Podcasts about presidential powers

Presidential Power and Independent Agency Dismissals: Colleague Richard Epstein discusses current Supreme Court arguments regarding presidential power to fire independent board members, referencing actions by both Trump and Biden, critiquing the politicization of agencies like the FTC under Lina Khan and warning that unchecked executive authority to dismiss advisory boards undermines necessary checks and balances. 1868 JULES VERNE

SHOW 12-12-2025 THE SHOW BEGINS IN DOUBTS ABOUT 2026.2 Las Vegas Venues, California Rail, and Disney's AI Investment: Colleague Jeff Bliss reports that Las Vegas's Allegiant Stadium is now a top-grossing venue while many resorts are dropping unpopular fees, discussing California's new rail line to Anaheim, mismanagement of the Pacific Palisades fire, and high gas prices, additionally covering Disney's investment in OpenAI and its new luxury community, Cotino. Nvidia's Jensen Huang and the AI Revolution: Colleague Brandon Weichert praises Nvidia's Jensen Huang as a pivotal geopolitical figure driving the AI revolution, comparing AI's growth to the railroad boom and predicting long-term economic benefits and massive opportunities for construction and energy sectors as the US builds infrastructure to support data centers. Business Resilience and AI Tools in Construction: Colleague Gene Marks reports on business resilience in Austin despite tariff concerns and describes a safety conference in Fargo where AI tools were a focus, explaining that AI and robotics like Boston Dynamics' Spot are supplementing rather than replacing workers in construction, helping address severe labor shortages. Health Reimbursement Arrangements and AI's Economic Potential: Colleague Gene Marks advocates for Health Reimbursement Arrangements, noting they allow small businesses to control costs while employees buy their own insurance tax-free, also discussing AI's potential to double economic growth and advising businesses to ignore doomsday predictions and embrace tools that enhance productivity and daily life. Lancaster County's Economic Divide and Holiday Retail: Colleague Jim McTague reports from Lancaster County, highlighting the economic divide between flush Baby Boomers and struggling younger generations, observing strong holiday retail activity exemplified by crowded venues like Shady Maple and a proliferation of Amazon delivery trucks, suggesting the economy remains afloat despite challenges. La Scala's Season Opening and Milan's Christmas Atmosphere: Colleague Lorenzo Fiori describes attending the season opening at La Scala, featuring a dramatic Russian opera that audiences connected to current geopolitical tensions, also noting the festive Christmas atmosphere in Milan and Prime Minister Meloni's continued, albeit non-military, support for Ukraine. SpaceX IPO Rumors and EU Space Regulations: Colleague Bob Zimmerman discusses rumors of a SpaceX IPO and new scientific strategies for using Starship for Mars exploration, reporting on the Pentagon's certification requirements for Blue Origin's New Glenn and critiquing proposed EU space laws that could impose bureaucratic hurdles on international private space companies. Mapping the Sun's Corona and Rethinking Ice Giants: Colleague Bob Zimmerman details scientific advances including mapping the sun's corona and rethinking Uranus and Neptune as having rocky interiors rather than just ice, mentioning discoveries regarding supernova composition, the lack of supermassive black holes in small galaxies, and new images of Mars' polar ice layers. "The Incident" of 1641 and Charles I's Failed Plot: Colleague Jonathan Healey narrates "The Incident" of 1641, a failed plot by Charles I to arrest Scottish Covenanter leaders, explaining that the conspiracy's exposure and Charles's subsequent denial destroyed his political standing in Scotland, forcing him to concede power to the Scottish Parliament and weakening his position before the English Civil War. The Prelude to the English Civil War: Colleague Jonathan Healey discusses the prelude to the English Civil War, detailing the power struggles between Charles I and the Commons and Lords, explaining the execution of the King's advisor Strafford, noting Charles's regret and the rising influence of reformists who feared royal tyranny and supported impeachment. The Junto and Puritan Influence in Parliament: Colleague Jonathan Healey describes the political geography of London, introducing the "Junto," a reformist party coordinating between Parliament's houses, analyzing the influence of Puritans and key opposition figures like John Pym and Mandeville who strategically challenged Charles I's authority regarding church reform and arbitrary taxation. The Grand Remonstrance and Popular Politics: Colleague Jonathan Healey explains the "Grand Remonstrance," a document used by the Junto to rally public support against the King, highlighting how rising literacy and the printing press fueled popular politics in London, while also discussing Queen Henrietta Maria's political acumen and Catholic faith amidst the growing conflict. Critiquing Isolationism and the Risks of Disengagement: Colleague Henry Sokolski critiques isolationist arguments, comparing current sentiments to pre-WWII attitudes, warning against relying solely on missile defense bubbles and discussing the distinct threats posed by Russia and China, emphasizing that US disengagement could lead to global instability and unchecked nuclear proliferation. Saudi Uranium Enrichment and Proliferation Risks: Colleague Henry Sokolski discusses the risks of allowing Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium, fearing it creates a bomb-making option, warning that making exceptions for Saudi Arabia could trigger a proliferation cascade among neighbors like Turkey and Egypt, undermining global non-proliferation efforts amidst rising tensions involving Russia and NATO. The Historical Context of Humphrey's Executor: Colleague Richard Epstein analyzes the historical context of Humphrey's Executor, explaining how the administrative state grew from the 1930s, detailing FDR's attempt to politicize independent commissions and the Supreme Court's justification, arguing that while constitutionally questionable, long-standing prescription has solidified these agencies' legal status over time. Presidential Power and Independent Agency Dismissals: Colleague Richard Epstein discusses current Supreme Court arguments regarding presidential power to fire independent board members, referencing actions by both Trump and Biden, critiquing the politicization of agencies like the FTC under Lina Khan and warning that unchecked executive authority to dismiss advisory boards undermines necessary checks and balances.

President Trump heads to Pennsylvania to defend his record on affordability as polls show voters increasingly blame his policies for high prices.The Supreme Court appears poised to grant presidents far greater power over independent agencies, signaling a major shift in how the federal government operates.And Indiana lawmakers move toward a congressional map that could eliminate the state's last two Democratic seats, intensifying a nationwide battle over mid-cycle redistricting.Want more comprehensive analysis of the most important news of the day, plus a little fun? Subscribe to the Up First newsletter.Today's episode of Up First was edited by Rebekah Metzler, Krishnadev Calamur, Kelsey Snell, Mohamad ElBardicy and Alice Woelfle.It was produced by Kaity Kline, Nia Dumas and Christopher Thomas.We get engineering support from Stacey Abbott. And our technical director is Carleigh Strange.And our Senior Supervising Producer is Vince Pearson.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

The news to know for Monday, December 8, 2025! What to know about a case before the U.S. Supreme Court today that tests President Trump's power over the government. Also, America's new national security strategy that's being welcomed in Russia and condemned in Europe. Plus: a decades-long vaccine recommendation has changed, a major merger involving Netflix could reshape Hollywood, and the matchups are set for next week's College Football Playoff and next year's World Cup. Those stories and even more news to know in about 10 minutes!    Join us every Mon-Fri for more daily news roundups!  See sources: https://www.theNewsWorthy.com/shownotes Become an INSIDER to get AD-FREE episodes here: https://www.theNewsWorthy.com/insider Get The NewsWorthy MERCH here: https://thenewsworthy.dashery.com/ Sponsors: Shop my favorite pajamas at SKIMS.com! After you place your order, be sure to let them know we sent you! Get 15% off OneSkin with the code NEWSWORTHY at https://www.oneskin.co/NEWSWORTHY #oneskinpod To advertise on our podcast, please reach out to ad-sales@libsyn.com    

Paramount is launching a hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros. Discovery to rival Netflix's. President Donald Trump is facing a major test of his presidential influence at the Supreme Court today. Trump plans to sign an executive order blocking AI regulations at the state level. Ukraine's President has met with the leaders of several major European countries. Plus, we have this year's Golden Globe nominations Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Supreme Court hears a case that could reshape the federal government ... Lawmakers want defense secretary Pete Hegseth to release footage of a second strike that killed survivors on an alleged drug boat ... And speaking out. In her first interview since announcing her resignation, Marjorie Taylor Green's reveals what Republicans say about the president behind closed doors ... Paramount makes a hostile takeover deal for Warner Brothers Discovery.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We continue our Best of 2025 episodes with an  episode from Democracy Decoded.Enjoying the show? Subscribe to hear the rest of Democracy Decoded episodes!

Host: Ann Luther, League of Women Voters of Maine Production Assistance: Linda Washburn, Joel Mann Democracy Forum: Participatory Democracy, encouraging citizens to take an active role in government and politics. This month: We’ll talk about the continuing concentration of executive power in the office of the President of the United States. What has been the historical precedent? How unusual is this moment? What is the unitary executive theory, its origins and implications, and how it’s playing out in the current presidential administration? Guest/s: Graham Dodds, Professor, Political Science, Concordia University, Montreal. Aaron Frey, Attorney General, State of Maine. To learn Amore about this topic: Visit LWVME.org About the host: Ann Luther currently serves as Treasurer of the League of Women Voters of Maine and leads the LWVME Advocacy Team. She served as President of LWVME from 2003 to 2007 and as co-president from 2007-2009. The post Democracy Forum 11/21/25: Constitutional Crisis: The Expansion of Presidential Power first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.

In principle, federal agency missions are set when agencies are created, and so remain rooted in the ambitions of the president and the Congress who decided they were necessary. But in reality, political change tends to transform agencies' missions in both subject and scope. Understanding how this occurs can clarify the nature of presidential power and the character of constitutional evolution.Guest Tevi Troy joins us to discuss how agency missions have changed during recent presidential administrations, and how Congress can act to restore the constitutional separation of powers. Tevi Troy is a senior fellow at the Ronald Reagan Institute, a former deputy secretary of Health and Human Services, and former senior White House aide. He is the author of five books on the presidency, including The Power and the Money: The Epic Clashes between Commanders in Chief and Titans of Industry (Regnery History, 2024).This podcast discusses themes from Tevi's essay in the Fall 2025 issue of National Affairs, “Who Gives Federal Agencies Their Purpose?”

Project 2025 is a sweeping blueprint for reshaping the federal government, published by the Heritage Foundation and a coalition of conservative groups. At its core, the initiative aims to consolidate executive power, dismantle or radically restructure key agencies, and install political loyalists throughout the bureaucracy. The project's 900-page manual, “Mandate for Leadership,” details plans for every major department, from the Department of Justice to the Department of Education, and lays out a 180-day playbook for the first days of a new conservative administration.One of the most controversial proposals is the revival of Schedule F, a personnel classification that would allow the president to replace thousands of career civil servants with political appointees. According to the Heritage Foundation, this would ensure that the executive branch is staffed by individuals “aligned with the president's agenda.” Critics, including the American Federation of Government Employees, warn that this could undermine the nonpartisan nature of the federal workforce and leave employees vulnerable to political pressure.The plan calls for the elimination of several agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission. The Department of Education would be dismantled, with its functions shifted to the states or other departments. The Department of Homeland Security would also face major cuts. The National Institutes of Health would see reduced independence, and funding for stem cell research would be eliminated. The blueprint also recommends merging the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics into a single agency, with a mission aligned to conservative principles.Project 2025's education agenda focuses on reducing federal involvement, promoting school choice, and curbing what it calls “woke propaganda” in public schools. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act would be administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, and federal enforcement of civil rights in schools would be significantly curtailed.The initiative also seeks to expand presidential powers, advocating for direct White House control over agencies like the Department of Justice and the FBI. This is based on a controversial interpretation of the unitary executive theory, which aims to centralize authority in the presidency. The plan recommends dismissing all State Department leadership before January 20, 2025, and replacing them with ideologically vetted appointees.Experts warn that these changes could have profound implications for American governance. The American Civil Liberties Union notes that Project 2025 could erode checks and balances, while the Center for Progressive Reform tracks the potential consequences for workers and the public. The project's proposals have already begun to influence executive actions, with recent orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion offices, freezing federal hiring, and reinstating the Schedule F classification.As the 2025 presidential transition approaches, the debate over Project 2025's vision for the federal government is likely to intensify. The coming months will reveal how much of this blueprint is implemented and what it means for the future of American democracy.Thank you for tuning in. Come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

On this episode: The Supreme Court is considering a major separation-of-powers case that could redefine the limits of presidential authority during national emergencies, and help define what exactly constitutes a national emergency. Learning Resources v. Trump challenges President Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner — tariffs justified largely by declaring a series of national emergencies.At issue is whether the law gives the president the power to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval, and how far courts can go in reviewing those emergency declarations. Elizabeth ‘Liza' Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, explains the oral arguments made on November 5th, how their eventual decision could affect Trump's signature policy and future presidents, and what the ruling might mean for the balance of power between Congress and the Executive Branch.Learn more about the case: https://ballotpedia.org/Learning_Resources,_Inc._v._Trump Read Liza's analysis: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/whats-stake-supreme-court-tariffs-case Complete a brief 5 minute survey to review the show and share some feedback: https://forms.gle/zPxYSog5civyvEKX6 Sign up for our Newsletters: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia_Email_Updates Stream "On the Ballot" on Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts. If you have questions, comments, or love for BP, feel free to reach out at ontheballot@ballotpedia.org or on X (formerly Twitter) @Ballotpedia.*On The Ballot is a conversational podcast featuring interviews with guests across the political spectrum. The views and opinions expressed by them are solely their own and are not representative of the views of the host or Ballotpedia as a whole.

Will the Supreme Court expand presidential powers once again? In an excerpt from this week's Insider episode, Preet Bharara and Joyce Vance break down the oral arguments before the Court over President Trump's tariff policy — specifically, how much power a president has to levy tariffs under emergency-powers laws. In the full episode, Preet and Joyce discuss: – The wave of subpoenas issued to Trump's political opponents by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida that could result in criminal charges alleging a “grand conspiracy” against the president; and – The Justice Department's response to former FBI Director Jim Comey's motions to dismiss the criminal case against him. Insiders click HERE to listen to the full analysis. Not an Insider? Now more than ever, it's critical to stay tuned. To join a community of reasoned voices in unreasonable times, become an Insider today. You'll get access to full episodes of the podcast and other exclusive content. Head to cafe.com/insider or staytuned.substack.com/subscribe.  Subscribe to our YouTube channel. Subscribe to The Long Game podcast. Watch the trailer. This podcast is brought to you by CAFE and Vox Media Podcast Network.  Executive Producer: Tamara Sepper; Supervising Producer: Jake Kaplan; Associate Producer: Claudia Hernández; Audio Producer: Matthew Billy; Deputy Editor: Celine Rohr; CAFE Team: David Tatasciore, Nat Weiner, Jennifer Indig, and Liana Greenway. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In one of the biggest cases of the Supreme Court term, the justices are weighing President Trump's sweeping global tariffs and the future of presidential power in trade policy.At issue is whether Trump can continue relying on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs without congressional approval. The core constitutional question: Are tariffs a “tax,” which fall under Congress' Article I powers — or, as a key foreign policy tool, are they best left to the President under Article II of the U.S. Constitution? The Court's answer will determine not only the fate of Trump's tariff policies but also the boundaries of presidential power for years to come. 

On Legal Docket, the constitutional authority of President Trump's tariffs; on Moneybeat, New York's experiment with socialism and the détente with China; and on History Book, the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald. Plus, the Monday morning newsSupport The World and Everything in It today at wng.org/donateAdditional support comes from Asbury University's honors program. Where rigorous academics meet deep thinking and spiritual growth. asbury.edu/honorsFrom His Words Abiding in You, a Podcast where listeners memorize Bible verses in each episode. His Words Abiding in You, on all podcast apps.And from Cedarville University—a Christ-centered, academically rigorous university located in southwest Ohio, equipping students for Gospel impact across every career and calling. Cedarville integrates a biblical worldview into every course in the more than 175 undergraduate and graduate programs students choose from. New online undergraduate degrees through Cedarville Online offer flexible and affordable education grounded in a strong Christian community that fosters both faith and learning. Learn more at cedarville.edu, and explore online programs at cedarville.edu/online.

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week about whether President Trump overstepped the limits of his power when he implemented widespread tariffs to address trade deficits. We discuss what both sides argue and the potential ramifications of the court striking down the president's tariff policy.This episode: senior White House correspondent Tamara Keith, justice correspondent Carrie Johnson, and White House correspondent Danielle Kurtzleben.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell & Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye.Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

NPR's Juana Summers talks with California AG Rob Bonta about tariffs arguments at the Supreme Court, presidential power and the legal fights California is waging against the Trump administration.Support NPR and hear every episode of Trump's Terms sponsor-free with NPR+. Sign up at plus.npr.org.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Next year, the Supreme Court will decide whether the President can use a five decade old emergency powers act to shape the U.S. economy.Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or AYEEPA, last spring when he imposed sweeping tariffs of at least 10 percent across all countries.Wednesday, the nine justices heard oral arguments in the case. And however they decide it — the ruling could affect economic policy and presidential power for years to come.California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a democrat, was at the Court and joined Consider This host Juana Summers to talk about the suit and the steps his state is taking to rein in the Trump administration.For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Email us at considerthis@npr.org.This episode was produced by Brianna Scott and Erika Ryan with engineering by David Greenburg.It was edited by Courtney Dorning.  Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

EASY LISTENING DEP'T.: Please visit, read, and support INDIGNITY! https://www.indignity.net/

In this episode of The Deduction podcast, host Kyle Hulehan and co-host Erica York are joined by Alex Durante, Senior Economist at the Tax Foundation, to discuss the Supreme Court's upcoming decision on whether the president can impose $2.2 trillion in tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The conversation covers the origins and implications of these tariffs, their economic impact on consumers and businesses, and the potential outcomes of the court ruling. They also explore the broader theme of presidential authority in trade regulation and the possible legislative responses. Stay tuned for an insightful breakdown of the tariff landscape and its future implications.  00:00 Introduction and Bananas 00:36 Welcome to The Deduction Podcast 01:15 Tariffs and Presidential Authority 04:15 Impact of Tariffs on Consumers and Businesses 06:58 Bananas as a Case Study 08:42 Personal Stories of Tariff Impact 10:43 Legal Battle Over Tariffs 14:25 Future of Tariff Policies 20:53 Congress vs. Presidential Power 23:32 Conclusion and Listener Engagement Support the showFollow us!https://twitter.com/TaxFoundationhttps://twitter.com/deductionpodSupport the show

In this episode of The Deduction podcast, host Kyle Hulehan and co-host Erica York are joined by Alex Durante, Senior Economist at the Tax Foundation, to discuss the Supreme Court's upcoming decision on whether the president can impose $2.2 trillion in tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The conversation covers the origins and implications of these tariffs, their economic impact on consumers and businesses, and the potential outcomes of the court ruling. They also explore the broader theme of presidential authority in trade regulation and the possible legislative responses. Stay tuned for an insightful breakdown of the tariff landscape and its future implications.  00:00 Introduction and Bananas 00:36 Welcome to The Deduction Podcast 01:15 Tariffs and Presidential Authority 04:15 Impact of Tariffs on Consumers and Businesses 06:58 Bananas as a Case Study 08:42 Personal Stories of Tariff Impact 10:43 Legal Battle Over Tariffs 14:25 Future of Tariff Policies 20:53 Congress vs. Presidential Power 23:32 Conclusion and Listener Engagement Support the showFollow us!https://twitter.com/TaxFoundationhttps://twitter.com/deductionpodSupport the show

When the National Guard shows up in American cities, it's usually after hurricanes, fires, or floods, not political fights. But recent federal deployments have changed the landscape and raised pressing questions about how far a president's domestic military powers can go. In this episode of Stanford Legal, host Pam Karlan talks with Professor Bernadette Meyler about the growing use of the National Guard for domestic law enforcement and what it reveals about shifting boundaries of presidential power.  Links:Bernadette Meyler >>> Stanford Law pageTheaters of Pardoning >>> Stanford Law publications pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) Overview of National Guard Deployment (00:06:01) Changes in Immigration Enforcement (00:13:01) Continuous Deployment and Monitoring Elections (00:18:01) Training and Law Enforcement Activities of National Guard (00:24:31) Presidential Powers and Constraints (00:29:38) Ninth Circuit Panel's Decision and Future Prospects Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Jake Tapper examines the growing pressure on the news media to serve political interests, Donald Trump's attacks on the press and peaceful protesters, as well as the lasting damage Joe Biden may have done to the Democratic Party.

With the concerns around how powerful the American president has become in the last 50 years, political scientist Adam Carrington helps us look at the Constitution and what his powers are. And with Reformation Day coming up on October 31, he talks about how the various branches of Christianity still share a common ground we can work together upon. Plus, with Reformation Day on the way, Pastor Alfonso Espinosa, author of "Contending for Christ Through the Creed," helps us think about the completed work for Jesus on our behalf. Faith Radio podcasts are made possible by your support. Give now: Click here

Presidential power has expanded far beyond what the framers of the Constitution envisioned. From Lincoln and Roosevelt to Nixon and Trump, presidents have pushed the limits of executive authority — often during moments of crisis. Understanding this history is key to understanding what comes next for American democracyIn this episode, host Simone Leeper speaks with American historians Douglas Brinkley and Rick Perlstein, CLC Executive Director Adav Noti and Juan Proaño, CEO of LULAC. In conversation, they trace how the presidency has gathered sweeping power over time; what happens when oversight of this executive power breaks down; and what legal, legislative and civic reforms could restore accountability, prevent presidential overreach and safeguard the constitutional separation of powers that defines the United States.Timestamps:(00:05) — Why were federal troops deployed in Los Angeles?(05:11) — Can the president legally invoke emergency powers?(07:31) — How did the Founders limit presidential authority?(09:14) — When did executive orders begin to expand presidential power?(10:25) — How did FDR and later presidents redefine the presidency?(13:04) — What did Nixon's “If the president does it, it's not illegal” comment really mean?(15:22) — What are the origins of the so-called unitary executive theory?(18:21) — How are checks and balances failing?(19:42) — Is America sliding toward authoritarianism?(27:57) — How is Campaign Legal Center fighting unlawful presidential overreach through litigation?(30:00) — Why does birthright citizenship matter for American democracy?(33:13) — What can be done to stop abuses of presidential authority?Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at Campaign Legal Center, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Juan Proaño is an entrepreneur, technologist and business leader who is active in civic affairs, social impact, and politics He has served as the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) Chief Executive Officer (CEO) since November 2023. As LULAC's CEO, Juan oversees the day-to-day operations at LULAC; identifies strