't going to tell you, but you were 100% right." That's the end of her.Henry: Right. When she meets Taggart, there's this really interesting speech she has where she says, "I want to make something of myself and get somewhere." He's like, "What? What do you want to do?" Red flag. "What? Where?" She says, "I don't know, but people do things in this world. I've seen pictures of New York," and she's pointing at like the skyscrapers, right? Whatever. "I know that someone's built that. They didn't sit around and whine, but like the kitchen was filthy and the roof was leaking." She gets very emotional at this point. She says to him, "We were stinking poor and we didn't give a damn. I've dragged myself here, and I'm going to do something."Her story is very sad because she then gets mired in the corruption of Taggart's. He's basically bit lazy and a bit of a thief, and he will throw anyone under the bus for his own self-advancement. He is revealed to be a really sinister guy. I was absolutely hissing about him most of the time. Then, let's just do the plot spoiler and say what happens to Cherryl, right? Because it's important. When she has this realization and Taggart turns on her and reveals himself as this snake, and he's like, "Well, what did you expect, you idiot? This is the way the world is."Hollis: Oh, it's a horrible fight. It's the worst fight.Henry: Right? This is where the melodrama is so good. She goes running out into the streets, and it's the night and there are shadows. She's in the alleyway. Rand, I don't have the page marked, but it's like a noir film. She's so good at that atmosphere. Then it gets a little bit gothic as well. She's running through the street, and she's like, "I've got to go somewhere, anywhere. I'll work. I'll pick up trash. I'll work in a shop. I'll do anything. I've just got to get out of this."Hollis: Go work at the Panda Express. Henry: Yes. She's like, "I've got to get out of this system," because she's realized how morally corrupting it is. By this time, this is very late. Society is in a-- it's like Great Depression style economic collapse by this point. There really isn't a lot that she could do. She literally runs into a social worker and the social-- Rand makes this leering dramatic moment where the social worker reaches out to grab her and Cherryl thinks, "Oh, my God, I'm going to be taken prisoner in. I'm going back into the system," so she jumps off the bridge.This was the moment when I was like, I've had this lurking feeling about how Russian this novel is. At this point, I was like, "That could be a short story by Gogol," right? The way she set that up. That is very often the trap that a Gogol character or maybe a Dostoevsky character finds themselves in, right? That you suddenly see that the world is against you. Maybe you're crazy and paranoid. Maybe you're not. Depends which story we're reading. You run around trying to get out and you realize, "Oh, my God, I'm more trapped than I thought. Actually, maybe there is no way out." Cherryl does not get a lot of pages. She is, as you say, quite a minor character, but she illustrates the whole story so, so well, so dramatically.Hollis: Oh, wow.Henry: When it happens, you just, "Oh, Cherryl, oh, my goodness."Hollis: Thank you for reading that. Yes, you could tell from the very beginning that the seeds of what could have been a really good person were there. Thank you for reading that.Henry: When she died, I went back and I was like, "Oh, my God, I knew it."Hollis: How can you say Rand is a bad writer, right? That is careful, careful plotting, because she's just a shop girl in the rain. You've got this, the gun on the wall in that act. You know she's going to end up being good. Is she going to be rewarded for it? Let me just say, as an aside, I know we don't have time to talk about it here. My field, as I said, is 19th century African American novels, primarily now.This, usually, a woman, enslaved woman, the character who's like, "I can't deal with this," and jumps off a bridge and drowns herself is a fairly common and character. That is the only thing to do. One also sees Rand heroes. Stowe's Dred, for example, is very much, "I would rather live in the woods with a knife and then, be on the plantation and be a slave." When you think about, even the sort of into the 20th century, the Malcolm X figure, that, "I'm going to throw out all of this and be on my own," is very Randian, which I will also say very Byronic, too, Rand didn't invent this figure, but she put it front and center in these novels, and so when you think about how Atlas Shrugged could be brought into a curriculum in a network of other novels, how many of we've discussed so far, she's there, she's influenced by and continues to influence. Let's talk about your favorite minor character, the Wet Nurse.Henry: This is another great death scene.Hollis: Let's say who he is, so the government sends this young man to work at the Rearden Mills to keep an eye on Hank Rearden.Henry: Once they nationalize him, he's the bureaucrat reporting back, and Rearden calls him the Wet Nurse as an insult.Hollis: Right, and his job, he's the Communist Party person that's in every factory to make sure that everything is--Henry: That's right, he's the petty bureaucrat reporting back and making sure everyone's complying.Hollis: He's a young recent college graduate that, Hank, I think, early on, if it's possible even to find the Wet Nurse early scene, you could tell in the beginning, too, he's bright and sparkly right out of college, and this is, it seems like a good job for him. He's like, "Woohoo, I get to be here, and I get to be--" Yes, go ahead.Henry: What happens to him is, similarly to Cherryl, he has a conversion, but his conversion is not away from the corruption of the system he's been in, he is converted by what he sees in the Rearden plant, the hard work, the dedication, the idealism, the deep focus on making the metal, and he starts to see that if we don't make stuff, then all the other arguments downstream of that about how to appropriate, how to redistribute, whatever, are secondary, and so he becomes, he goes native, as it were. He becomes a Reardenite, and then at the end, when there's a crowd storming the place, and this crowd has been sent by the government, it's a fake thing to sort of--Hollis: Also, a very good scene, very dramatic.Henry: She's very good at mobs, very good at mobs, and they kill, they kill the Wet Nurse, they throw him over. He has a couple of speeches in dialogue with Rearden while he's dying, and he says--Hollis: You have to say, they throw him, they leave him on this pile of slag. He crawls up to the street where Rearden happens to be driving by, and car stops, and so that finding the Wet Nurse there and carrying him in his arms, yes.Henry: That's right, it's very dramatic, and then they have this dialogue, and he says, "I'd like to live, Mr. Rearden, God, how I'd like to, not because I'm dying, but because I've just discovered tonight what it means to be alive, and it's funny, do when I discovered it? In the office, when I stuck my neck out, when I told the bastards to go to hell, there's so many things I wish I'd known sooner, but it's no use crying over spilt milk," and then Rearden, he goes, "Listen, kid, said Rearden sternly, I want you to do me a favor." "Now, Mr. Rearden?" "Yes, now." "Of course, Mr. Rearden, if I can," and Rearden says, "You were willing to die to save my mills, will you try and live for me?"I think this is one of those great moments where, okay, maybe this isn't like George Eliot style dialogue, but you could put that straight in a movie, that would work really well, that would be great, right? I can hear Humphrey Bogart saying these things. It would work, wouldn't it?She knows that, and that's why she's doing that, she's got that technique. He's another minor character, and Rand is saying, the system is eating people up. We are setting people up for a spiritual destruction that then leads to physical destruction. This point, again, about it's not just about the material world. It's about your inner life and your own mind.I find it very moving.Hollis: These minor characters are fantastic. Then let's talk a little bit about Eddie Willers, because I think a lot about Eddie Willers. Eddie Willers, the childhood three, there were three young people, we keep going back to this childhood. We have Dagny, Francisco, because their parents were friends, and then Eddie Willers, who's like a neighborhood kid, right?Henry: He's down the street.Hollis: He lives down the street. He's like the neighborhood kid. I don't know about you. We had a neighborhood kid. There's always neighborhood kids, right? You end up spending time with this-- Eddie's just sort of always there. Then when they turn 15, 16, 17, and when there's clearly something going on between Dagny and Francisco, Eddie does take a step back, and he doesn't want to see.There's the class issues, the status issues aren't really-- they're present but not discussed by Rand. Here we have these two children heirs, and they don't say like, "You're not one of us, Eddie, because you're not an heir or an heiress." He's there, and he's got a pretty good position as Dagny's right-hand man in Taggart Transcontinental. We don't know where he went to college. We don't know what he does, but we know that he's super loyal, right?Then when she goes and takes a break for a bit, he steps in to be COO. James is like, "Eddie Willers, how can Eddie Willers be a COO?" She's like, "It's really going to be me, but he's going to be fine." We're not really supposed to identify with Eddie, but Eddie's there. Eddie has, all through the novel, all through the big old novel, Eddie eats lunch in the cafeteria. There's always this one guy he's having lunch with. This is, I don't know, like a Greek chorus thing, I don't quite know, but there's Eddie's conversations with this unknown person in the cafeteria give us a sense, maybe it's a narrator voice, like, "Meanwhile, this is going on in the world." We have these conversations. This guy he's having lunch with asks a lot of questions and starts asking a lot of personal questions about Dagny. Then we have to talk to-- I know we've gone for over an hour and 15 minutes, we've got to talk about Galt's Speech, right? When John Galt, toward the end, takes over the airwaves and gives this big three-hour speech, the big three-hour podcast as I tweeted the other day, Eddie is with Dagny.Henry: He's in the radio studio.Hollis: He's in the studio along with one of John Galt's former professors. We hear this voice. Rand says, or the narrator says, three people in the room recognize that voice. I don't know about you, did you guess that it was Galt before that moment that Eddie was having lunch with in the cafeteria?Henry: No, no, no, I didn't.Hollis: Okay, so you knew at that moment.Henry: That was when I was like, "Oh, Eddie was talking, right?" It took me a minute.Hollis: Okay, were you excited? Was that like a moment? Was that a big reveal?Henry: It was a reveal, but it made me-- Eddie's whole character puzzles me because, to me, he feels like a Watson.Hollis: Yes, that's nice, that's good.Henry: He's met Galt, who's been under their noses the whole time. He's been going through an almost Socratic method with Galt, right? If only he could have paid a little bit more attention, he would have realized what was going on. He doesn't, why is this guy so interested in Dagny, like all these things. Even after Galt's big speech, I don't think Eddie quite takes the lesson. He also comes to a more ambiguous but a bad end.Hollis: Eddie's been right there, the most loyal person. The Reddit threads on Eddie Willers, if anybody's interested, are really interesting.Henry: Yes, they are, they're so good.Hollis: Clearly, Eddie recognizes greatness, and he recognizes production, and he recognizes that Dagny is better than Jim. He recognizes Galt. They've been having these conversations for 12 years in the cafeteria. Every time he goes to the cafeteria, he's like, "Where's my friend, where's my friend?" When his friend disappears, but he also tells Galt a few things about Dagny that are personal and private. When everybody in the world, all the great people in the world, this is a big spoiler, go to Galt's Gulch at the end.Henry: He's not there.Hollis: He doesn't get to go. Is it because of the compromises he made along the way? Rand had the power to reward everybody. Hank's secretary gets to go, right?Henry: Yes.Hollis: She's gone throughout the whole thing.Henry: Eddie never thinks for himself. I think that's the-- He's a very, I think, maybe one of the more tragic victims of the whole thing because-- sorry. In a way, because, Cherryl and the Wet Nurse, they try and do the right thing and they end up dying. That's like a more normal tragedy in the sense that they made a mistake. At the moment of realization, they got toppled.Eddie, in a way, is more upsetting because he never makes a mistake and he never has a moment of realization. Rand is, I think this is maybe one of the cruelest parts of the book where she's almost saying, "This guy's never going to think for himself, and he hasn't got a hope." In a novel, if this was like a realistic novel, and she was saying, "Such is the cruelty of the world, what can we do for this person?" That would be one thing. In a novel that's like ending in a utopia or in a sort of utopia, it's one of the points where she's really harsh.Hollis: She's really harsh. I'd love to go and look at her notes at some point in time when I have an idle hour, which I won't, to say like, did she sit around? It's like, "What should I do with Eddie?" To have him die, probably, in the desert with a broken down Taggart transcontinental engine, screaming in terror and crying.Henry: Even at that stage, he can't think for himself and see that the system isn't worth supporting.Hollis: Right. He's just going to be a company man to the end.Henry: It's as cruel as those fables we tell children, like the grasshopper and the ants. He will freeze to death in the winter. There's nothing you can do about it. There are times when she gets really, really tough. I think is why people hate her.Hollis: We were talking about this, about Dickens and minor characters and coming to redemption and Dickens, except Jo. Jo and Jo All Alones, there are people who have redemption and die. Again, I don't know.Henry: There's Cherryl and the Wet Nurse are like Jo. They're tragic victims of the system. She's doing it to say, "Look how bad this is. Look how bad things are." To me, Eddie is more like Mr. Micawber. He's hopeless. It's a little bit comic. It's not a bad thing. Whereas Dickens, at the end, will just say, "Oh, screw the integrity of the plot and the morals. Let's just let Mr. Micawber-- let's find a way out for him." Everyone wants this guy to do well. Rand is like, "No, I'm sticking to my principles. He's dead in the desert, man. He's going to he's going to burn to death." He's like, "Wow, that's okay."Hollis: The funny thing is poor John Galt doesn't even care about him. John Galt has been a bad guy. John Galt is a complicated figure. Let's spend a bit on him.Henry: Before we do that, I actually want to do a very short segment contextualizing her in the 50s because then what you say about Galt will be against this background of what are some of the other ideas in the 50s, right?Hollis: Got it.Henry: I think sometimes the Galt stuff is held up as what's wrong with this novel. When you abstract it and just say it, maybe that's an easier case to make. I think once you understand that this is 1957, she's been writing the book for what, 12 years, I think, or 15 years, the Galt speech takes her 3 years to write, I think. This is, I think the most important label we can give the novel is it's a Cold War novel. She's Russian. What she's doing, in some ways, is saying to America, "This is what will happen to us if we adopt the system of our Cold War enemies." It's like, "This is animal farm, but in America with real people with trains and energy plants and industry, no pigs. This is real life." We've had books like that in our own time. The Mandibles by Lionel Shriver said, that book said, "If the 2008 crash had actually gone really badly wrong and society collapsed, how would it go?" I think that's what she's reacting to. The year before it was published, there was a sociology book called The Organization Man.Hollis: Oh, yes. William Whyte.Henry: A great book. Everyone should read that book. He is worrying, the whole book is basically him saying, "I've surveyed all these people in corporate America. They're losing the Protestant work ethic. They're losing the entrepreneurial spirit. They're losing their individual drive. Instead of wanting to make a name for themselves and invent something and do great things," he says, "they've all got this managerial spirit. All the young men coming from college, they're like, 'Everything's been done. We just need to manage it now.'" He's like, "America is collapsing." Yes, he thinks it's this awful. Obviously, that problem got solved.That, I think, that gives some sense of why, at that moment, is Ayn Rand writing the Galt speech? Because this is the background. We're in the Cold War, and there's this looming sense of the cold, dead hand of bureaucracy and managerialism is. Other people are saying, "Actually, this might be a serious problem."Hollis: I think that's right. Thank you for bringing up Whyte. I think there's so much in the background. There's so much that she's in conversation with. There's so much about this speech, so that when you ask somebody on the street-- Again, let me say this, make the comparison again to Uncle Tom's Cabin, people go through life feeling like they know Uncle Tom's Cabin, Simon Legree, Eliza Crossing the Ice, without having ever read it.Not to name drop a bit, but when I did my annotated Uncle Tom's Cabin, this big, huge book, and it got reviewed by John Updike in The New Yorker, and I was like, "This is freaking John Updike." He's like, "I never read it. I never read it." Henry Louis Gates and then whoever this young grad student was, Hollis Robbins, are writing this book, I guess I'll read it. It was interesting to me, when I talk about Uncle Tom's Cabin, "I've never read it," because it's a book you know about without reading. A lot of people know about Atlas Shrugged without having read it. I think Marc Andreessen said-- didn't he say on this podcast that he only recently read it?Henry: I was fascinated by this. He read it four years ago.Hollis: Right, during COVID.Henry: In the bibliography for the Techno-Optimist Manifesto, and I assumed he was one of those people, he was like you, he'd read it as a teenager, it had been informative. No, he came to it very recently. Something's happening with this book, right?Hollis: Huge things are happening, but the people who know about it, there's certain things that you know, you know it's long, you know that the sex is perhaps not what you would have wanted. You know that there's this big, really long thing called John Galt's Speech, and that it's like the whaling chapters in Moby-Dick. People read Moby-Dick, you're like, "Oh, yes, but I skipped all the chapters on cetology." That's the thing that you say, right? The thing that you say is like, "Yes, but I skipped all the John Galt's Speech." I was very interested when we were texting over the last month or so, what you would say when you got to John Galt's Speech. As on cue, one day, I get this text and it's like, "Oh, my God, this speech is really long." I'm like, "Yes, you are the perfect reader."Henry: I was like, "Hollis, this might be where I drop out of the book."Hollis: I'm like, "Yes, you and the world, okay?" This is why you're an excellent reader of this book, because it is a frigging slog. Just because I'm having eye issues these days, I had decided instead of rereading my copy, and I do have a newer copy than this tiny print thing, I decided to listen on audiobook. It was 62 hours or whatever, it was 45 hours, because I listen at 1.4. The speech is awesome listening to it. It, at 1.4, it's not quite 3 hours. It's really good. In the last few days, I was listening to it again, okay? I really wanted to understand somebody who's such a good plotter, and somebody who really understands how to keep people's interest, why are you doing this, Rand? Why are you doing this, Ms. Rand? I love the fact that she's always called Miss. Rand, because Miss., that is a term that we

Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett has played an integral role in the rise of originalism—the movement to identify, restore, and defend the original meaning of the Constitution. But Barnett's path to becoming an influential professor of constitutional law was not an easy one. Starting from a working-class childhood in Calumet City, Illinois, Barnett's unusual resume has included stints as an ice cream truck driver, newspaper ad salesman, prosecutor, libertarian theorist, contract law professor, and Supreme Court advocate. In his new autobiography, A Life for Liberty, Barnett tells the complete story of his personal and professional journey.Barnett's life story is a model for how libertarians can put their ideas into practice and help change the world. As a young Harvard law student, Barnett had living room debates with Murray Rothbard and served on the board of a libertarian institution with Leonard Liggio and other notable thinkers. Barnett's focus on individual rights prepared him for the turning point in his career, when he was the only person on a high-profile panel willing to argue that the Ninth Amendment protects “unenumerated rights” from government infringement.After establishing himself as “Mr. Ninth Amendment,” Barnett eventually pivoted his career to constitutional law. His mission to restore “the lost Constitution” took him from the schoolhouse to the courthouse, where he argued the medical marijuana case Gonzales v. Raich in the Supreme Court—a case now taught to every law student. Later, he devised and spearheaded the constitutional challenge to Obamacare. Today, thanks in part to his efforts, a majority of sitting Supreme Court justices self-identify as originalists.In this book forum, Professor Barnett will discuss his life story, the lessons he's learned, and the ways in which his thinking continues to evolve. Professor Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School will offer commentary on the book, drawing from his own perspective as a fellow legal academic. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this special Constitution Day episode of Lady Justice: Women of the Court, hosts Justice Rhonda Wood of Arkansas and Justice Beth Walker of West Virginia sit down with Randy Barnett, the Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University and Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution. Together, they dive into a thought-provoking conversation about Barnett's latest memoir, A Life for Liberty: The Making of an American Originalist, and explore his journey from a prosecutor in Chicago to becoming a leading voice in the originalism movement.  Barnett shares insights into the federal and state constitutions, the amendment processes, and his expertise on the Ninth Amendment. The discussion delves into the principles of originalism, the impact of abolitionist Lysander Spooner, and the significance of the “lost constitution.” The episode also offers a glimpse into Barnett's forthcoming work, Felony Review: Tales of True Stories of Crime and Corruption in Chicago, drawing on his experiences as a prosecutor.  Listeners will also gain valuable advice on the importance of mentorship and learn about the influential mentors who shaped Barnett's career. This episode provides a compelling look at the intersection of law, history, and personal conviction, offering inspiration for anyone passionate about justice and liberty.  Topics Discussed:  The differences between the federal Constitution and state constitutions, and their respective amendment processes  The origins and principles of originalism  Key insights into Barnett's memoir, A Life for Liberty: The Making of an American Originalist  The role of mentorship in Barnett's career and personal growth  Discussions on the Ninth Amendment and the concept of the “lost constitution”  Reflections on Lysander Spooner's The Unconstitutionality of Slavery and its influence on originalism  A preview of Barnett's upcoming book, Felony Review: Tales of True Stories of Crime and Corruption in Chicago  Don't miss this engaging conversation that blends constitutional law, history, and the personal stories of one of America's foremost legal scholars. Tune in now!  Resources:   -https://www.randybarnett.com/   -https://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/randy-e-barnett/  -https://www.amazon.com/Life-Liberty-Making-American-Originalist/dp/1641773774  -https://archive.org/details/unconstitutionalit00spoo   -https://www.ncsc.org/education-and-careers/civics/constitution-day  

This week Randy Barnett joins host Roger Ream to discuss the ideas of constitutional originalism, natural law vs. natural rights, the importance of the ninth amendment, and how they all inform his interpretation of libertarianism. Plus, the benefits of teaching constitutional law through a narrative lens and stories from Randy's newly released memoir, “A Life for Liberty: The Making of an American Originalist.” Randy is the Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law at the Georgetown University Law Center and is the Faculty Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution. He has argued numerous high-profile cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and as a legal scholar is perhaps the foremost expert on the ninth amendment to the Constitution, among other provisions. He is also a member of the advisory board for the TFAS Summer Law Fellowship program and has been a favorite guest lecturer in that program.The Liberty + Leadership Podcast is hosted by TFAS president Roger Ream and produced by Podville Media. If you have a comment or question for the show, please email us at podcast@TFAS.org. To support TFAS and its mission, please visit TFAS.org/support.Support the Show.

Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett is the author of A Life for Liberty: The Making of an American Originalist, a new memoir about his remarkable legal career. He joins Jeffrey Rosen to discuss his role in the evolution of originalism from a philosophy of judicial restraint to one of constitutional conservatism dedicated to restoring “the lost Constitution.” Resources: Randy Barnett, A Life for Liberty: The Making of an American Originalist (2024)  Randy Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty (2014)  Randy Barnett, “Two Conceptions of the Ninth Amendment,” (1989)   Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (1978)  Antonin Scalia, “Originalism: The Lesser Evil,” (1989)   National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)  “Originalism: A Matter of Interpretation,” NCC America's Town Hall Program (2022)  Stay Connected and Learn More: Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.   Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. Donate

As events escalate, the Amicus filing details have become an adventure story. SCOTUS submittal work takes a special heart. Printing, format, fonts and book binding must be perfect. On to the states. We must make sure there are remedies. The case is formulated so the court will hear from the people. Three major arguments exist on how the people were hurt. The Supreme's are going to love it. Let's reflect on this amazing journey. The Ninth Amendment is key. And don't forget the Tenth. We are united like a bundle. Let our actions inspire future generations. We are reclaiming the essence of our constitutional republic. Zelle for banking transaction control. Antarctica and 7000 new islands. Journalism is dead so who will report? They knew people would follow the stars. It hurts when you finally realize they are not your friends. Trashy people go public. The two tiered justice system screams out. People should be more outraged. All J6 info is monitored. When the past comes back to haunt us. The truth is revolutionary information. She has glasses that record stuff? A lot of people are SUS. Julian Assange is taking the brunt of injustice. May we all feel blessed with a heartfelt prayer for grace, goodness and strength.

The first eight amendments to the U.S. Constitution contain specific guarantees of rights. But the Ninth Amendment simply says that the rights contained in the Constitution do not limit or reduce any other rights the people have. We'll learn about competing theories about what exactly the Ninth Amendment means in today's 60-Second Civics podcast. Center for Civic Education

The Ninth Amendment might seem a bit confusing at first glance.  To understand its massive significance requires some insight into what the Founders were thinking.  Think of the Bill of Rights not as granting rights to the people but rather restricting what the government can and cant do in the lives of its citizens.  To wit, it would be impractical to list every right a citizen has and as such the rights specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights should not be viewed as a limit to those rights.  Helping us and our all-star student panel grasp the importance of this amendment, we are delighted to welcome Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute, as a guest on this week's show.

Listing every right that a constitution should protect is hard. American constitution drafters often list a few famous rights such as freedom of speech, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and free exercise of religion, plus a handful of others. However, we do not need to enumerate every liberty because there is another way to protect them: an "etcetera clause." It states that there are other rights beyond those specifically listed: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Yet scholars are divided on whether the Ninth Amendment itself actually does protect unenumerated rights, and the Supreme Court has almost entirely ignored it. Regardless of what the Ninth Amendment means, two-thirds of state constitutions have equivalent provisions, or "Baby Ninth Amendments," worded similarly to the Ninth Amendment. Anthony B. Sanders' book Baby Ninth Amendments: How Americans Embraced Unenumerated Rights and Why It Matters (U Michigan Press, 2023) is the story of how the "Baby Ninths" came to be and what they mean. Unlike the controversy surrounding the Ninth Amendment, the meaning of the Baby Ninths is straightforward: they protect individual rights that are not otherwise enumerated. They are an "etcetera, etcetera" at the end of a bill of rights. This book argues that state judges should do their duty and live up to their own constitutions to protect the rights "retained by the people" that these "etcetera clauses" are designed to guarantee. The fact that Americans have adopted these provisions so many times in so many states demonstrates that unenumerated rights are not only protected by state constitutions, but that they are popular. Unenumerated rights are not a weird exception to American constitutional law. They are at the center of it. We should start treating constitutions accordingly. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Listing every right that a constitution should protect is hard. American constitution drafters often list a few famous rights such as freedom of speech, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and free exercise of religion, plus a handful of others. However, we do not need to enumerate every liberty because there is another way to protect them: an "etcetera clause." It states that there are other rights beyond those specifically listed: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Yet scholars are divided on whether the Ninth Amendment itself actually does protect unenumerated rights, and the Supreme Court has almost entirely ignored it. Regardless of what the Ninth Amendment means, two-thirds of state constitutions have equivalent provisions, or "Baby Ninth Amendments," worded similarly to the Ninth Amendment. Anthony B. Sanders' book Baby Ninth Amendments: How Americans Embraced Unenumerated Rights and Why It Matters (U Michigan Press, 2023) is the story of how the "Baby Ninths" came to be and what they mean. Unlike the controversy surrounding the Ninth Amendment, the meaning of the Baby Ninths is straightforward: they protect individual rights that are not otherwise enumerated. They are an "etcetera, etcetera" at the end of a bill of rights. This book argues that state judges should do their duty and live up to their own constitutions to protect the rights "retained by the people" that these "etcetera clauses" are designed to guarantee. The fact that Americans have adopted these provisions so many times in so many states demonstrates that unenumerated rights are not only protected by state constitutions, but that they are popular. Unenumerated rights are not a weird exception to American constitutional law. They are at the center of it. We should start treating constitutions accordingly. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Listing every right that a constitution should protect is hard. American constitution drafters often list a few famous rights such as freedom of speech, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and free exercise of religion, plus a handful of others. However, we do not need to enumerate every liberty because there is another way to protect them: an "etcetera clause." It states that there are other rights beyond those specifically listed: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Yet scholars are divided on whether the Ninth Amendment itself actually does protect unenumerated rights, and the Supreme Court has almost entirely ignored it. Regardless of what the Ninth Amendment means, two-thirds of state constitutions have equivalent provisions, or "Baby Ninth Amendments," worded similarly to the Ninth Amendment. Anthony B. Sanders' book Baby Ninth Amendments: How Americans Embraced Unenumerated Rights and Why It Matters (U Michigan Press, 2023) is the story of how the "Baby Ninths" came to be and what they mean. Unlike the controversy surrounding the Ninth Amendment, the meaning of the Baby Ninths is straightforward: they protect individual rights that are not otherwise enumerated. They are an "etcetera, etcetera" at the end of a bill of rights. This book argues that state judges should do their duty and live up to their own constitutions to protect the rights "retained by the people" that these "etcetera clauses" are designed to guarantee. The fact that Americans have adopted these provisions so many times in so many states demonstrates that unenumerated rights are not only protected by state constitutions, but that they are popular. Unenumerated rights are not a weird exception to American constitutional law. They are at the center of it. We should start treating constitutions accordingly. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Listing every right that a constitution should protect is hard. American constitution drafters often list a few famous rights such as freedom of speech, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and free exercise of religion, plus a handful of others. However, we do not need to enumerate every liberty because there is another way to protect them: an "etcetera clause." It states that there are other rights beyond those specifically listed: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Yet scholars are divided on whether the Ninth Amendment itself actually does protect unenumerated rights, and the Supreme Court has almost entirely ignored it. Regardless of what the Ninth Amendment means, two-thirds of state constitutions have equivalent provisions, or "Baby Ninth Amendments," worded similarly to the Ninth Amendment. Anthony B. Sanders' book Baby Ninth Amendments: How Americans Embraced Unenumerated Rights and Why It Matters (U Michigan Press, 2023) is the story of how the "Baby Ninths" came to be and what they mean. Unlike the controversy surrounding the Ninth Amendment, the meaning of the Baby Ninths is straightforward: they protect individual rights that are not otherwise enumerated. They are an "etcetera, etcetera" at the end of a bill of rights. This book argues that state judges should do their duty and live up to their own constitutions to protect the rights "retained by the people" that these "etcetera clauses" are designed to guarantee. The fact that Americans have adopted these provisions so many times in so many states demonstrates that unenumerated rights are not only protected by state constitutions, but that they are popular. Unenumerated rights are not a weird exception to American constitutional law. They are at the center of it. We should start treating constitutions accordingly. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

Listing every right that a constitution should protect is hard. American constitution drafters often list a few famous rights such as freedom of speech, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and free exercise of religion, plus a handful of others. However, we do not need to enumerate every liberty because there is another way to protect them: an "etcetera clause." It states that there are other rights beyond those specifically listed: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Yet scholars are divided on whether the Ninth Amendment itself actually does protect unenumerated rights, and the Supreme Court has almost entirely ignored it. Regardless of what the Ninth Amendment means, two-thirds of state constitutions have equivalent provisions, or "Baby Ninth Amendments," worded similarly to the Ninth Amendment. Anthony B. Sanders' book Baby Ninth Amendments: How Americans Embraced Unenumerated Rights and Why It Matters (U Michigan Press, 2023) is the story of how the "Baby Ninths" came to be and what they mean. Unlike the controversy surrounding the Ninth Amendment, the meaning of the Baby Ninths is straightforward: they protect individual rights that are not otherwise enumerated. They are an "etcetera, etcetera" at the end of a bill of rights. This book argues that state judges should do their duty and live up to their own constitutions to protect the rights "retained by the people" that these "etcetera clauses" are designed to guarantee. The fact that Americans have adopted these provisions so many times in so many states demonstrates that unenumerated rights are not only protected by state constitutions, but that they are popular. Unenumerated rights are not a weird exception to American constitutional law. They are at the center of it. We should start treating constitutions accordingly. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Listing every right that a constitution should protect is hard. American constitution drafters often list a few famous rights such as freedom of speech, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and free exercise of religion, plus a handful of others. However, we do not need to enumerate every liberty because there is another way to protect them: an "etcetera clause." It states that there are other rights beyond those specifically listed: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Yet scholars are divided on whether the Ninth Amendment itself actually does protect unenumerated rights, and the Supreme Court has almost entirely ignored it. Regardless of what the Ninth Amendment means, two-thirds of state constitutions have equivalent provisions, or "Baby Ninth Amendments," worded similarly to the Ninth Amendment. Anthony B. Sanders' book Baby Ninth Amendments: How Americans Embraced Unenumerated Rights and Why It Matters (U Michigan Press, 2023) is the story of how the "Baby Ninths" came to be and what they mean. Unlike the controversy surrounding the Ninth Amendment, the meaning of the Baby Ninths is straightforward: they protect individual rights that are not otherwise enumerated. They are an "etcetera, etcetera" at the end of a bill of rights. This book argues that state judges should do their duty and live up to their own constitutions to protect the rights "retained by the people" that these "etcetera clauses" are designed to guarantee. The fact that Americans have adopted these provisions so many times in so many states demonstrates that unenumerated rights are not only protected by state constitutions, but that they are popular. Unenumerated rights are not a weird exception to American constitutional law. They are at the center of it. We should start treating constitutions accordingly. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listing every right that a constitution should protect is hard. American constitution drafters often list a few famous rights such as freedom of speech, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and free exercise of religion, plus a handful of others. However, we do not need to enumerate every liberty because there is another way to protect them: an "etcetera clause." It states that there are other rights beyond those specifically listed: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Yet scholars are divided on whether the Ninth Amendment itself actually does protect unenumerated rights, and the Supreme Court has almost entirely ignored it. Regardless of what the Ninth Amendment means, two-thirds of state constitutions have equivalent provisions, or "Baby Ninth Amendments," worded similarly to the Ninth Amendment. Anthony B. Sanders' book Baby Ninth Amendments: How Americans Embraced Unenumerated Rights and Why It Matters (U Michigan Press, 2023) is the story of how the "Baby Ninths" came to be and what they mean. Unlike the controversy surrounding the Ninth Amendment, the meaning of the Baby Ninths is straightforward: they protect individual rights that are not otherwise enumerated. They are an "etcetera, etcetera" at the end of a bill of rights. This book argues that state judges should do their duty and live up to their own constitutions to protect the rights "retained by the people" that these "etcetera clauses" are designed to guarantee. The fact that Americans have adopted these provisions so many times in so many states demonstrates that unenumerated rights are not only protected by state constitutions, but that they are popular. Unenumerated rights are not a weird exception to American constitutional law. They are at the center of it. We should start treating constitutions accordingly. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join us online for the launch of an inspiring new book from Anthony Sanders of the Institute for Justice, Baby Ninth Amendments: How Americans Embraced Unenumerated Rights and Why It Matters (University of Michigan Press, 2023). The book tells the unheralded story of how Americans carefully sought to protect liberty from overweening government by including in most state constitutions specific provisions (so‐​called Baby Ninths) that expressly protect unenumerated rights.Sanders explains why it is impossible to itemize every right a constitution should protect and shows that however many rights are specifically enumerated, other important rights will inevitably go unmentioned. So what is a constitutional drafter to do? Sanders argues that early in American history, a solution was advanced by drafters of state constitutions in the form of what he calls an “etcetera clause” that contains language borrowed directly from the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As a result, two‐​thirds of states today contain these “Baby Ninth Amendments” that even skeptics of unenumerated rights must not only acknowledge but also give meaningful substance to. This has important implications for state courts, which have thus far largely ignored these important provisions, and for the larger question of whether it is ever appropriate—or indeed even mandatory—for judges to protect unenumerated rights. The short answers, as Sanders makes clear, are yes and yes.Clark Neily will talk with Sanders about his new book. Join us online on May 10 at noon. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today on Legalese we are talking about the meaning and scope of the Ninth Amendment, What did this amendment mean to the framers and ratifiers who gave the bill of rights legal force? What role has it played in Constitutional law and case precedent? What does it mean in our own time and how is it applied today? And could this amendment be the most important sentence in the entire Constitution? Originalism And Textualism: A Complete Guide To Their Understanding & Application (Past Episode) The Negative-Implications Canon Excerpt from Reading Law by: Justice Antonin Scalia & Brian Garner The Ninth Amendment: It Means What It Says A Textual-Historical Theory of the Ninth Amendment The Lost Original Meaning of the Ninth Amendment The Intersection of Natural Rights and Positive Constitutional Law Follow & Support Legalese Homepage Subscribe To Legalese Contact the Show: Bob@LegaleseShow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, ninth amendment, bill of right, natural rights, randy barnett, robert bork, kurt lash, james madison, inclusio unius, negative implications canon, rule of construction, substantive law, griswold v connecticut, the richmond newspaper case, carolene Products, footnote 4, footnote four, williamson v lee optical, substantive due process, rational basis test, enumerated rights, unenumerated rights Legalese is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Meet Paula F. Casey who for more than thirty years has worked to educate the public about the role that the state of Tennessee played in securing the passage of the nineteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In the title of this episode, I referred to Paula as an “unstoppable suffragist”, not an “unstoppable suffragette”. Paula will explain the difference and the importance of these two words. I find this episode extremely fascinating and well worth the listen for everyone as what Paula says puts many things and ideas into historical perspective. I hope you find Paula Casey's comments as stimulating and informative as I. About the Guest: Paula F. Casey of Memphis has dedicated more than 30 years to educating the public about Tennessee's pivotal role in the 19th Amendment's ratification with a video, book, e-book, audiobook, and public art. She is also an engaging speaker on the 19th Amendment and voting rights. She was just named Chair of the National Votes for Women Trail (https://ncwhs.org/votes-for-women-trail/), which is dedicated to diversity and inclusion of all the women who participated in the 72-year struggle for American women to win the right to vote. She is also the state coordinator for Tennessee. Paula produced "Generations: American Women Win the Vote," in 1989 and the book, The Perfect 36: Tennessee Delivers Woman Suffrage, in 1998. She helped place these monuments - bas relief plaque inside the State Capitol (1998); Tennessee Woman Suffrage Monument (Nashville's Centennial Park 2016); Sue Shelton White statue (Jackson City Hall 2017). The Memphis Suffrage Monument "Equality Trailblazers" was installed at the University of Memphis law school after 5 years of work. The dedication ceremony was held on March 27, 2022, and is on YouTube: https://youtu.be/YTNND5F1aBw She co-founded the Tennessee Woman Suffrage Heritage Trail (www.tnwomansuffrageheritagetrail.com) that highlights the monuments, markers, gravesites and suffrage-related sites. How to Connect with Paula: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/paula-casey-736110b/ Twitter: @pfcasey1953 Websites: paulacasey.com, theperfect36.com, tnwomansuffrageheritagetrail.com, memphissuffragemonument.com About the Host: Michael Hingson is a New York Times best-selling author, international lecturer, and Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe. Michael, blind since birth, survived the 9/11 attacks with the help of his guide dog Roselle. This story is the subject of his best-selling book, Thunder Dog. Michael gives over 100 presentations around the world each year speaking to influential groups such as Exxon Mobile, AT&T, Federal Express, Scripps College, Rutgers University, Children's Hospital, and the American Red Cross just to name a few. He is Ambassador for the National Braille Literacy Campaign for the National Federation of the Blind and also serves as Ambassador for the American Humane Association's 2012 Hero Dog Awards. https://michaelhingson.com https://www.facebook.com/michael.hingson.author.speaker/ https://twitter.com/mhingson https://www.youtube.com/user/mhingson https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelhingson/ accessiBe Links https://accessibe.com/ https://www.youtube.com/c/accessiBe https://www.linkedin.com/company/accessibe/mycompany/ https://www.facebook.com/accessibe/ Thanks for listening! Thanks so much for listening to our podcast! If you enjoyed this episode and think that others could benefit from listening, please share it using the social media buttons on this page. Do you have some feedback or questions about this episode? Leave a comment in the section below! Subscribe to the podcast If you would like to get automatic updates of new podcast episodes, you can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts or Stitcher. You can also subscribe in your favorite podcast app. Leave us an Apple Podcasts review Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts, which exposes our show to more awesome listeners like you. If you have a minute, please leave an honest review on Apple Podcasts. Transcription Notes Michael Hingson  00:00   Access Cast and accessiBe Initiative presents Unstoppable Mindset. The podcast where inclusion, diversity and the unexpected meet. Hi, I'm Michael Hingson, Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe and the author of the number one New York Times bestselling book, Thunder dog, the story of a blind man, his guide dog and the triumph of trust. Thanks for joining me on my podcast as we explore our own blinding fears of inclusion unacceptance and our resistance to change. We will discover the idea that no matter the situation, or the people we encounter, our own fears, and prejudices often are our strongest barriers to moving forward. The unstoppable mindset podcast is sponsored by accessiBe, that's a c c e s s i  capital B e. Visit www.accessibe.com to learn how you can make your website accessible for persons with disabilities. And to help make the internet fully inclusive by the year 2025. Glad you dropped by we're happy to meet you and to have you here with us.   Michael Hingson  01:20 Well and a gracious hello to you wherever you happen to be today. This is your host Mike Hingson on unstoppable mindset. And today we get to interview a lady I met just a few weeks ago at one of the Podapalooza events. And if you remember me talking at all about Podapalooza, it is an event for podcasters would be podcasters. And people who want to be interviewed by podcasters, and anybody else who wants to come along. And we've had four of them now altogether, and I've had the opportunity and the joy of being involved with all of them. And Paula Casey is one of the people who I met at the last podapalooza endeavor. Paula is in Memphis, Tennessee, and among other things, has spent the last 30 years of her life being very much involved in dealing with studying and promoting the history of women's suffrage in the United States, especially where Tennessee has been involved. And we're going to get to that we're going to talk about it. We're going to try not to get too political, but you know, we'll do what we got to do and will survive. So Paula, no matter what, welcome to unstoppable mindset, how are you?   Paula Casey  02:29 I'm great. Thank you so much for having me. It's always a joy to talk with you.   Michael Hingson  02:34 Well, I feel the same way. And we're glad to do it. So let's start, as I like to do at the beginning as it were. So tell us a little bit about you growing up and all that and you you obviously did stuff. You didn't get born dealing with women's suffrage. So let's go back and learn about the early Paula.   Paula Casey  02:53 Okay, I grew up in Nashville, Tennessee, which is the capital of the great State of Tennessee. But you know, I was 21 years old before I knew that it was Tennessee, the last state that could possibly ratify the 19th amendment. And it's just mind boggling to me when I look back and think, Well, how did we learn about this? I said, basically, it was because the textbooks only had one or two sentences. And they usually said, a napkin women were given the right to vote in 1920 as though it were bestowed by some benevolent entity. And it wasn't until after college, and I met my dear friend, the light gray, Carol, when Yellen that I learned how significant the women's suffrage movement was, and how it is even more surprising that my state Tennessee became the last state that could read it back.   Michael Hingson  03:50 Well, so when you were growing up in high school and all that, what were you kind of mostly interested in? Because you didn't just suddenly develop an interest in history.   Paula Casey  04:00 I have good history teachers. And I'm very fortunate that I didn't have football coaches. I have real history teachers. And I was involved in Student Council. I was an active girl scout. My parents were very good about making sure that my sister and I had lots of extracurricular activities. And I was a good kid. I didn't do anything wrong. I was a teacher pleaser. I wanted to do well. I wanted to go to college because our parents brought us up girls are going to college. And we've my sister and I both knew that we were going to the University of Tennessee and mark small go big orange and go lady balls and just for the people who care about football, Tennessee right now is number one and the college football rankings. So we're happy about that. But I have always been a staunch supporter of University of Tennessee because that was where I really learned about how important history was. And I was journalism, major journalism and speech. So that helped me on my path to public speaking, and learning more about this nonviolent revolution really became my passion and helping to get women elected to office.   Michael Hingson  05:11 Well, let's deal with what you just said. I think it's an extremely important thing. I'll come at it in a little bit of a roundabout way, the Declaration of Independence talks about us having life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And it talks about all men are created equal. And all that spine, although I think if you ask most people, when we talk about being created equal, they interpreted as meaning everybody is supposed to be equal. But you pointed out that usually what people say is that women were granted the right to vote. Tell me more about that.   Paula Casey  05:51 Rights are crafted by the Constitution. And in the case of voting rights, the constitution provides for initially man with property white men of property. Then in 1870, the 15th Amendment provided for black man, the newly freed black male slaves. The 14th amendment is the first time the word male m a l. E appears in the Constitution. And the suffragists back then and let me just clarify this in the United States. It was suffragist, the British for the suffragettes and they were considered so radical that the Americans wanted to distinguish themselves. So people in the United States who advocated for women to have the right to vote or suffragist. So the constitution grants the right to vote and our Constitution has been expanded to provide for more groups to participate in the franchise, however, and I want to emphasize this set up by people understand us, what the 19th Amendment did was remove the barrier of gender, it does not guarantee a right to vote. Our United States Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote, it will grant the rights for removing particular barriers in our lighter Native Americans and Asians and all that. Well, at the end, I was around in the early 70s, when I was at University of Tennessee in Knoxville, when the 26th Amendment was ratified, which extended the right to vote to 18 year olds, and I got to vote in my first election when I was 19. And I have never missed an election. I just think it's so important that we vote because that's part of what democracy is all about. And the suffragists did not believe that democracy is a spectator sport. They believed in self government, and they wanted to participate in their government. That's why they fought for 72 years to win that right, and to be able to participate by voting and running for office.   Michael Hingson  08:13 So going back to when the Constitution was formed. So what you're saying is essentially, that the original Constitution truly was only dealing with men and not women being created equal, white man with property. Yeah. And what do you think about people today, who say that our constitution shouldn't be any evolving and evolutionary kind of thing, that we should go strictly by what the Constitution says,   Paula Casey  08:52 I have two words for you.   Michael Hingson  08:55 Why nice to be nice, be nice,   Paula Casey  08:58 white supremacy. That's what that means. When you talk about this originally, originalist stuff. It's silly. It represents white supremacy. Yeah.   Michael Hingson  09:09 And that's, that's really the issue. I don't know of any governing document that is so strict, that it shouldn't be an evolutionary kind of a thing. We grow our attitudes change, we learn things. And we realize that we've disenfranchise from time to time, which is kind of some of the what you've been talking about in history trope.   Paula Casey  09:42 And people who say that, yeah, I don't know if they really believe it. Yeah, you see these surveys or polls where they say, Oh, the average American didn't understand the Bill of Rights and the Bill of Rights wouldn't pass today. Well, thank goodness it did pass. And I want to say MIT to you that I don't think the 19th amendment would have been ratified in this country, had it not been for the First Amendment. And as a former newspaper journalist, I'm a big believer and the First Amendment, I've been a member of the National Federation of press women since 1977. And the First Amendment is absolutely our guiding star. And it is so important for people to understand the significance of the First Amendment, the Bill of Rights and all of the additional amendments, the founding fathers, and if there were some women in there, too, even though they don't get recognized, like Abigail Adams, who believed that the Constitution should evolve a non violent revolution is what it was about the passage of the Constitution. And when I speak every year, generally on Constitution Day, which is September 17, I always point out that Benjamin Franklin said, when he was asked in 1787, Dr. Franklin, what have you created? And he said, a republic, if you can keep it, and we need to heat those words. Tell us more. Why. I think that those individuals who were involved in the creation of the Constitution, and it was not an easy task. And there were very, very strong disagreements, but they did agree on democracy. And you know, Mike, that's what this is all about. Whenever we talk about the suffrage movement, whenever I'm involved in markers, or monuments, highlighting the suffrage movement, I always point out this is about democracy and the rule of law. The suffragists believed in democracy, and that is why they fought a non violent revolution, 72 years from 1848 to 1920. But I believe that they proved the Constitution works. That's what it's about. And   Michael Hingson  12:11 you say that because of the fact that that women's suffrage passed, or what, what makes you really say the Constitution works   Paula Casey  12:20 because they persevered. They utilized every tool available to them and a non violent way, particularly the First Amendment. And when you think about what is in the First Amendment, freedom of press, freedom to peaceably assemble the freedom to petition your government for redress of grievances, their ability to communicate, and to persevere for a cause in which they deeply believed. I mean, these women were not fly by night. They play the long game. And I think that's what we can learn from down the first generation of women. And this goes back to Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Lucretia Mott and Megan bloomer. All the people who were at Seneca Falls in 1848. It was July 19, of 20 of the bait Team 48. They believed in democracy, they believed in self government and rule of law. They persevered within the parameters of what was available to them to peaceably assemble to petition their government. And I've got to tell you, I got to go to the National Archives, back in the early 90s. And I saw the handwritten letter from Susan B. Anthony, addressing her concerns her grievances with the United States government. And all of these women who were out there fighting, I mean, literally doing everything they could to make sure this issue was not diminished. As many people tried to do, that it wasn't swept aside, they overcame enormous obstacles, but they believed in something greater than themselves. And that was democracy and the rule of law.   Michael Hingson  14:08 What is the lesson that we should learn today about the importance of women's suffrage? I mean, you've been dealing with this now for over 30 years. Well, a long time, actually. And so what is the real significance of it?   Paula Casey  14:23 Why is so significant about studying the suffrage movement is that these women were prepared for the long game. They knew that it was not going to happen overnight, or possibly within their lifetimes. They fought the long fought for the long game. And when you look at persistence, perseverance, everything that they embodied there were poignant. out they were absolutely brilliant and we need to understand what they did and how they worked. To secure a right that we all take for granted today. And that's why when I hear these silly things about, oh, the worst thing that ever happened, this crash was women getting the right vote, you know, and all that garbage. I just feel like we need to study what they did. And what was so significant, because it was peaceful, nonviolent, they adhere to the rule of law. They certainly enacted every part of First Amendment. And then those went and made it possible for us to have the rights we enjoy today. And you have to remember that everything that we enjoy today, these rights came because other people were willing to fight or dock for them. And that's the whole thing about the right to vote. I mean, I'm the widow of a Vietnam veteran, and my husband served in Vietnam. I know, we still have a lot of questions about that war. But my daddy, who just died this year, he was a world war two veteran as well as a Korean War veteran. My father in law was an Army veteran who was throughout World War Two. So I take this right to vote seriously. And when I think about what our having grown up in Nashville, and Tennessee, and I've been in Memphis, where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed in 1968, fighting for equal rights. And I've been in Memphis since January 1981. So I'm very passionate about women's rights, civil rights, the right to vote, we need to know our history. And we need to understand that a lot of people fought died for us to have these rights, particularly the right to vote.   Michael Hingson  16:42 Well, without getting overly political about the process, we certainly seem to be having some challenges today, because there is a what appears to be a growing number of people who would retract a lot of the things that have been brought about and some of the rights that have been expanded and made available. And it's it's scary, I know that we who, for example, have happened to be persons with disabilities are worried about some of the voting issues. Because if they, if the wrong, people decide to take complaint and get complete control, they could pull back the Help America Vote Act, and the whole issue about having voting machines that are accessible and taking away accessible ballots and so on. And there's so many other things going on? How do we get people to truly understand what happened with women's suffrage and similar sorts of things? And how do we get people to recognize the dangers that we face today?   Paula Casey  17:47 That is such a great question. And I've got to tell you, Mike, I think about this just about every day. Here's what you got to remember, ever since the beginning of this country, we have had people who consider themselves superior, and who do not want everyone to vote, it took me a long time to understand that. Because, you know, growing up in Nashville, and I mean, I had a great upper middle class life. And, you know, I'm educated, I've traveled I mean, I think I'm a fairly nice person. And I want everybody to vote. And I just couldn't understand that there were people who would not want every American citizen to exercise the franchise, and that has become more and more apparent. And I have to tell you, I think that the election of Barack Obama had a lot to do with that with the backlash. And the idea that there are folks in this country who do not believe that everyone should have the right to vote. And so therefore, they consider themselves justified in putting up barriers to the voting process, which makes it incumbent upon people like us who want everyone to have access to the ballot, to try to figure out how to overcome the obstacles that they place in our path. At Bat, again, takes us back to the women's suffrage movement. Those women endured all kinds of ridicule. I mean, it just it's amazing when you look back and see the newspapers, and things that were written and said letters and things that are in archives, people who were dismissive both men and women, dismissive of the right to vote, because that was something that many people from the beginning of this country onward, felt like it should be limited, any access. So those of us who have been fighting for expanded access, are going to have to keep on fighting. We can't give up and that's what the suffrage just taught us cannot give up Have   Michael Hingson  20:01 you talked about the concept? And the fact that this was a nonviolent movement? Did those early suffragists experienced much violence from people?   Paula Casey  20:14 Yeah. Oh, yeah. Especially when they marched the 1913 suffrage parade in Washington, DC, and in New York City and night content, the I mean, Thurber police and looked the other way, a geonet. Something that's happening today, too. But the idea that not everyone celebrated having universal suffrage. And that's what I believe in universal suffrage, no matter what you believe. And you still should have access to the ballot, and we need to make it as accessible as we can. But we've just got to keep fighting because we've got to overcome the people that don't want everyone to have access to the ballot.   Michael Hingson  21:01 You studied this a lot. What do you think the Founding Fathers view would be today? When founding mothers for that matter?   Paula Casey  21:09 Better? Such a great question, because everybody likes to think that they know what they would think. And I have to tell you, I have been on a run of reading David McCullough's books. I am just really into BS, I'm researching 76 right now. And I've had John Adams forever. I've never finished it. So I'm going to finish that. Then I've got to do Teddy Roosevelt. And then I'm going to do Harry Truman. But the thing about John Adams, when Abigail wrote him to remember the ladies, he was dismissive. And he thought it was silly. And these man, okay, yes, they were products of their time. But there were very few real feminist among them. That's what made Frederick Douglass stand out because he was so willing to stand up for women's suffrage. But she looked back at those men. And I mean, honestly, my they didn't know any differently. You think about what they were through. And the idea that women should be equal participants in a democracy was certainly a foreign thought to them. But there were so many people. And there were also areas that didn't allow women to vote. But you know, New Jersey actually extended the franchise and then took it away. And then when people started moving westward, to develop the West, there were the men were adamant that because women were helping homestead and settled all of that land out there that they should be voting, if there were states that were not going to come into the Union if their women couldn't vote. So this is not that unusual of an idea. But it took particularly enlightened man and women who pushed for it to happen. And I've got to point this out. I do not bash man because it took the man and those 36 state legislatures to ratify a Ninth Amendment, they voted to willingly expand power, and that needs to be acknowledged. Weird, we're   Michael Hingson  23:20 we're dealing with this, this whole issue of suffrage and rights and so on. Were any of the early founders of the United States, right from the outset? Supportive or more supportive? Do you think? Or do you know,   Paula Casey  23:35 trying to think, abolition and suffrage became closely linked? Yeah. So for those who advocated the abolition of slavery, they were probably more amenable. But again, what this really is about is the whole idea of who is a citizen? And I think that's where and the founding of this country, clearly black people and Native Americans were not considered citizens. The question about women. I can't think right offhand of any, quote, founding father who advocated for women to bow, they may have come up, you know, some of them may have come around, but you look back and think, who are the guys that we think about as founding fathers? I don't think any of them was particularly feminist, or encouraging of women being thought of as citizens with full voting rights. And then you got into the issue of taxation without representation. You know, nothing's new. That's what you learned studying the women's suffrage movement is it's all been said or done for who is a citizen who should have the right to vote?   Michael Hingson  24:58 Well, I'm I'm think I mentioned to you When we chatted before, and you just brought up abolitionists, and I always remember the story of William Lloyd Garrison, who was trying to gain more people into the abolitionist movement. And he directed some of his people to contact the Grimm case sisters who were very staunch suffragists, right? And see, I got the word, right. And they said, No, we can't do that. That's not what their priority is. Their priority is all about women's separatists that's going to detract from what we're all about. And in Henry Mayer's book all on fire in telling the story, he says that Garrison said, it's all the same thing. And that's absolutely right. Whether it's the right to vote, whether it's the right to attend public school, whether it's the right of persons with so called disabilities to have equal access, which doesn't necessarily mean we do things the same way, but equal access to things in the United States. It's all the same thing. Right. And I think that's the most important message that we all want to take away. Or at least that's part of the important message that we should take away. I don't know how we change people's minds today, though, we're getting such a polarized world? And how do we get people to understand why being more open to everyone having equal opportunities, whether it be the right to vote or whatever? How do we get people to deal with that?   Paula Casey  26:45 I think we have to learn from what the separatists stat, we have to persevere. We have to be creative, and innovative. We just can't give up. This is the long game we are in for the fight of our labs. And it won't get better if people give up. That's why we've got the hang in there. And truly, it is about democracy, you either believe in democracy or don't. And that, to me is the bottom line. And when he talks about polarization, I think we also have to factor in disinformation, foreign governments being involved in our political processes. And frankly, as a former newspaper journalist, and someone with a journalism degree, I have to tell you, I think the media have failed us. They are not reporting on things that are happening. And I've got to tell you this mike, in the 1970s, my husband and I were in the newspaper business back then he was a great journalist, great editor. And we started watching the corporatization of news in the mid to late 70s. And now it's like what, six or seven corporations, on all the major media, this is not good for our country. We work for a family owned newspaper business in Tennessee, that was bought out. And then now you have these giant firms and hedge funds, evil, I think they're evil, and they're buying up all of the media, this is not good for our country. And this means it is difficult to get the message out to people. And I really thought that social media would help and if anything, is probably been more of a hindrance. Sadly,   Michael Hingson  28:35 when you don't have any kind of governing governors on what you do, like what we saw for several years recently, then, yeah, it certainly doesn't help does it? Not. So well fight disinformation, as well as apathy. Yeah, and apathy is certainly a part of it. And you talked about the importance of voting, and we I've talked to a number of people who have never voted, oh, I'm not going to do that it won't make a difference and so on. And they, and they continue to feel that way. And they just don't vote and they're not young people. But I've also found young people who do that, but I know some people who are in their 40s and 50s. And they've never voted in an election. And they're fine with   Paula Casey  29:28 that. Yeah, that's that's what's so sad because you've got to have parents or teachers, someone who inculcate in a young person, that it's important to better and I will tell you, my sister and I grew up in a home where my parents were two newspapers voted in every election. My sister and I knew that it was important, we registered to vote. I mean, I I got to vote first time and I was 19. But I registered as soon as I could, after the 26th Amendment was ratified. And I've just think People have got to understand that democracy doesn't work. If you don't participate, democracy is not a spectator sport. And here again, this is something else that this brings up. When did they stop teaching civics in the schools? I love civics. I love teaching civics talking about civics. That's part of the problem right there.   Michael Hingson  30:24 There are a lot of challenges. I think I know the answer to this one, since Tennessee was the 36th state to ratify the 19th Amendment. But why is it called the perfect 36?   Paula Casey  30:36 The editorial cartoonists of the day, the Tennessee the perfect 36 Because they did not know where that last state was going to come from. So think about here, let me set stage 3435 states have ratified. Three states absolutely refused to consider it because their governors were opposed. Connecticut, Vermont, Florida, nine states had outright rejected it. And berries were primarily in the south lawn with Maryland, a couple of years. Non states were checked it. It fell to Tennessee. And because Tennessee had a well organized group of suffragists across the state in all 95 of our counties, and we have wonderful man who supported this effort, including our United States senator Kenneth McKellar, who was from Memphis. So the stage was set. When Carrie Chapman Catt came to Nashville to stay at the Hermitage Hotel, which is fabulous. And I want your listeners to go to the heart teach hotel if they're ever in Nashville, because it's so significant in the suffrage battle. Both the Pro and anti suffrage forces stayed at the Hermitage and Carrie Chapman Catt stayed there. Along with Representative Joseph pan over from Memphis, who was the floor later, Carrie Chapman cat asked him to be the suffrage fight. So because of the editorial cartoonist and because we were the last state that could ratify, that's where the name of the perfect 36 came from.   Michael Hingson  32:20 Well, for you personally, what really got you interested in becoming so deeply involved in studying the suffrage movement because it's clearly become very personal for you.   Paula Casey  32:34 My husband, dad and July 1988. And Carolyn Yellin, spent a lot of time with me. We had actually been at the National Women's Conference in November of 1977. That was an exciting time I was one of the youngest delegates there. And Carol Lam talked to me about the research that she had done and and I want people to know about this because this is really important. After back McCain was killed in Memphis in 1968. Carolyn Yellin her husband, David Yellin, who was a broadcaster and several other folks put together a group called the search for meaning committee. And they compiled everything they could about what was happening in Memphis. And every book that has been written since then about Dr. King, and what happened in Memphis, has utilized their research. Well, while Carolyn was doing this research, she came across this Tennessee story and she was working with from Oklahoma. She didn't even come here from New York City. He ran the broadcasting department, a inaugurated at what was then known as Memphis State University. And Carolyn said, you know, this is kind of important. Yeah, that may, Tennessee was last, I think the ratify. So she started doing research. And she found descendants. And she also talked with two of the man who were still living. Harry Byrne died in 1977. Joseph Hanover did not got until 1984 and I met him in 1983. He was the for later, who Mrs. Cat had asked, Can the pro surfers votes together, had it not been for Joe Hannover. I'm telling you tonight, the amendment would not have been ratified in Tennessee. He Carolyn always said to me, he was the real hero. So we started working on a book because she had said she wanted to do this book. So I'm thinking I have a lot of graduated from UT Knoxville and the University of Tennessee press will want to do this book, because we have all this original research. So we're calling you to press. And the woman said to me, and we've already dealt with on women's suffrage, and was very dismissive. And I was just really stunned and I said Okay, thank you. So I started thinking about it later and I wished I'd had the presence of mind to say she nobody ever says that about the Civil War. You know, all they do is write books about the damn civil war. I mean, I grew up in Nashville, believe me, I had been, I was indoctrinated with Lost Cause mythology. So I start looking. And finally we get somebody who's willing to publish it. And you gotta remember this. We published it originally in 1998. I've done a re plan, and I've done the e book and the audio book, and Dr. Dre and Sherman came to Memphis in 1994. We started working on the book in 1996. We got the first edition published in May of 1998. And I was able to put it in Carolyn's hands, her breast cancer had returned, and she got in March of 99. So I was just so grateful that her research resulted in that book. And then Dr. Sherman, who had her PhD from Wright first wrote about the long journey from the Revolutionary War up to what happened in Nashville in 1920. So we're really proud of the book, and I continue to sell it to libraries and individuals because you know, that history is it's very well recorded in our book. And so I'm really proud of it and I've got a hold of a copy. The perfect body six, Tennessee delivers women's suffrage and the cover is Downtown Memphis Main Street, 1916. It was called The Great monster suffrage point.   Michael Hingson  36:29 Do you know if the book has been put into audio format today?   Paula Casey  36:33 Yes, Dr. Sherman read the audio books. I have an audio book and the ebook and awkward formats.   Michael Hingson  36:39 So is it on   Paula Casey  36:39 Audible? Yes. Oh, it's on lots of ebook platforms and an audio book platforms.   Michael Hingson  36:47 Well, great. Then I'm gonna go hunted down. I think that will be fun to read.   Paula Casey  36:54 Music terrible. I forgot period music. We had a great producer David Wolf out Albuquerque did the audio. But   Michael Hingson  37:02 here's a question totally off the wall. totally subjective. But do you think Abraham Lincoln would have supported this women's suffragists movement?   Paula Casey  37:15 I do. And let me tell you why. It's so interesting. You should ask that. Have you heard about Jon Meacham? snoo book?   Michael Hingson  37:22 No, I have not. Okay.   Paula Casey  37:23 Jon Meacham is a Tennessee boy. We were at the Chattanooga you know, he lives in Nashville May. I was in New York City for years and years. And he and his wife are in Nashville because he is a professor at Vanderbilt University. And he was on Lawrence O'Donnell, I think last night on Well, whenever it was on MSNBC, talking about his new book about Abraham Lincoln. And then there was like, Abraham Lincoln. I mean, it he has fast to think of keep up with Cain. He believed in abolishing slavery, but he traded people with dignity. And I think that he could have been persuaded that, you know, the union wasn't gonna provide as a women's voting union was gonna define over whether it was okay to enslave other human beings. And when you think about the idea that it was okay to own other human beings that's just repulsive just today, but back then, Lincoln had his work cut out for him. But I do think because he believed and he he studied them. She's such a thoughtful man. And I'm looking forward to reading John's book, because I think all of his books are terrific. But I really want to read this one, because I think Abraham Lincoln was enlightened in his own way, and he probably would have come around to support it. Yeah,   Michael Hingson  38:53 he just had other issues that were as important, if not more important, like keeping the country together if he could. Right. So it was, it was certainly a big challenge. And,   Paula Casey  39:07 you know, 1848, by Seneca Falls happened, but then the surfer just recognized that the Civil War was going to take priority over everything. And so they were essentially derailed, but it was after the Civil War. And the 14th and 15th amendments came up or 13th amendment, you know, to abolish slavery, but the 15th Amendment, extended the franchise to the newly freed black male slaves, and I want to point something out here. There's a lot of misinformation about who could vote and the aftermath of the Civil War and then later and they you heard this and I heard this a lot in 2020, during the centennial celebration, and let me point out that separatist endured a pandemic just like we have, and they persevered and they want to spike the pandemic. And there is a school We'll start, which I happen to agree with that the 1965 Voting Rights Act would not have applied to black women. Had the 19th Amendment not been ratified the 15th Amendment and the 19th Amendment event, the Voting Rights Act was about the enforcement of those two amendments. And when people say, Oh, we're black women are unable to vote. No, that is not true. The 19th Amendment did not say white women. It says equality of suffrage shall not be denied. I can't have sex. That's all it says I can't have sex. And so it removes the gender barrier to voting and had nothing to do with race. What did have to do with race was the states. The constitution grants the right to states set the policies and procedures for voting. And it was in the States where you have Jim Crow laws, and Paul taxes and literacy tests and all that garbage that was designed to keep people from voting. The states did it, not the Ninth Amendment. And we have documentation of black women voting in Nashville, Clarksville, Tennessee, about Tachyon and Memphis,   Michael Hingson  41:15 you have been involved in placing various suffragist related art around Tennessee. Can you tell us or would you tell us about that?   Paula Casey  41:25 Yes, I am very excited about this. When you go to a city, wherever you go in this country, you notice if you're working about the public art, and who is depicted in statuary, and for too long, we have not acknowledged the contributions of women and public art. So back in 1997, Van state senator Steve Cullen from Memphis, who is now my ninth district, Congressman Steve is great. Steve is the one who said we have got to have something inside state capitol. So put me on this committee. And he said you're going to serve on this committee. And there's going to be a blind competition that the Tennessee Arts Commission will sponsor and we're going to select somebody to design something to go inside state capitol because think about this, Tennessee ratified August 18 1920. And up until February of 1998. There was nothing inside the Tennessee State Capitol building that depicted Tennessee's pivotal role. Oh, American women's vote today, thanks to Tennessee. So Steve puts me on this committee. We have a blind competition. Owl on the far west Wednesday. And on the back of our perfect 36 book, I have a picture of the bar leaf that is hanging between the House and Senate chambers, and the Tennessee State Capitol building. Okay, fast forward to 2009. Former Vermont Governor Madeleine Kunin came to Nashville to give a speech at the Economic Summit for women and she was picked up by Tierra backroads and she said to the women who picked her up, take me to see your monument to the suffragist. I know that Kelsey was the state that made it Wow. And they said, Oh, Governor, we're so sorry, the state capitol building is closed. And this is where that bodily is hanging inside State Capitol. And she said to them, you Tennessee women should be ashamed. You should have something that is readily accessible. So that started our efforts to put together the Tennessee women's suffrage monument. And we commissioned our look bar and 2011 We got really serious in 2012. I was asked to be the president in May of 2013, which mount where you raise the money and I raise 600,000 for this $900,000 monument that is now in Centennial Park. Nashville. Centennial Park is gorgeous. It's historic. Susan B. Anthony was actually in that park in 1897. And she inspired and Dallas Dudley of Nashville to get involved Suffrage Movement. And Anne was beautiful and wealthy. And she became a great suffrage leader on the state level and the national level. So we got together at our McQuire studio in Nashville. He's at West Nashville. And they asked me who should we put on this minute but and because Carolyn Yellin had been my mentor and my friend, I said, we need to have an Dallas deadly from Nashville. Frankie Parris from Nashville who was a major black separatist, who registered over 2500 Black women to vote in Nashville in 1998. We had Sue Shaun White and Jackson who was the only Tennessee woman put in jail fighting for suffrage. And Abby Crawford Milton from Chattanooga, there wasn't really anybody that I was going to push for from Memphis at that moment because I knew that we were eventually going to do a Memphis separate monument. But I said, Karen Chapman Catt, who was originally from Iowa, and you know, okay, so yeah, New York, Carolyn Yellen said that Carrie Chapman Catt should have been the first woman to become a United States Senator from New York. But she was so spent after the savage battle and she had a serious heart condition. So I said when he put Carrie Chapman Catt on there because she wanted to pick it in statuary. She was brilliant. And so we had the spot women heroic scale. They're nine feet tall. They're in the Nashville Centennial Park. So that's the Tennessee one separate monument. Allen was commissioned to do to get our Knoxville I worked on the advising the Tennessee triumph and Clarksville, Tennessee. And it's fabulous. It's got a woman putting her ballot in the ballot box. And beyond Ben Jackson, I helped raise the money and that was only 32,000 to do a burst of soup shot right in front of Jackson City Hall and bed, Memphis, my hometown. We have the Memphis suffrage monument equality trailblazers, that monument cost $790,190 average every penny of it because I have wonderful friends, and a city council on a county commission that gave major money so that we could preserve the legacies of these important people. And so in the Memphis monument, which is at the law school, for the University of Memphis, facing the Mississippi River, I live right down by the river. You can see that monument in the daytime or at night. And what's so great about this, Mike is that people see it and they just rave about it. And school children go there and they read about these remarkable people. And I point this out to everyone when I'm doing chores, or when I gave speeches. The reason we do these markers and monuments is because these people deserve to be remembered. And when we're all gone, that was mine knits and markers will be there telling the story and I'm just grateful that I had been able to have this experience to preserve the wiper sees of these remarkable Oregon people.   Michael Hingson  47:35 Now as I recall the monument at the University of Memphis the ceremony dedicating it is on YouTube, yes. Do you know how people can easily find it? Do you know a link or   Paula Casey  47:50 I think if you go on YouTube, you can type in Downtown Memphis Commission because the Downtown Memphis Commission produced it. It's on their YouTube channel and I actually have it on my YouTube channel, Paula FKC. And I believe it's easy to find it was March 27 2022, the dedication ceremony for the Memphis suffrage monument, but you can actually see it and I've got to tell you this, I'm so excited. My friend, Michelle duster, who is the great granddaughter about to be Wales and I'm going to hold up her book out to be the queen Michelle gave me her family's blessing. And she and her brothers wanted to write the bio that's lasered on the class for ATAPI wills. And Alan had sculpted a bust of atopy Wales along with five others. And she was so excited about it. And we had so much fun when she came to Memphis. And it was just such a great experience for us to celebrate the wives of atopy wills and Mary Church, Terrell, and all of the people from Memphis, Shelby County, who fought to get that night keep that amendment ratified. And then those women whose careers were made possible in politics, because of the suffragists victory, said, Michelle has been a great ally and champion of our monument.   Michael Hingson  49:14 So I think we've talked around a lot of this, but ultimately, what can we learn from the Chuffer suffragists movement? What lessons can we take forward? And I guess even before that, do you think that those who led and were the basis of the separatist movement would be surprised at what we're experiencing today? Now?   Paula Casey  49:40 I think they would just take it in stride, and they would expect it because they've dealt with backlash, and obstacles, ridicule, sarcasm, obstructionism, they saw it all. That's why I keep telling people when you study history, you learned that nothing is new. And it is so important for us to recognize the people who help move history forward, they help make sure that our society goes forward and that we are on the right side of history, when it comes to the expansion of rights, and inclusion, diversity, inclusion, all of this should just be something that we do, because it's the right thing to do. And because we understand how important it is for everyone, to participate in our government, in our society, why don't we want to be close, I don't want to live on Wi Fi. But I want to celebrate people who have done great things. I want to be able to tell young people that they can be aspirational, that they can vote to the example set by these people who accomplish something right over enormous opposition.   Michael Hingson  50:58 Clearly, these women, and anyone who is committed to this process, to use my term would be unstoppable, which is, which is a great thing. And clearly you are helping to promote that. And I think that is extremely important. And it does go beyond suffrage, women's suffrage, it goes to anyone who has been disenfranchised by whatever the system might be. And we do have to fight the fights, we can't step back, we have to stand for what we believe in. And I think that it is important that we do it in a non violent way. I suspect that if he had lived back in the time of women's suffrage, Gandhi would be a very great supporter, don't you think?   Paula Casey  51:51 Yeah, he would have come around. Yeah, he was kind of sexist.   Michael Hingson  51:55 Well, you know, it's the environment. But non violence was certainly his   Paula Casey  51:59 right. As Susan B. Anthony was entered non violence long before Gandhi and dark cane and she never gets recognized for it. Yeah.   Michael Hingson  52:09 Yeah, it did not start in the 1900s. But it is something that we all ought to take to heart. Now. Let's let's be clear, non violence, as opposed to civil disobedience.   Paula Casey  52:25 Right, right. Yeah. I mean, Susan Bay was all for civil disobedience. And you know, like when she tried to vote, and Elizabeth every Merriweather from Memphis was so inspired by Susan B. Anthony's example, that she went to go vote in Memphis in 1873. And she said they gave her a ballot, probably because she was considered an aristocracy. But she said she wasn't sure if her vote was counted. Yeah. And so that's the whole thing about, you know, who can vote who's citizen who has access to the ballot. And another thing that we have to think about is who's going to count the votes? We're never used to have to worry about that so much.   Michael Hingson  53:07 And it's unfortunate that we have to worry about it today. I think for the longest time, we assumed that the system worked. And mostly I think it did. And it does. But now, there is so much fear and so much distrust because of what some are doing that we have to be concerned about. Who's counting the votes? I watched a news report last night about how ballots are handled in San Bernardino County. And the process is absolutely amazing. When the ballots come in, the first thing that's checked is is the signature and the comparison is made as to whether it's a legal signature that's done by a group of people. And then the ballot is opened. And the ballot is just checked for anything damaged or anything that looks irregular. And then it goes to a different group of people now a third group that counts the ballots, and one of the points that they made, and I actually hadn't thought of it, although I should have. But until they mentioned it is and none of the machines and none of the technologies and none of the process involved in counting the ballots in San Bernardino County and I suspect in a lot most places, nothing is connected to the internet. Right? Oh, nothing can go off and destroy or warp the ballot, the process. That's good to know. Yep, I think it should be that way. I've seen some companies who are concerned enough about the internet and what people can do that their accounting systems are never attached to the internet and it makes perfect sense given everything that's going on today. So other computers can be compromised. But the accounting and monetary parts of the companies are not connected to the internet at all. They're not on the network, right? Even the local network.   Paula Casey  55:14 So what can I mention the three man who were so essential in Tennessee? Sure. This is such a great story. And I have to tell you, my friend, Bill Haltom, of Netflix is a great author and retired attorney. He did this book, because I asked him to on representative Joseph Hanover rock, Kent mother vote. Joseph Hanover, was an immigrant from Poland. His family was Orthodox Jewish, and they fled, because the Tsar took their property. And so many Jewish immigrants were coming into this country, because they had to flee oppression. And he came to this country along with his mother and two brothers, his father came first and ended up in Memphis, and saved the money for them to flee Poland. Now, let me tell you, my key talk about unstoppable mindset. Those people who were searching for freedom, and they had crossed a frozen lake and come across in the bowels of a steamship. And Joe was five years old, and he went upstairs and start bands and people were throwing money at it. When they got to this country, they came through Ellis Island, and band came through via St. Louis down to Memphis, some in Memphis. And he was so taken with this country and the country's founding documents, because his parents kept telling their boys they had three and then they had two more. And they told them, you're living in the greatest country. You have rights in this country that we did not have public. You've got study the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. And of course, the Declaration of Sentiments in 1848, at Seneca Falls was patterned after the declaration of independence. So Mr. Joe decides that he's going to run for the legislature, and he went to law school and studied by all Lampe in his family's home in being Hampton, which is a part of Memphis back then it was north of Memphis. I am so excited because the national votes for women trail, I've been the Tennessee coordinator, and I really pushed to get one of the poverty foundation markers for Mr. Joe. We got it last week, it has been put up on the side of the Hanover family home. And I encourage people who are listening or watching this podcast to look up the national votes for women trail and see all of the people across the 48 states because remember, Alaska and Hawaii weren't states back. We have got Mr. Joe hit with his marker. Then we've also got the sculpture that Allah required date of Harry burn. Now Mr. Joe knew the morning of August 18th 1920, that he was two boats short of ratification in the House, the Senate in Tennessee had passed it 25 Four, but the house was very close to being deadlocked. And because of the opposition and the money, here's what you've got to remember. People who are opposed to right are always going to have more money. That's just a given. So you have to be smarter, and work harder and be more innovative. Mr. Joe did everything he could to keep those pro surfers votes together and it came down to two votes. And he didn't know where they're going to come from. That this is anecdote that Bill Haltom and I've done some research. We think this is true. There was a state representative from West Tennessee north of Jackson and Gibson county named banks Turner. He was a farmer, a Vanderbilt educated lawyer and he had been antiseptic. Now banks Turner ended up sitting and Governor Roberts office on the morning of August the 18th. That vote was gonna take place in the house. And Governor Roberts, who had actually he came around but he supported it. So he's talking to governor of Ohio governor Cox Governor Cox was besieging Governor Roberts of Tennessee to please get Tennessee to pass because remember, both political parties thought that women would vote for them in the 1920 presidential election. The best flip the push was to make it possible for American women to vote in the presidential election. Now Tennessee had as did other states, something called limited suffrage or municipal suffrage where women can only vote in school board or presidential electors, but not universal suffrage, which meant they could vote now elections. So Tennessee women worked and I think would have had a chance to vote. But the political parties wanted Tennessee to ratify so that women and all the 48 states would have the opportunity to vote in the 1920 presidential election. So banks Charter, the Vanderbilt educated lawyer and farmer from Gibson County, Tennessee who had been an Attock is sitting there listening to Governor Roberts and the conversation. And Governor Roberts pointed at banks Turner and said something to the effect of I'm sitting here looking at the man who can make this happen. So banks charter didn't tell anybody that he had met with Senator Roberts and he goes to the floor of the house. And there were attempts made to table the notion which meant to kill it, because they didn't want to have to go on record, and a special session of 1920 if they could delay it until the regular session in January of 1921, and then effectively kill it for all time. Well, Johanna never knew that he was to vote short. Though Joe Hanover and banks Turner voted to table the voted against tabling the motion Harry Berg voted twice to table the motion. However, banks Turner kept it alive because it deadlocked 4848, which meant the amendment was alive and proceeded to the farm vote for ratification. The Speaker of the House was Seth Walker from Lebanon, Tennessee and he was a very wildlife lawyer had initially been four separate Jiminy ends up being an atta. And he thought that because it had deadlocked on the motion to table 4848 that the same thing was gonna happen with the actual vote of ratification, which would have killed it, that he did not know that Harry Barr, who was a state representative from now to candidacy outside of Chattanooga, and was received a letter from his mother and widow who own property, and she wanted to be able to vote in our elections. So she says in this letter, dear son, her rod vote for suffrage. I had been reading the paper with you see where you stood and haven't been able to say anything. Please help Mrs. Cat put the rat and ratification from his mother. So Harry, what the roll call was taken, voted for it voted ah. And it caught the anti separatists by surprise. But the processor just realized that it was going to pass 49 to 47. And so SEC Walker, being a parliamentary maneuver specialist, changed his vote from May to ah, so that he would be able to prevail anxiety to bring it up for reconsideration. But what that did was it gave it a constitutional majority 50 to 46. So that it would pass constitutional muster, and they had attempts to be railing and all kinds of shenanigans. But Tennessee, became the last state to ratify the perfect 36 on August 18 1920. And we celebrate that accomplishment and everything with those men did. And I have been very pleased that we got a Tennessee Historical Commission marker in Gibson County for thanks, Turner. We've got the Harry burn statue, and there's a marker in his home place and Nauta and then I have got the Palmer foundation mark of Joe Hanover. And Adam afar, Scott did his best on the Memphis suffrage monument. So what these men did, because they believed in democracy and rule of law, it will be there for future generations to know   Michael Hingson  1:04:25 what a great story and there's no better way to end our episode today then with that and what it really means if people want to learn more about all of this and maybe contact you and learn about your book and so on. How can they do that?   1:04:45 thperfect36.com theperfect36.com or Paulacasey.com And I would love to hear from folks you know the books are available the audio book, the ebook and the DVD generations American women when the This is all about celebrating democracy and the rule of law and the right to vote. And thank you so much.   1:05:08 Well, Paula, thank you and I really appreciate you coming on. I love history I have not read enough David McCullough books and have to work on that some but and we will, but I have Red Team of Rivals. So that's not David McCollum. But still, history is an important thing for us. And we learned so much that whatever we think is new really isn't same concepts coming up in a different way. Right. But thank you all for listening. I'd love to hear from you. Please. Wherever you are, just shoot me an email. Let me know what you thought of today's podcast. Please give us a five star review. This is an informative episode and one that I think people really need to hear. So I hope you will pass on about this. Give us a five star rating. Email me at Michaelhi M I C H A E L H I at accessibe.com or visit our podcast page. www dot Michael hingson H i n g s o n.com/podcast. And definitely let us know your thoughts. And once more Paula Casey, we really appreciate you coming on and educating us and telling us all about this subject which is I think so important and teaches us so many lessons we need to take to heart.   Paula Casey  1:06:25 Thank you.   1:06:29 You have been listening to the Unstoppable Mindset podcast. Thanks for dropping by. I hope that you'll join us again next week, and in future weeks for upcoming episodes. To subscribe to our podcast and to learn about upcoming episodes, please visit www dot Michael hingson.com slash podcast. Michael Hingson is spelled m i c h a e l h i n g s o n. While you're on the site., please use the form there to recommend people who we ought to interview in upcoming editions of the show. And also, we ask you and urge you to invite your friends to join us in the future. If you know of any one or any organization needing a speaker for an event, please email me at speaker at Michael hingson.com. I appreciate it very much. To learn more about the concept of blinded by fear, please visit www dot Michael hingson.com forward slash blinded by fear and while you're there, feel free to pick up a copy of my free eBook entitled blinded by fear. The unstoppable mindset podcast is provided by access cast an initiative of accessiBe and is sponsored by accessiBe. Please visit www.accessibe.com. accessiBe is spelled a c c e s s i b e. There you can learn all about how you can make your website inclusive for all persons with disabilities and how you can help make the internet fully inclusive by 2025. Thanks again for listening. Please come back and visit us again next week.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” To help honor Black History Month at Booked Up, for our February book club we are discussing the letter Martin Luther King Jr. composed in April of  1963 from his jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama. Joining me are two regulars and two special guests. We have book club regulars, conservative attorney George Conway and book publicist Ivan Lett and special guests Bridgette Baldwin and Jonathan Metzl. Professor Baldwin teaches courses including Critical Race Theory and criminal law at Western New England University School of Law. Her scholarly work has examined the intersection of the Ninth Amendment and social movements, as well as, the convergence of race, class and gender on welfare reform legislation.  Professor Metzl is the author of several books including most recently the acclaimed Dying of Whiteness: How the Politics of Racial Resentment Is Killing America's Heartland. During the podcast he also mentioned The Protest Psychosis: How Schizophrenia Became a Black Disease. He is the Frederick B. Rentschler II Professor of Sociology and Psychiatry, and the director of the Department of Medicine, Health, and Society, at Vanderbilt University. Contact Booked Up: You can email Jen & the Booked Up team at: BOOKEDUP@POLITICON.COM or by writing to:  BOOKED UP  P.O. BOX 147 NORTHAMPTON, MA 01061 Get More from Book Club Members Bridgette Baldwin Facebook | Website | Author of WISCONSIN WORKS? George Conway Twitter | On Morning Joe | Author of Atlantic article Unfit for Office Ivan Lett Twitter | Website | Author of HAARLEM REBORN Jonathan Metzl Twitter | Website | Author of DYING OF WHITENESS and THE PROTEST PSYCHOSIS among others  Get More from Jen Taub: Twitter | Website | Author of BIG DIRTY MONEY 

The Ninth Amendment is not an amendment you hear discussed too often nor is there significant caselaw regarding it.  However, that in no way diminishes the importance of it.  To put simply, the Ninth Amendment is a guarantee the Bill of Rights does not limit our rights to only those previously enumerated in the document.  How exactly does this affect each of us?  How was Madison appeasing both the Federalist and Anti-Federalists through the Ninth Amendment?  Is there a difference between an enumerated and unenumerated right?  Join our all-star panel and guest Constitutional expert, Hillsdale Professor Adam Carrington, as we continue our study of the Bill of Rights.

In this episode of New Ideal Live, Onkar Ghate, Ben Bayer and Yaron Brook discuss the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturns Roe v. Wade and allows for immediate state-level bans on abortion. They cover the philosophic ideas that led to the decision, why defenses of abortion rights failed and the options now available for defenders of abortion rights. Among the topics covered: How the majority opinion empties the right to liberty of its content;Justice Clarence Thomas's opposition to substantive due process;Why the Ninth Amendment has not been used in Supreme Court rulings on abortion;The incrementalism behind Chief Justice John Roberts's concurrence;Why Roe v. Wade was a good decision despite its imperfect reasoning;The dissent's defense of individual liberty against majority will;The dissent's forceful protest against the unprincipled, anti-individualist majority opinion;Why the dissent is right that the majority is inconsistent with its own reasoning in claiming that abortion is different from other rights;Questions about whether the court typically tailors its reasoning to fit a predecided outcome;The problem with the viability standard and the idea of balancing rights with a “state interest” in the fetus;How the dissent undermines its own case by citing Lochner v. New York as a case that was rightly overturned;How the morality of self-sacrifice contributed to the Dobbs ruling and the dissent's failure to cite the right to the pursuit of happiness;Why the widespread acceptance of collectivist premises have contributed to the abridgement of abortion rights;Why the concept of “states' rights” is an expression of collectivism;How the fight over abortion rights will continue at the state and federal level. Mentioned in this podcast are the New Ideal Live episodes “Roe v Wade on the Brink” and “The Supreme Court Abortion Leak vs. the Rule of Law,” Bayer's book Why the Right to Abortion Is Sacrosanct, and Rand's lecture “Censorship: Local and Express,” also published in her book Philosophy: Who Needs It. The podcast was recorded on June 29, 2022. Listen to the discussion below. Listen and subscribe from your mobile device on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify or Stitcher. Watch archived podcasts here. https://youtu.be/jLMf6f1kJfU Podcast audio:

David and Sarah breeze past three boring Supreme Court cases before answering listener questions on everything from the Ninth Amendment to hearsay rules and to a brutal discussion of their greatest disappointments. It's a potpourri podcast as a prelude to the avalanche of Supreme Court cases that awaits us all. Show Notes:-Siegel v. Fitzgerald-Gallardo v. Marstiller-Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon-Gallup: “Abortion Poised to Be a Bigger Voting Issue Than in Past”

President Biden has been discussing the 9th Amendment, but what exactly is it? In Part 2 of our series on the 9th Amendment, constitutional law scholar and Professor Brian C. Kalt discusses how Congress—not the courts—can use unenumerated rights. If you missed Part 1, you can listen to an intro on the 9th Amendment. Visit our sponsor at www.turnsignl.com

What is the 9th Amendment? Why does President Biden keep referencing it? How should courts interpret this often-overlooked part of the Bill of Rights? Joining us to answer these questions is Randy E. Barnett, the Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law at the Georgetown University Law Center and a leading scholar on the Ninth Amendment.  For more insight from Professor Barnett, check out his latest book, The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit. Learn more about our sponsor at www.turnsgnl.com. 

The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment was introduced during the drafting of the Bill of Rights when some of the American founders became concerned that future generations might argue that, because a certain right was not listed in the Bill of Rights, it did not exist. However, the Ninth Amendment has rarely played any role in U.S. constitutional law, and until the 1980s was often considered "forgotten" or "irrelevant" by many legal academics. Text. The amendment, as proposed by Congress in 1789 and later ratified as the Ninth Amendment, reads as follows: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Background before adoption. When the U.S. Constitution was put to the states for ratification after being signed on September 17, 1787, the Anti-Federalists argued that a Bill of Rights should be added. One of the arguments the Federalists gave against the addition of a Bill of Rights, during the debates about ratification of the Constitution, was that a listing of rights could problematically enlarge the powers specified in Article One, Section 8 of the new Constitution by implication. For example, in Federalist 84, Alexander Hamilton asked, "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" Likewise, James Madison explained to Thomas Jefferson, "I conceive that in a certain degree ... the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted" by Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists persisted in favor of a Bill of Rights during the ratification debates, but also were against ratification, and consequently several of the state ratification conventions gave their assent with accompanying resolutions proposing amendments to be added. In 1788, the Virginia Ratifying Convention attempted to solve the problem that Hamilton and the Federalists had identified by proposing a constitutional amendment specifying: That those clauses which declare that Congress shall not exercise certain powers be not interpreted in any manner whatsoever to extend the powers of Congress. But that they may be construed either as making exceptions to the specified powers where this shall be the case, or otherwise as inserted merely for greater caution. This proposal ultimately led to the Ninth Amendment. In 1789, while introducing to the House of Representatives nineteen draft Amendments, James Madison addressed what would become the Ninth Amendment as follows: It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

This week, your hosts Steve Lowry and Yvonne Godfrey interview Derrick Alexander Pope of Hidden Legal Figures (https://www.hiddenlegalfigures.com/).   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here To Rate and Review   Episode Details: Hidden Legal Figures Podcast host Derrick Alexander Pope returns to discuss what proved to be Civil Rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr.'s last legal stand and how its historical significance continues to impact protests to this day. In February 1968, more than 1,000 African-American sanitation workers in Memphis, Tennessee, went on strike after two black sanitation workers were killed on the job. A local pastor invited King to help the protestors nonviolently strike for job safety, better wages, benefits and union recognition. On March 28, 1968, King and other protestors peacefully marched through Memphis until violence broke out and looting took place, resulting in numerous injuries, arrests and the calling of the National Guard. Unhappy with the unwanted attention his presence and participation brought, the City of Memphis sued King and his Southern Christian Leadership Conference associates, including Hosea Williams, James Bevel, James Orange, Ralph Abernathy and Bernard Lee. On April 3, 1968, U.S. District Court Judge Bailey Brown issued a temporary restraining order against King as part of the city's attempts to thwart the next planned march. On today's special collaborative episode with the Hidden Legal Figures Podcast, Derrick Alexander Pope shares how King's lawyers Mike Cody and Lucius Burch sought and secured a compromise with the City of Memphis, which resulted in lifting the restraining order and allowing the march to go on with safety restrictions in place. The night before the compromise was formalized, King was tragically assassinated.  Click Here to Read/Download the Complete Trial Documents   Guest Bio: Derrick Alexander Pope: Derrick Alexander Pope, who describes himself as a composer and conductor of ideas, is President and founding Director of The Arc of Justice Institute. In this role, he has responsibility for all aspects of its standing initiatives and programs and host of its podcast, Hidden Legal Figures. Before The Arc, Mr. Pope enjoyed a distinguished career in the public, private, and academic sectors. He has provided counsel to the legislative and executive branches of government at the federal, state, and county level, having most recently served as Chief of Staff in the Office of the Chairman of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners. He is a former Assistant Legislative Counsel to the Georgia General Assembly and former Legislative and General Counsel to the Medical Association of Georgia. During the Obama administration, Mr. Pope was a member of the White House Data Driven Justice Initiative and the My Brother's Keeper Taskforce in 2015 and 2016. In private practice, he has helped protect the inheritance rights of more than 500 families throughout Georgia. Mr. Pope is a former adjunct professor of law at the Georgia State University College of Law where he taught Probate Practice and Procedure. Mr. Pope has several published works to his credit. He is the author of By the Content of Our Character: A Declaration of  Independence for Colored Folks, Negroes, Black People, and African Americans and Thy Will Be Done: An African American Guide to Estate Planning and the Howard Law Journal article A Constitutional Window to Interpretive Reason: Or in Other Words...The Ninth Amendment. In 2012 teaming with this daughter he released a spoken word CD - The Race Track. An Atlanta native, Mr. Pope is a graduate of Morris Brown College and the Loyola University School of Law in New Orleans, Louisiana, earning top honors in the Loyola Law Clinic. He is a member of the State Bar of Georgia where serves on three standing committees (Vice-Chair, Communications/Cornerstones of Freedom Program; Advisory Committee on Legislation, and the Editorial Board of the Georgia Bar Journal, and Past Co-Chair of the Committee on Inclusion in the Profession), the Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity, the United States Supreme Court Historical Society, and the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. Read Full Bio   Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services - LegalTechService.com Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com Harris Lowry Manton LLP - hlmlawfirm.com   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

This week, in celebration of Martin Luther King Day, we're replaying one of our favorite interviews with Derrick A. Pope of The Arc of Justice Institute (https://onthearc.net/).   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here To Rate and Review   Episode Details: In honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Hidden Legal Figures Podcast host Alexander Pope returns to discuss the landmark 1956 case against Civil Rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr. for his role in the year-long Montgomery, Alabama Bus Boycott and violation of a 1921 anti-boycott law. An example of white Alabama officials' effort to use the courts to quash the Civil Rights Movement, the trial began with numerous attempts by prosecutors to identify King as the official leader of the boycott. King's legal team countered by trying to establish "just cause" or "legal excuse" for the boycott, with 31 witnesses sharing their first-hand experiences with abusive bus drivers and reasons for participating in the boycott. In spite of these moving statements, Judge Eugene W. Carter found King guilty of violating the anti-boycott law and fined him $500 plus an additional $500 in court costs. King's appeal was rejected, and he later paid the fine.    Click Here to Read/Download the Complete Trial Documents   Guest Bio: Derrick Alexander Pope: Derrick Alexander Pope is President and Managing Director of The Arc of Justice Institute. In his role, he has responsibility for its standing initiatives and programs, including hosting its podcast, Hidden Legal Figures. Before The Arc, Mr. Pope enjoyed a distinguished career in the public, private, and academic sectors. He has provided counsel to the legislative and executive branches of government at the federal, state, and county level, having most recently served as Chief of Staff in the Office of the Chairman of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners. He is a former Assistant Legislative Counsel to the Georgia General Assembly and former Legislative and General Counsel to the Medical Association of Georgia. During the Obama administration, Mr. Pope was a member of the White House Data-Driven Justice Initiative and the My Brother's Keeper Taskforce in 2015 and 2016. In private practice, he has helped protect the inheritance rights of more than 500 families throughout Georgia. Mr. Pope is a former adjunct professor of law at the Georgia State University College of Law where he taught Probate Practice and Procedure. Mr. Pope has several published works to his credit. He is the author of By the Content of Our Character: A Declaration of  Independence for Colored Folks, Negroes, Black People, and African Americans and Thy Will Be Done: An African American Guide to Estate Planning and the Howard Law Journal article A Constitutional Window to Interpretive Reason: Or in Other Words...The Ninth Amendment. In 2012 teaming with this daughter he released a spoken word CD - The Race Track. An Atlanta native, Mr. Pope is a graduate of Morris Brown College and the Loyola University School of Law in New Orleans, Louisiana, earning top honors in the Loyola Law Clinic. He is a member of the State Bar of Georgia where serves on three standing committees (Vice-Chair, Communications/Cornerstones of Freedom Program; Advisory Committee on Legislation, and the Editorial Board of the Georgia Bar Journal, and Past Co-Chair of the Committee on Inclusion in the Profession), the Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity, the United States Supreme Court Historical Society, and the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. Read Full Bio   Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services - LegalTechService.com Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com Harris Lowry Manton LLP - hlmlawfirm.com   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

This week, your hosts Steve Lowry and Yvonne Godfrey interview Derrick Alexander Pope, Managing Director of the Arc of Justice Institute and host of the Hidden Legal Figures Podcast (https://onthearc.net/).   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here To Rate and Review   New! Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKdeO4IodggpSLyhWVdcWKw   Episode Details: Derrick A. Pope, Managing Director of the Arc of Justice Institute and host of the Hidden Legal Figures Podcast, returns to discuss the landmark Civil Rights decisions in Buchanan v. Warley (1917) and Shelley v. Kraemer (1948). On today's episode, learn about the significance of each case and how the two decisions are intimately related. Preparing to celebrate its 104th anniversary in November 2021, the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision in Buchanan v. Warley ruled that Louisville, Kentucky's residential segregation laws were unconstitutional and violated the personal and property rights afforded to all U.S. citizens by the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice Edward Douglass White upheld the rights of whites and Blacks to sell property to one another and initiated a turning point in the Court's attitude toward the rights of African Americans. Years later, private covenants -- not laws -- were being used to segregate neighborhoods. In 1948, Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson ruled in Shelley v. Kraemer that private covenant agreements do not violate 14th Amendment rights and that the state's enforcement of discriminatory private covenants does violate the 14th Amendment. This ruling made racial discrimination in housing no longer judicially enforceable and established a legal precedent for future efforts to enforce the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Click Here to Read/Download the Complete Trial Documents   Guest Bio: Derrick Alexander Pope Derrick Alexander Pope, who describes himself as a composer and conductor of ideas, is President and founding Director of The Arc of Justice Institute. In this role, he has responsibility for all aspects of its standing initiatives and programs and host of its podcast, Hidden Legal Figures. Before The Arc, Mr. Pope enjoyed a distinguished career in the public, private, and academic sectors. He has provided counsel to the legislative and executive branches of government at the federal, state, and county level, having most recently served as Chief of Staff in the Office of the Chairman of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners. He is a former Assistant Legislative Counsel to the Georgia General Assembly and former Legislative and General Counsel to the Medical Association of Georgia. During the Obama administration, Mr. Pope was a member of the White House Data Driven Justice Initiative and the My Brother's Keeper Taskforce in 2015 and 2016. In private practice, he has helped protect the inheritance rights of more than 500 families throughout Georgia. Mr. Pope is a former adjunct professor of law at the Georgia State University College of Law where he taught Probate Practice and Procedure. Mr. Pope has several published works to his credit. He is the author of By the Content of Our Character: A Declaration of  Independence for Colored Folks, Negroes, Black People, and African Americans and Thy Will Be Done: An African American Guide to Estate Planning and the Howard Law Journal article A Constitutional Window to Interpretive Reason: Or in Other Words...The Ninth Amendment. In 2012 teaming with this daughter he released a spoken word CD - The Race Track. An Atlanta native, Mr. Pope is a graduate of Morris Brown College and the Loyola University School of Law in New Orleans, Louisiana, earning top honors in the Loyola Law Clinic. He is a member of the State Bar of Georgia where serves on three standing committees (Vice-Chair, Communications/Cornerstones of Freedom Program; Advisory Committee on Legislation, and the Editorial Board of the Georgia Bar Journal, and Past Co-Chair of the Committee on Inclusion in the Profession), the Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity, the United States Supreme Court Historical Society, and the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. Read Full Bio   Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services - LegalTechService.com Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com Harris Lowry Manton LLP - hlmlawfirm.com   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

Few in the legal profession know what the Ninth Amendment is. But as David explains in today's episode it embodies the fundamental structure and nature of the entire U.S. Constitution and the relationship between the federal and state governments. It actually reflects the rule of law. Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donate See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode 8: Fr. Frank discusses with David Fowler the brief submitted by Intercessors for America that argues how the Ninth Amendment requires that the Court permit the states to uphold the right to life.

The Ninth Amendment states that rights that are not listed in the Bill of Rights still exist, and are reserved to the people. But, this leaves a whole host of questions open about what those unlisted rights are. Scholars have debated over the exact meaning of the Ninth Amendment for more than two centuries, and the issue of the ”unenumerated rights” it mentions is still an open question today. This is what you need to know about this enigmatic amendment. Podcast Show Notes: https://ancestralfindings.com/the-bill-of-rights-the-ninth-amendment/  Click Here to listen to the weekly podcast: https://ancestralfindings.com/podcast Weekly Giveaways: https://ancestralfindings.com/drawing Genealogy eBooks: https://ancestralfindings.com/ebooks Hard To Find Surnames: https://ancestralfindings.com/surnames Social Media: https://www.facebook.com/AncestralFindings https://www.instagram.com/ancestralfindings https://www.twitter.com/ancestralstuff Support Ancestral Findings: https://ancestralfindings.com/donation #Genealogy #AncestralFindings #Amendments

Relatively recently, Alan Dershowitz, an American criminal and constitutional lawyer, has claimed that government has a right to forcibly vaccinate individuals in order to protect the health of the public in general. I do not believe that his claim is tenable, and while elucidating what I consider to be the errors in his way of thinking will take a bit of time to delineate, nonetheless, I believe the exercise will be worth the time and effort that are required to concentrate and reflect on the ideas that follow. Let's begin with a counterclaim to Mr. Dershowitz assertions concerning forcible, mandated inoculations, and let's use this as a starting point through which to explore a variety of issues from the perspective which is inherent in such a counterclaim. More specifically, consider the following thesis: The unspecified, retained rights of the Ninth Amendment and the unspecified, reserved powers of the Tenth Amendment are independent of the jurisdiction of both the federal government as well as the state governments. Therefore, the executive, legislative, and/or the judicial branches of federal and state governments do not have any constitutional standing or authority with respect to identifying, designating, defining, or making rulings concerning the conceptual structure and/or content that might be entailed by either the retained rights or reserved powers of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments respectively. Another way of stating the foregoing thesis is the following. Anyone (whether government official, lawyer, judge, media personality, senator, representative, corporate official, or academic) who tries to claim that the Constitution recognizes only the rights, powers, and sovereignty of federal or state authorities, and, thereby, allegedly establishes that individuals do not have retained rights and reserved powers under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments that give expression to a separate, independent venue of rights, powers and sovereignty which is not subject to the authority of either the federal or state governments is engaging, knowingly or unknowingly, in a process of seeking to gaslight whomever they are addressing. Now, let's take a look at a Constitutional provision that complements what already has been said. More specifically, the provisions of Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution: “… guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government” … that is, a form of governance is being guaranteed which must abide by the principles of republicanism (a moral philosophy that came to prominence during the Enlightenment and influenced the formation of the Constitution) that require government officials to be individuals who are: Impartial, disinterested in personal gain, unbiased, selfless, objective, fair, honorable, given to reason, compassionate, inclined toward self-sacrifice, committed to the idea of liberty, as well as require individuals in government to act with integrity, independence, egalitarianism, and who are opposed to the idea of serving as judges in their own causes. Support the show (https://patreon.com/Anab_Whitehouse)

https://youtu.be/fLH8dfwX1qc ... we possess, in the heritage of the U.S. Constitution, a powerful instrument to take up the cudgels of the grand old cause of denationalization and the devolution of the federal government into the states and localities. Libertarians have always, and correctly, been strong on the great libertarian Ninth Amendment to the Constitution. But it is time to realize that we must also take up the old paleoconservative cause of the Tenth Amendment, the decentralization aspect of the Bill of Rights. Murray N. Rothbard Irrepressible Rothbard, p. 305 Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is the 2019 winner of the Hayek Lifetime Achievement Award from the Austrian Economics Center in Vienna. He is a senior fellow of the Mises Institute and host of The Tom Woods Show, which releases a new episode every weekday. From episode 1905 of The Tom Woods Show: https://tomwoods.com/ep-1905-our-radical-ideas-have-a-bigger-audience-than-we-thought/ LBRY / Odysee: https://odysee.com/@KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone:b/Woods-Anarchism:e BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/pp5JtiPd7qNY/ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/2TarEYm1BeTOv1bDanAfP7 Minds: https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1246508278612086784?referrer=KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone Archive: https://archive.org/details/ditching-conservatism-for-anarcho-capitalism-thomas-e.-woods-jr.-ph.-d.

As the unofficial start of summer approaches, and we emerge (maybe) from the pandemic, now may seem like the time for hope and optimism. This is not the place for that. Instead, as your host points out, we are living in a continuous Sisyphean loop of politics, where just as it seems we may actually get something done, the boulder of democracy comes rolling back down. Among the things Congress is not getting done: infrastructure, voting rights, and a Jan. 6th insurrection commission. They have plenty of time to grandstand and make specious claims about liberties being infringed, but they can’t actually do the work that they were elected to do. Whatever the cause, it is Congress that is keeping the country from living up to its potential. Simply put, they need to grow up. The view outside the Beltway isn’t much better as the same disputes keep popping up, as if history itself is also stuck in a loop. This can be seen in the conflicts between the Israelis and the Palestinians, between governments and the journalists who dare to criticize them (Belarus), and between the profit motive and a responsible, informative press (Chicago Tribune). The essence of these conflicts is power vs. people and perhaps if we would acknowledge all the differing narratives of history, rather than enforce one overarching story, we could finally get the stone over the hill.  The homework assignment for this week: use the Memorial Day holiday to discuss the meaning of liberty on both a personal and community level and read the Constitution. Extra credit for anyone who sends in a good Ninth Amendment rant. This week’s submissions feature responses to rants about transgender athletes and using UPS to ship packages. We also have rants about toddler drivers, having a given name that causes pronunciation and gender confusion, organizing the kitchen, the insurrection, robocalls, and Memorial Day. Plus an extraordinary account from an infection control nurse about the plague of misinformation during the pandemic. Submit rants to Lewis https://www.lewisblack.com/live Lewis’ new special, Thanks For Risking Your Life is available now! https://tlbrecords.lnk.to/LewisWE Subscribe to Lewis Black’s Rantcast Apple – https://bit.ly/rantcast Spotify – https://spoti.fi/3oNaPFh Google – https://bit.ly/37Zb35u Amazon – https://amzn.to/37bg8Za Follow Lewis Website – http://www.lewisblack.com Instagram – http://www.instagram.com/thelewisblack Twitter – https://twitter.com/thelewisblack Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/thelewisblack Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/OfficialLewisBlack New episodes arrive every Wednesday via The Laugh Button For advertising opportunities email: advertise@thelaughbutton.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

https://youtu.be/1H6j-pn3Il0 ... we possess, in the heritage of the U.S. Constitution, a powerful instrument to take up the cudgels of the grand old cause of denationalization and the devolution of the federal government into the states and localities. Libertarians have always, and correctly, been strong on the great libertarian Ninth Amendment to the Constitution. But it is time to realize that we must also take up the old paleoconservative cause of the Tenth Amendment, the decentralization aspect of the Bill of Rights. Murray N. Rothbard Irrepressible Rothbard, p. 305 Follow Isabella Riley here: https://linktr.ee/IsabellaRileyUS  LBRY / Odysee: https://odysee.com/@KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone:b/Paleo-Alliance:7 BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/rFaq1oJ8DEqm/ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/6GVqD0OxDdwejPUe0gwuH4 Minds: https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1243013275627954176?referrer=KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone Archive: https://archive.org/details/part-1-alliance

“Roe v. Wade has no foundation in either law or logic; it is on a collision course with itself.”  Edward Lazarus, a former law clerk to Roe's author, Justice Harry Blackmun, who writes: As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe's author like a grandfather. . . . . What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent. ... The proof of Roe's failings comes not from the writings of those unsympathetic to women's rights, but from the decision itself and the friends who have tried to sustain it. Justice Blackmun's opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe's announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.7 Ten Legal Reasons to Condemn Roe v. Wade 1.    The umpires are there to call balls and strikes. In real baseball they cannot be players as well.   The Roe Court far exceeded its constitutionally designated legal purpose and authority.  Under the U.S. Constitution, the power to make laws is vested in Congress and retained by state legislatures. Elected representatives are the proper ‘makers of law.’ These elected officials then answer to the voters. The role of the judiciary in constitutional review is to determine if the law being challenged infringes on a constitutionally protected right. It is not the role to then somehow come up with new laws of their own tastes and inclination. Justice O'Connor, quoting Chief Justice Warren Burger: Irrespective of what we may believe is wise or prudent policy in this difficult area, "the Constitution does not constitute us as 'Platonic Guardians' nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, 'wisdom,' or 'common sense.'"8 In Roe v. Wade and its companion, conjoined case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court struck down criminal laws of Texas and Georgia which outlawed certain abortions by finding that these laws (and those of the other 48 states) violated a "right of privacy" that "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." But such a right is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution nor even derivable from values embodied in it. It was a preference to have such a right and Justice Blackmun’s writings actually set themselves to devise the ‘rules’ that would then ‘emanate’ from such a preferred right. He simply made up new, substitutionary laws and imposed them on all the states!  In his dissenting opinion in Doe v. Bolton, Justice Byron White, joined by Justice William Rehnquist, wrote: I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers ... and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 states are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court. 2. The Roe Decision seriously misrepresents the history of medicine and society’s view of abortion. Justice Blackmun admitted to a serious fascination with the medical profession. Later in Doe v. Bolton we will see an almost passionate commitment to ‘protect the physician from the cloud of possible prosecution.’ The Mayo Clinic, for whom he served as legal counsel, admits to Blackmun’s unique obsession with the medical profession.  Proceedings of the Mayo Clinic Francis Helminski, J.D. Volume 69, Issue 7, p 698-699, July 01, 1994 Although three previous justices of the United States Supreme Court have had formal medical training, none has had more influence on medicine than Justice Harry A. Blackmun. Blackmun, a mathematics major at Harvard College, considered medical school but instead chose legal training. After becoming familiar with the legal work of the Mayo Clinic while practicing with a Minneapolis firm, he was internal legal counsel for the clinic from 1950 to 1959. Blackmun's work contributed to the development of the clinic, especially in the establishment of Rochester Methodist Hospital. As a Supreme Court Justice, Blackmun's concern for medicine was evident in many of his judicial opinions, including Roe v Wade and Regents of the University of California v Bakke. In Roe, he rested much of the constitutional foundation for legalized access to abortion on the integrity of the physician-patient relationship. The apparent purpose of the Roe opinion's long historical excursion is to create the impression that abortion had been widely practiced and unpunished until the appearance of restrictive laws in the prudishly-Victorian 19th Century. One example is adequate to show the distortion of Justice Harry Blackmun's version of history. He must overcome a huge hurdle in the person of Hippocrates, the "Father of Medicine," and his famous Oath which has guided medical ethics for over 2,000 years. The Oath provides in part: "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion."9 This enduring standard was followed until the Roe era and is reflected in Declarations of the World Medical Association through 1968: "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception. ..."10 But Justice Blackmun dismisses this universal, unbroken ethical tradition as nothing more than the manifesto of a fringe Greek sect, the Pythagoreans, to which Hippocrates is alleged to have belonged! 3. Roe wrongly characterizes the common law of England regarding the status of abortion. The Court's language in Roe offers a plastic analysis and conclusion – "it now appears doubtful that abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruction of a quick fetus" – is patently false on its face. The Common Law drew its principles from Natural Law. Until quickening there were no objective signs that a human life was present. Quickening, the moment that movement can be detected, was considered objective scientific fact that the fetus was indeed definitively alive.11 William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769), an exhaustive and definitive discussion of English common law as it was adopted by the United States shows that the lives of unborn children were valued and protected, even if their beginning point was still thought to be "quickening" rather than conception: Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as the infant is able to stir in the mother's womb.    For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb ... this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.12 Until well into the 19th century, it was assumed that a child's life may not begin – and certainly could not be proven to have begun to satisfy criminal evidentiary standards – prior to the time the child’s movements were felt by the mother ("quickening"), at approximately 16-18 weeks' gestation. The science of the time was being applied to the enforcement of the law. After the invention of the modern microscope (1836) and the widespread, objective scientific revelation that mammalian life begins at conception, English law then increased the penalties for killing a child before quickening. Consistent with the principle that the law needs to follow objective, observable facts, in 1861 Parliament passed the Offences Against the Person Act. This law extended protection of the life of the child throughout pregnancy. This law was gradually whittled-away starting in the 1980’s. But the Act continued to protect pre-born life in Northern Ireland until 2019.20 The Roe Court looks at the distinction in early common law concerning abortions attempted before or after "quickening," wrongly. It falsely assumes that the law allowed women great latitude to abort their children in the early months of pregnancy. This is like saying people had an unspecified right to hack websites before such acts were criminally prosecuted. The law is designed to enforce known and demonstrable crimes. A law could not protect a human being it did not know to be alive. But as demonstrated by the Offences Against the Person Act, when the facts are known, then the law can be enforced. 4. In Roe, the Court downplays and distorts the purpose and legal weight of state criminal abortion statutes that had been deliberated and passed by the several states In the 19th Century, in virtually every state and territory, laws were enacted to define abortion as a crime throughout pregnancy. They contained only narrow exceptions, generally permitting abortion only if necessary to preserve the mother's life. The primary reason for stricter abortion laws, according to their legislative history, was to afford greater protection to unborn children. This reflected a heightened appreciation of prenatal life based on new medical knowledge. (See the Offenses Against the Person Act in the U.K.) Dr. Horatio R. Storer… etc is significant that the medical profession spearheaded efforts to afford greater protection to unborn lives than had been recognized under the common law's archaic "quickening" distinction. The existence of such laws, and their clear purpose of protecting the unborn, rebuts the Court's claim that abortion has always been considered a liberty enjoyed by women. These laws show broad acceptance of the view that the life of an unborn child is valuable and should be protected unless the mother's life is at risk. In that case, of course, both mother and child were likely to perish, given the primitive care then available for infants born prematurely. How does the Court get around the impressive body of laws giving clear effect to the state's interest in protecting unborn lives? It attempts to devalue them by ascribing a completely different purpose: the desire to protect the mother's life and health from a risky surgical procedure. Applying the maxim "if the reason for a law has ceased to exist, the law no longer serves any purpose," the Court declares that abortion is now "safer than childbirth." Therefore, laws banning abortion have outlived their purpose.   5. A privacy right to decide to have an abortion has no foundation in the text or history of the Constitution. Roe v. Wade locates a pregnant woman's "constitutional" right of privacy to decide whether or not to abort her child either "in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty ..., as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people." The Court does not even make a pretense of examining the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment, to determine if it was meant to protect a privacy interest in abortion. Clearly it was not. The Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to create any new rights, but to secure to all persons, notably including freed slaves and their descendants, the rights and liberties already guaranteed by the Constitution. Several rhetorical devices are used to mask this absence of constitutional grounding. The Court mentions several specifically enumerated rights which concern an aspect of privacy, for example, the Fourth Amendment's "right of the people to be secure in their houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." However, the Court fails to connect these to the newly found "right" to abortion, because no logical connection exists. Justice Blackmun attempts to graft abortion onto the line of decisions recognizing privacy/liberty rights in the following spheres: marriage (Loving v. Virginia, striking down a ban on interracial marriage); childrearing (Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, upholding parental decision-making regarding their children's education); procreation (Skinner v. Oklahoma, finding unconstitutional a state law mandating sterilization of inmates found guilty of certain crimes); and contraceptive use by a married couple (Griswold v. Connecticut). Certainly marriage, and building and raising a family are fundamental aspects of human life that predate human laws and nations. They are implicit in the concept of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, though even these rights are subject to state limitation, such as laws against bigamy, incest, and child abuse and neglect. But abortion does not fit neatly among these spheres of privacy. It negates them. Abortion is not akin to childrearing; it is child destruction. A pregnant woman's right to abort nullifies the right to procreate upheld in "Skinner." He no longer has a right to bring children into the world, but only a right to fertilize an ovum, which his mate can then destroy without his knowledge or consent. The fear of government intruding into the marital bedroom by searching for evidence of contraceptive use drove the Griswold Court to find a privacy right for couples to use contraception in the "penumbras, formed by emanations from" various guarantees in the Bill of Rights. But, however closely abortion and contraception may be linked in purpose and effect, they are worlds apart in terms of privacy. Abortions do not take place in the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms, preventing them does not require investigation of private sexual behavior, and they involve personnel other than the spouses. A "privacy right" large enough to encompass abortion could also be applied to virtually any conduct performed outside the public view, including child abuse, possession of pornography or using illicit drugs. The liberty interest to be protected from state regulation is never really defined in Roe. Instead the Court describes at some length the hardships some women face, not from pregnancy, but from raising children: Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by childcare. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. By this reasoning, one might argue that Roe's liberty encompasses ridding oneself of unwanted toddlers! Ordinarily, the defense of rights requires us to forgo lethal methods and use means likely to create the least harm to others. We may not, for example, surround our house and yard with a high voltage fence to deter trespassers. This principle is upended in the abortion context. Adoption, for example, would effectively eliminate all the "hardships" of raising "unwanted" children by non-lethal means. 6. Although it reads the 14th Amendment extremely expansively to include a right of privacy to decide whether to abort a child, the Court in Roe adopts a very narrow construction of the meaning of "persons" to exclude unborn children. Much is made of the fact that "person" as used elsewhere in the Constitution does not refer to unborn children when, for example, discussing qualifications for public office or census-taking. That point proves nothing. The Supreme Court has held that corporations are "persons" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and they are not counted in the census, nor can a corporation grow up to be president. The Roe Court also ignored the clear and uncontested biological evidence before them that individual human lives begin at conception: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." This is question determined by science, not philosophers or theologians or politicians. But while seeming to sidestep the question, the Court in fact resolved the question at birth, by allowing abortion to be legal throughout pregnancy. In the same vein, the Court refers to the unborn child as only a "potential life" (indeed, an actual life) from the moment of his or her conception. The Roe opinion states that a contrary finding on "personhood" would produce the opposite result (presumably foreclosing the mother's privacy right to an abortion). One does not have to be a "person" in the full constitutional sense, however, for a state to validly protect one's life. Dogs can be protected from killing although they are not "persons."13 And under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), people are prosecuted, fined and jailed for acts that may harm creatures, such as sea turtles, that are not "persons" in the full constitutional sense. Sea turtles are protected not only after they are hatched, but even while in the egg. In fact, each sea turtle egg removed from its nest constitutes a separate violation under the ESA, regardless of whether the sea turtle egg contained an embryo that was alive or "quick" or "viable" or even already deceased at the time of the taking.   7. The Roe Court assumed the role of a legislature in establishing the trimester framework. Roe holds that in the first trimester of pregnancy, the mother's "privacy interest" in an abortion trumps state regulation. From the end of the first trimester to the child's "viability" – which the Court presumed to be no earlier than 26 weeks – the state can regulate abortion practice only in ways reasonably related to advancing the mother's health. In the final trimester, the state – in the interest of protecting the "potential life" of the child – can regulate and even proscribe abortion, except where necessary to preserve the mother's "life or health." Health (see point 8 below) is the exception that swallows the rule. Pre-decision memoranda among members of the Roe Court acknowledged the serious flaw in establishing arbitrary, rigid time frames. Justice Blackmun himself admitted it was arbitrary.14 A reply memorandum from Justice Potter Stewart stated: One of my concerns with your opinion as presently written is ... in its fixing of the end of the first trimester as the critical point for valid state action. ... I wonder about the desirability of the dicta being quite so inflexibly "legislative." My present inclination would be to allow the States more latitude to make policy judgments. ..."15 Geoffrey R. Stone, a law clerk to Justice Brennan when Roe was decided, was recently quoted as saying: "Everyone in the Supreme Court, all the justices, all the law clerks knew it was 'legislative' or 'arbitrary.'"16 Justices O'Connor, White and Rehnquist denounced the arbitrary trimester framework in O'Connor's dissenting opinion in Akron: [There] is no justification in law or logic for the trimester framework adopted in Roe and employed by the Court today. ... [That] framework is clearly an unworkable means of balancing the fundamental right and the compelling state interests that are indisputably implicated. The majority opinion of Justice Rehnquist in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services states: The key elements of the Roe framework – trimesters and viability – are not found in the text of the Constitution or in any place else one would expect to find a constitutional principle. ... the result has been a web of legal rules that have become increasingly intricate, resembling a code of regulations rather than a body of constitutional doctrine. As Justice White has put it, the trimester framework has left this Court to serve as the country's "ex officio medical board with powers to approve or disapprove medical and operative practices and standards throughout the United States."   8. What Roe gives, Doe takes away. Many Americans believe that abortion is legal only in the first trimester (or first and second trimester). Many pollsters and media outlets continue to characterize Roe v. Wade as the case which "legalized abortions in the first three months after conception."17 In a recent television appearance, NOW's former president Patricia Ireland falsely claimed that "thirty-six states outlaw abortion in the third trimester." As noted above, under Roe state laws banning late-term abortions must contain a "health" exception. Health is defined in Roe's companion case, Doe v. Bolton, as including "all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health." This definition negates the state's interest in protecting the child, and results in abortion on request throughout all nine months of pregnancy. The fact that the Court buries its improbably broad definition of health in the largely unread opinion in Doe v. Bolton makes it no less devastating.   9. The Court describes the right to abortion as "fundamental." The Supreme Court has found certain rights fundamental. Expressed or implied in the Constitution, they are considered "deeply rooted in the history and traditions" of the American people or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," such as the free exercise of religion, the right to marry, the right to a fair trial and equal protection. A state law infringing on a fundamental right is reviewed under a rigorous "strict scrutiny" standard. In effect, there is a presumption against constitutionality. The Roe Court claims abortion is fundamental on the ground that it is lurking in the penumbras and emanations of the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment, along with privacy rights like contraceptive use. It's ludicrous to claim abortion is deeply rooted in American history or traditions or that our governmental system of "ordered liberty" implicitly demands the rights to destroy one's child, but it was an effective way to foreclose state regulations of abortion. The strict scrutiny test was later abandoned in Casey.   10. Despite the rigid specificity of the trimester framework, the opinion gives little guidance to states concerning the permissible scope of abortion regulation Abortion decisions that followed Roe chronologically have not followed Roe jurisprudentially. Many decisions have five separate opinions filed, often with no more than three justices concurring on most points. Eight separate opinions were filed in Stenberg v. Carhart (which effectively nullified laws in over two dozen states banning partial-birth abortion). The 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey could have resulted in Roe's reversal. The Casey Joint Opinion (there being no majority opinion) comes close to conceding that Roe was wrongly decided: We do not need to say whether each of us, had we been Members of the Court when the valuation of the state interest came before it as an original matter, would have concluded, as the Roe Court did, that its weight is insufficient to justify a ban on abortions prior to viability even when it is subject to certain exceptions. The matter is not before us in the first instance, and, coming as it does after nearly 20 years of litigation in Roe's wake we are satisfied that the immediate question is not the soundness of Roe's resolution of the issue, but the precedential force that must be accorded to its holding. Instead they jettisoned Roe's trimester framework and standard of legislative review, but kept Roe alive: Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent in Casey, in which he is joined in part by Justices White, Scalia and Thomas states: Roe decided that a woman had a fundamental right to an abortion. The joint opinion rejects that view. Roe decided that abortion regulations were to be subjected to "strict scrutiny," and could be justified only in the light of "compelling state interests." The joint opinion rejects that view. ... Roe analyzed abortion regulation under a rigid trimester framework, a framework that has guided this Court's decision-making for 19 years. The joint opinion rejects that framework. ... Whatever the "central holding" of Roe that is left after the joint opinion finishe[d] ... Roe continues to exist, but only in the way a storefront on a western movie set exists: a mere facade to give the illusion of reality. And later in that dissent: Roe v. Wade stands as a sort of judicial Potemkin village, which may be pointed out to passers-by as a monument to the importance of adhering to precedent. But behind the façade, an entirely new method of analysis, without any roots in constitutional law, is imported to decide the constitutionality of state laws regulating abortion. Neither stare decisis nor "legitimacy" are truly served by such an effort. Roe makes no legal sense whatsoever. It is Doe v. Bolton, handed down the same day, and 'interlocked' by Justice Blackmun, it is Doe that explicitly authorizes medical killing, "without the shadow of possible prosecution."

In this episode of the FedSoc Films Podcast, esteemed law professors Michael W. McConnell (Stanford Law) and Randy E. Barnett (Georgetown Law) discuss where they agree and disagree about the case law and meaning of the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This episode expands on the discussion from our short film Retained by the People: The Ninth Amendment that explores the history and purpose of the Ninth Amendment.Thanks again for listening to the FedSoc Films Podcast! Be sure to rate and review us on your favorite podcast platform.Watch the full film, Retained by the People: The Ninth Amendment, on YouTube at https://youtu.be/hlrt0cktLtELearn more about Professor Michael W. McConnell at https://law.stanford.edu/directory/michael-w-mcconnell/Learn more about Professor Randy E. Barnett at https://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/randy-e-barnett/As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.Visit www.fedsoc.org/ to learn more.Follow us on Instagram at https://www.instagram.com/fedsoc/, on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/user/TheFederalistSociety, on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/Federalist.Society/, and Twitter at https://twitter.com/FedSoc!#FedSoc #FedSocFilms #FederalistSociety #DocumentaryShort #Documentary

This week, your hosts Steve Lowry and Yvonne Godfrey interview Derrick A. Pope of The Arc of Justice Institute (https://onthearc.net/).   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here To Rate and Review   Episode Details: In honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Hidden Legal Figures Podcast host Alexander Pope returns to discuss the landmark 1956 case against Civil Rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr. for his role in the year-long Montgomery, Alabama Bus Boycott and violation of a 1921 anti-boycott law. An example of white Alabama officials' effort to use the courts to quash the Civil Rights Movement, the trial began with numerous attempts by prosecutors to identify King as the official leader of the boycott. King's legal team countered by trying to establish "just cause" or "legal excuse" for the boycott, with 31 witnesses sharing their first-hand experiences with abusive bus drivers and reasons for participating in the boycott. In spite of these moving statements, Judge Eugene W. Carter found King guilty of violating the anti-boycott law and fined him $500 plus an additional $500 in court costs. King's appeal was rejected, and he later paid the fine.    Click Here to Read/Download the Complete Trial Documents   Guest Bio: Derrick Alexander Pope: Derrick Alexander Pope is President and Managing Director of The Arc of Justice Institute. In his role, he has responsibility for its standing initiatives and programs, including hosting its podcast, Hidden Legal Figures. Before The Arc, Mr. Pope enjoyed a distinguished career in the public, private, and academic sectors. He has provided counsel to the legislative and executive branches of government at the federal, state, and county level, having most recently served as Chief of Staff in the Office of the Chairman of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners. He is a former Assistant Legislative Counsel to the Georgia General Assembly and former Legislative and General Counsel to the Medical Association of Georgia. During the Obama administration, Mr. Pope was a member of the White House Data-Driven Justice Initiative and the My Brother's Keeper Taskforce in 2015 and 2016. In private practice, he has helped protect the inheritance rights of more than 500 families throughout Georgia. Mr. Pope is a former adjunct professor of law at the Georgia State University College of Law where he taught Probate Practice and Procedure. Mr. Pope has several published works to his credit. He is the author of By the Content of Our Character: A Declaration of  Independence for Colored Folks, Negroes, Black People, and African Americans and Thy Will Be Done: An African American Guide to Estate Planning and the Howard Law Journal article A Constitutional Window to Interpretive Reason: Or in Other Words...The Ninth Amendment. In 2012 teaming with this daughter he released a spoken word CD - The Race Track. An Atlanta native, Mr. Pope is a graduate of Morris Brown College and the Loyola University School of Law in New Orleans, Louisiana, earning top honors in the Loyola Law Clinic. He is a member of the State Bar of Georgia where serves on three standing committees (Vice-Chair, Communications/Cornerstones of Freedom Program; Advisory Committee on Legislation, and the Editorial Board of the Georgia Bar Journal, and Past Co-Chair of the Committee on Inclusion in the Profession), the Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity, the United States Supreme Court Historical Society, and the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. Read Full Bio   Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services - LTSatlanta.com Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com Harris, Lowry, and Manton - hlmlawfirm.com   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week. The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C WeberPlease support That's Not Canon on Patreon! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, your hosts Steve Lowry and Yvonne Godfrey interview Katurah Topps (https://www.naacpldf.org/), Gino Brogdon (http://ginobrogdon.com/) and Derrick Pope (https://onthearc.net/)   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here To Rate and Review   Episode Details: NAACP Legal Defense Fund Policy Counsel Katurah Topps, mediator and former Atlanta Judge Gino Brogdon, and Arc of Justice Institute founder Derrick Pope join Steve and Yvonne to discuss systemic racism in America's civil and criminal justice system. This enlightening panel discussion covers the historical context of systemic racism, the current Black Lives Matter movement, and the work we all must do to build a better future.   Read/Download the Complete Trial Documents   Guest Bios: Katurah Topps Katurah Topps serves as Policy Counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF). Prior to joining LDF, Katurah was a Litigation Associate at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (Simpson Thacher). While at Simpson Thacher, she litigated a variety of complex commercial and civil rights cases. Additionally, Katurah co-founded Simpson Thacher's Civil Rights and Liberties Initiative, assisting in bringing meaningful civil rights leaders, knowledge, and work to the firm.   Before joining Simpson Thacher Katurah clerked for the Honorable Gerald Bruce Lee (retired) at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. She also worked with Just the Beginning- A Pipeline Organization and its efforts to diversify the legal profession, by selecting, training, and elevating qualified diverse law students to interview with federal judges across the country, for judicial internships and clerkships.   Katurah earned her J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center. While at Georgetown Law, Katurah interned with LDF, served as an Editor for the Georgetown Law Journal, and collaborated with the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project to represent those wrongfully convicted. Katurah also participated in Georgetown Law's renowned Appellate Litigation clinic.   Katurah, a St. Louis native, proudly received her B.A. in French and Philosophy from Saint Louis University. Read Full Bio   Hon. Gino Brogdon, Sr. Hon. Gino Brogdon, Sr. presided over complex civil and felony cases for almost ten years as a trial judge in the Superior and State Courts of Fulton County in Atlanta, Georgia. Following his 2005 retirement from the bench, Gino has tried high visibility civil cases for plaintiffs and defendants.    He has also become a highly sought after mediator and arbitrator, specializing in Catastrophic Personal Injury, Wrongful Death, Complex Business, Construction, Discrimination, and Medico-legal issues. Gino has served as an adjunct professor of law at Emory University School of Law and at John Marshall School of Law and served as a faculty member of the National Institute for Trial Advocacy. Read Full Bio Derrick Alexander Pope Derrick Alexander Pope is President and founding Director of The Arc of Justice Institute. In this role, he has responsibility for all aspects of its standing initiatives and programs beginning with developing and managing the exhibit and its accompanying educational programs. He is also the host of its podcast, Hidden Legal Figures.   Before The Arc, Mr. Pope enjoyed a distinguished career in the public, private, and academic sectors. He has provided counsel to the legislative and executive branches of government at the federal, state, and county level, having most recently served as Chief of Staff in the Office of the Chairman of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners. He is a former Assistant Legislative Counsel to the Georgia General Assembly and former Legislative Counsel to the Medical Association of Georgia. In 2015 and 2016, Mr. Pope was a member of the White House Data Driven Justice Initiative and the My Brother's Keeper Taskforce. In private practice, he has helped protect the inheritance rights of more than 500 families throughout Georgia. Mr. Pope is a former adjunct professor of law at the Georgia State University College of Law where he taught Probate Practice and Procedure.   Mr. Pope has several published works to his credit. He is the author of By the Content of Our Character: A Declaration of  Independence for Colored Folks, Negroes, Black People, and African Americans and Thy Will Be Done: An African American Guide to Estate Planning and the Howard Law Journal article A Constitutional Window to Interpretive Reason: Or in Other Words...The Ninth Amendment. In 2012 teaming with this daughter he released a spoken word CD - The Race Track. Read Full Bio Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services - LTSatlanta.com Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com Case Pacer - CasePacer.com Harris, Lowry, and Manton - hlmlawfirm.com   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1  Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

This week, your hosts Steve Lowry and Yvonne Godfrey interview Derrick Alexander Pope (https://onthearc.net/).   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here To Rate and Review   Case Details: Hidden Legal Figures podcast host Derrick Alexander Pope returns to the Great Trials Podcast to discuss a landmark case, which brought into question both the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the governing of interstate commerce in a post-Civil Rights world. Moreton Rolleston, owner of the Heart of Atlanta Motel located near I-75 and I-85, refused to rent available rooms to African-Americans, claiming that Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should not outrank the limits on the power afforded to Congress to regulate interstate commerce in the Commerce Clause. Moreton went so far as to argue that being forced to serve people of all races would violate his 13th Amendment rights and would place him in involuntary servitude to the government's wishes without compensation. The U.S. District Court for the North District of Georgia upheld the protections offered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and issued a permanent injunction, forcing Moreton to cease his discriminatory actions.    Guest Bio:   Derrick Alexander Pope   Derrick Alexander Pope is President and founding Director of The Arc of Justice Institute. In this role, he has responsibility for all aspects of its standing initiatives and programs beginning with developing and managing the exhibit and its accompanying educational programs. He is also host of its podcast, Hidden Legal Figures.   Before The Arc, Mr. Pope enjoyed a distinguished career in the public, private, and academic sectors. He has provided counsel to the legislative and executive branches of government at the federal, state, and county level, having most recently served as Chief of Staff in the Office of the Chairman of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners. He is a former Assistant Legislative Counsel to the Georgia General Assembly and former Legislative Counsel to the Medical Association of Georgia. In 2015 and 2016, Mr. Pope was a member of the White House Data Driven Justice Initiative and the My Brother's Keeper Taskforce. In private practice, he has helped protect the inheritance rights of more than 500 families throughout Georgia. Mr. Pope is a former adjunct professor of law at the Georgia State University College of Law where he taught Probate Practice and Procedure.   Mr. Pope has several published works to his credit. He is the author of By the Content of Our Character: A Declaration of  Independence for Colored Folks, Negroes, Black People, and African Americans and Thy Will Be Done: An African American Guide to Estate Planning and the Howard Law Journal article A Constitutional Window to Interpretive Reason: Or in Other Words...The Ninth Amendment. In 2012 teaming wih this daughter he released a spoken word CD - The Race Track.   Read Full Bio     Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services - LTSatlanta.com   Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com   Case Pacer - CasePacer.com   Harris, Lowry, and Manton - hlmlawfirm.com   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1  Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week.The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On January 30-31, 1987, the Federalist Society hosted its annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the convention was "Changing the Law: The Role of Lawyers, Judges, and Legislators". The fourth panel occurred on the second day of the convention, discussing "The Open-Ended Clauses of the Constitution: Due Process, Privileges or Immunities, the Guarantee Clause and the Ninth Amendment".Featuring:Prof. Lino Graglia, University of Texas Law SchoolFloyd Abrams, Cahill, Gordon & ReindelHon. Alex Kozinski, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitMorton Halperin, ACLUModerator: Hon. Stephen Williams, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. CircuitIntroduction: William Bradford Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General of the United States*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On January 30-31, 1987, the Federalist Society hosted its annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the convention was "Changing the Law: The Role of Lawyers, Judges, and Legislators". The fourth panel occurred on the second day of the convention, discussing "The Open-Ended Clauses of the Constitution: Due Process, Privileges or Immunities, the Guarantee Clause and the Ninth Amendment".Featuring:Prof. Lino Graglia, University of Texas Law SchoolFloyd Abrams, Cahill, Gordon & ReindelHon. Alex Kozinski, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitMorton Halperin, ACLUModerator: Hon. Stephen Williams, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. CircuitIntroduction: William Bradford Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General of the United States*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week.The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The segment explains the the Ninth amendment states that our rights are not limited to the ones enumerated in the Constituion but there are others retained by the people. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/tim-brown82/support

This week, your hosts Steve Lowry and Yvonne Godfrey interview Derrick Alexander Pope of Hidden Legal Figures The Podcast ( https://onthearc.net/  )   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here To Rate and Review     Case Details:   In honor of Black History Month, Great Trials Podcast hosts Steve Lowry and Yvonne Godfrey joined forces with Hidden Legal Figures podcast host Derrick Alexander Pope to discuss Holmes v. Danner, the landmark University of Georgia desegregation case. In 1960, a lawsuit was filed against Walter Danner, the university registrar, by two African-American students who were unfairly denied admission. On Jan. 6, 1961, Judge William A. Bootle ruled that the two students were "fully qualified for immediate admission," adding that they "would already have been admitted had it not been for their race and color." Derrick also discusses the trial lawyers who played a vital role in the Civil Rights movement as well as his involvement with the Arc of Justice Project and the Hidden Legal Figures podcast.     Click Here to Read/Download the Complete Trial Documents     Guest Bio:   Derrick Alexander Pope   Derrick A. Pope is President and founding Director of The Arc of Justice Institute. In this role, he has responsibility for all aspects of the standing initiatives and programs of the Institute beginning with developing and managing the exhibit initiative and accompanying programs.   Born in Atlanta, Georgia, Mr. Pope is a 1987 graduate of Morris Brown College and a 1992 graduate of Loyola University School of Law in New Orleans, Louisiana, earning top honors in the Loyola Law Clinic. Mr. Pope has a distinguished career in the public, private and academic sectors. He has provided counsel to the legislative and executive branches of government at the federal, state, and county level and has been an Adjunct Professor at Georgia State University College of Law. In private practice, he has helped protect the inheritance rights of more than 500 families throughout Georgia.   Mr. Pope has several published works to his credit. He is the author of By the Content of Our Character: A Declaration of Independence for Colored Folks, Negroes, Black People and African Americans and Thy Will Be Done: An African American Guide to Estate Planning and the Howard Law Journal article, A Constitutional Window to Interpretive Reason: Or in other Words...The Ninth Amendment. In 2012 teaming with his daughter he released a spoken word CD – The Race Track.   Mr. Pope is a member of the State Bar of Georgia (Immediate Past Co-Chair of the Committee to Promote Inclusion in the Profession, member Advisory Committee on Legislation and Communications/Cornerstones of Freedom Program), the Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity, the United States Supreme Court Historical Society, and the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity.   He is married to Lanette Pope and they have one daughter, Sydney Alizabeth, a student at Valdosta State University.       Read Full Bio       Show Sponsors:     Legal Technology Services - LTSatlanta.com     Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com     Harris, Lowry, and Manton - hlmlawfirm.com     Free Resources:   Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week. Tick Tock goes the Clock as the boys attempt to deal with political issues while the Sebmerican Sword of Damocles swings above their heads.The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week.The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Few parts of the Constitution have been so misunderstood as the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. With its 21 words the 9th Amendment reads; “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Learn about two primary models or theories of […]

Abortion and the right to life has taken on a new salience in this country. Across the nation, no less than 5 states including Ohio, Georgia, Missouri, Louisiana, and Alabama have passed heartbeat bills in 2019, banning abortion whenever a heartbeat can be detected. As would be expected, many of these bills have been challenged in federal court and some have been declared unconstitutional because of Roe v. Wade (1973) which legalized abortion in the 50 states. Tennessee, where I live, is debating a heartbeat bill of its own. What is unique about this bill being debated in the state senate is an unusually legal argument that ties the right to life to the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment states that the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Joining me today to explain the reasoning behind heartbeat bills is David Fowler, a lawyer and the founder and President of Family Action Council of Tennessee. David is the originator of the legal argument that seeks to tie the Ninth Amendment to the right to life for the unborn. For Further Insight:  Family Action Council of Tennessee

The Tenth Amendment places (arguably) redundant restrictions on federal powers. The Patterson team discusses the ineffable nature of the Ninth Amendment, whether as a double redundancy, a murky wellspring of unknown rights, or an acknowledgment of the incompleteness of constitutionalism.

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week.The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment‘s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or […] in the Ninth Amendment‘s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.  Roe, 410 … Continue reading "Abortion, Political and Biblical Discussion – Episode 17"

No oitavo episódio da segunda temporada do Historicidade, o programa de entrevista do Fronteiras no Tempo: um podcast de história, recebemos o historiador MARCOS SORRILHA (UNESP) para bater um papo sobre a trajetória do terceiro presidente dos Estados Unidos da América, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson ficou mais conhecido como presidente dos EUA, como um dos chamados pais fundadores da Nação estadunidense, mas as pesquisas de Sorrilha tentam  destacar uma outra característica de sua biografia, seu lado jurista e  sua atuação como advogado. Para descobrir mais sobre essa figura e compreender os bastidores da Independência dos EUA dê o play e ouça o programa. Arte da Capa Publicidade Ajude nosso projeto crescer cada vez mais. Seja nossa Madrinha ou Padrinho. www.padrim.com.br/fronteirasnotempo  Saiba mais do nosso convidado Marcos Sorrilha Pinheiro Curriculo Lattes Linked in Biblioteca Virtual Fapesp Grupo de Pesquisa Intelectuais e Política nas Américas (IPA) IPACast Facebook  Twitter  Produção PINHEIRO, Marcos Sorrilha. Utopia andina e socialismo na historiografia de Alberto flores Galindo (1970-1990). Franca, 2013. Tese (Doutorado em História) – Universidade Estadual Paulista. SORRILHA, Marcos. Lino Galindo e os Herdeiros do Trono do Sol. Rio de Janeiro: Dracco, 2015. PINHEIRO, Marcos Sorrilha. Escravidão e Liberalismo em José Bonifácio: possibilidades de uma abordagem de história intelectual.  Anais do XXI Encontro Estadual de História –ANPUH-SP – Campinas, setembro, 2012 PINHEIRO, Marcos Sorrilha. THOMAS JEFFERSON: DIREITO E A CONSTITUIÇÃO DOS EUA (páginas 526 – 535) PINHEIRO, Marcos Sorrilha. Thomas Jefferson: a liberdade e o Direito (1774 – 1779).  Participações do Marcos Sorrilha no Scicast Scicast #256: Os “Ismos” da Política – Liberalismo e Conservadorismo SciCast #262: Os “Ismos” da Política 2 – Nacionalismo e Nazi-Fascismo SciCast #270: Os “Ismos” da Política 3 – Socialismo e Comunismo Participações do Marcos Sorrilha no Fronteiras no Tempo Fronteiras no Tempo #11 – Incas e Lino Galindo Fronteiras no Tempo #16 – O que está acontecendo com o mundo hoje? Fronteiras no Tempo #28: Histórias das Copas do Mundo parte 3 Fronteiras no Tempo #27: História das Copas do Mundo parte 2 Fronteiras no Tempo #26: História das Copas do Mundo parte 1 Fronteiras no Tempo #25: Nazismo de Esquerda? O veredito! Indicações Bibliográficas sobre o tema abordado CROW, Matthew. “Jefferson, Pocock, and the Temporality of Law in a Republic.” Republics of Letters: A Journal for the Study of Knowledge, Politics, and the Arts2, no. 1 (December 15, 2010), p. 55-81. CROW, Matthew. . “Thomas Jefferson and the Uses of Equity”. Law and History Review, February 2015, Vol. 33, No. 1, p. 151-180. DEWEY, Frank. L.  Thomas Jefferson, Lawyer. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1987. ELLIS, Joseph J. American Sphinx. The Character of Thomas Jefferson.New York: Vintage Books, 1998. HUNT, Lynn. A invenção dos direitos humanos; uma história. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2009. MAIER, Pauline. American Scripture: making the declaration of Independence.New York: Vintage Books, 1997. McCONNELL, Michael W. “Natural Rights and the Ninth Amendment: how does lockean legal theory assist in interpretation?”. New York University Journal of Law & Liberty, vol. 5:1, 2010, p. 1-29. PARKINSON, Robert. “Twenty-Seven Reasons for Independence”. In:BRUNSMAN, Denver; SILVERMAN, David J. (eds.) The American Revolution Reader. New York: Routledge, 2013, p. 114 – 119. Podcasts Fronteiras no Tempo #29: Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos Expediente  Arte da vitrine: Augusto Carvalho; Edição:  Talk'nCast; Roteiro e apresentação: C. A. Redes Sociais Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Google+ SPOTIFY Contato WhatsApp: 13 99204-0533 E-mail: fronteirasnotempo@gmail.com Madrinhas e Padrinhos Alexandre Strapação Guedes Vianna, Alexsandro de Souza Junior, Anderson O Garcia, Andréa Silva, Andressa Marcelino Cardoso, Artur Henrique de Andrade Cornejo, Barbara Marques, Breno Dallas, Caio César Damasceno da Silva, Caio Sérgio Damasceno da Silva, Carlos Alberto Jr., Carolina Pereira Lyon, Eani Marculino de Moura, Eduardo Saavedra Losada Lopes, Ettore Riter, Fabio Henrique Silveira de Medeiros, Felipe Augusto Roza, Felipe Sousa Santana, Flavio Henrique Dias Saldanha, Henry Schaefer, Iara Grisi Souza e Silva, Jonatas Pinto Lima, José Carlos dos Santos, Leticia Duarte Hartmann, Manuel Macias, Marcos Sorrilha, Mayara Araujo dos Reis, Moises Antiqueira, Paulo Henrique De Nunzio, Rafael Alves de Oliveira, Rafael Igino Serafim, Rafael Machado Saldanha, Raphael Almeida, Raphael Bruno S. Oliveira, Raul Landim Borges, Renata Sanches, Rodrigo Vieira Pimentel, Romulo Chagas, Sr. Pinto, Thomas Beltrame, Tiago Gonçalves, Victor Silva de Paula, Wagner de Andrade Alves, Willian Scaquett, Willian Spengler, Yuri Morales e um padrinho anônimoSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week.The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week.The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this final episode from our Bill of Rights series, Jay and Luke read the Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendments together, trace the political fight between Federalists and Antifederalists underlying these amendments, and show how they frame the relationship between the people, the states, and the federal government.

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week. Tick Tock goes the Clock as the boys attempt to deal with political issues while the Sebmerican Sword of Damocles swings above their heads.The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week. The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week.The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week. This week we discuss and/or argue about Big Business! The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week. This week we discuss and/or argue about... In one corner we have an overtly atheist nation, in the other corner we have over a thousand years of traditional practices. Zane versus the church, who will win?Seb always considered taxes the way a citizen could give a warm thankful hug to its government. But it turns out rich people hate paying them. Who knew?Andrew has guests over for dinner. And by guests, we mean several thousand refugees. Will he be a gracious host or will he close the kitchen early?The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, we’re answering questions that you, our listeners, have been asking about the Constitution, with the National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen. We’ve been collecting your questions over the past few months from social media, our weekly newsletter Constitution Weekly, and email. For starters, here were some of the questions discussed in this podcast: Why is the Ninth Amendment so important to understanding the Constitution? What are the unenumerated rights provided for in the Constitution and what were the big arguments about them in the past 100 years? What is the basis for the idea of the separation of church and state as understood by the Founders? And what are the theories of interpreting the Constitution that most apply to you? Jeffrey Rosen is president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates the discussion. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org And don't forget to take our new podcast survey at constitutioncenter.org/survey The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE. 

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week. This week we discuss and/or argue about education! The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It is part of the Bill of Rights.  It addresses the distinction between a right and a privilege. BACKGROUND When the U.S. Constitution was put to the states for ratification after being signed on September 17, 1787, the Anti-Federalists argued that a Bill of Rights should be added. One of the arguments the Federalists gave against the addition of a Bill of Rights, during the debates about ratification of the Constitution, was that a listing of rights could problematically enlarge the powers specified in Article One, Section 8 of the new Constitution by implication. For example, in Federalist 84, Alexander Hamilton asked, "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"Likewise, James Madison explained to Thomas Jefferson, "I conceive that in a certain degree ... the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted"by Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution. Joining us tonite for discussion is Judge Reed Chambers. Hosts:  Doreen La Guardia and Cisco Acosta Sponsor:  Studentsforabetterfuture.com

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week. This week we discuss and/or argue about our capital cities.The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this week's episode, David and I (that's right; Charles writes the show notes) discuss the course the GOP has taken during our lives. We talk about the things we like in conservative ideas, while lamenting how those ideas have been expressed in the last twenty years. We were barely able to scratch the surface in just an hour, but will likely return to many of these issues in the future. Additional notes: I switched from talking about the Declaration of Independence ("all men are created equal") to the Constitution ("we the people") in a way that makes it sound like I was discussing the same document. The full text of the Ninth Amendment is "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I also somehow had my microphone set to my computer's internal one and not my headset's for the first half. We continue to learn!

Professor Lash graduated from Yale Law School and served as law clerk to the Honorable Robert R. Beezer of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Afterward, he joined the University of Illinois from Loyola Law School Los Angeles, where he served as the James P. Bradley Chair of Constitutional Law. His recent book, The Lost History of the Ninth Amendment, was published in 2009 by Oxford University Press. Cambridge University Press will publish his second book, American Privileges and Immunities: Federalism, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Rights of American Citizenship. Alan Gura's practice focuses primarily on constitutional law. Prior to founding Gura & Possessky, PLLC, Mr. Gura began his career by serving as a law clerk to the Honorable Terrence W. Boyle, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Subsequently, as a Deputy Attorney General for the State of California, Mr. Gura defended the State of California and its employees from all manner of lawsuits, in state and federal courts, at trial and on appeal. Thereafter, Mr. Gura entered the private practice of law with the Washington, D.C. offices of Sidley & Austin. In February 2000, he left the firm to serve for a year as Counsel to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight. Presented by the Federalist Society on January 25, 2017.

Professor Lash graduated from Yale Law School and served as law clerk to the Honorable Robert R. Beezer of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Afterward, he joined the University of Illinois from Loyola Law School Los Angeles, where he served as the James P. Bradley Chair of Constitutional Law. His recent book, The Lost History of the Ninth Amendment, was published in 2009 by Oxford University Press. Cambridge University Press will publish his second book, American Privileges and Immunities: Federalism, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Rights of American Citizenship. Alan Gura's practice focuses primarily on constitutional law. Prior to founding Gura & Possessky, PLLC, Mr. Gura began his career by serving as a law clerk to the Honorable Terrence W. Boyle, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Subsequently, as a Deputy Attorney General for the State of California, Mr. Gura defended the State of California and its employees from all manner of lawsuits, in state and federal courts, at trial and on appeal. Thereafter, Mr. Gura entered the private practice of law with the Washington, D.C. offices of Sidley & Austin. In February 2000, he left the firm to serve for a year as Counsel to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight. Presented by the Federalist Society on January 25, 2017.

Joe Macaluso and Dave Rael discuss common ground found in a free website providing the service of identifying where you align and disagree with ideologies, parties, and candidates. The discussion evolves into touching on fairness, rights, and the purpose of law. Chapters: 0:01 - The podcast now has a name (but you already knew that)0:19 - The Politely, Up Yours! book club3:10 - Can groups be actors or only individuals?6:07 - Democracy as a restaurant8:39 - Encountering and experiencing isidewith.com and insights regarding common ground11:09 - Governments forcing businesses to do things they don't want to do15:04 - Finding those ideals we share18:12 - Extremism21:56 - Embracing imperfection and striving for improvement22:44 - Fairness27:43 - The suboptimal nature of a two-party system32:46 - Yes and no questions in law - is there a third possibility?33:44 - The nature of rights and guarantees, the purpose of law47:24 - Freedom to be a jerk and freedom of association48:26 - Discrimination in employment Resources: Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, Scholar's Edition - Murray N. Rothbard "Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem Keynesian economics Austrian economics Austrian eh? isidewith.com The Communist Manifesto - Karl Marx FBI–Apple encryption dispute Best of the Left Podcast Oregon Wedding Cake Controversy Ian Malcolm explains Chaos theory (Jurassic Park) Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution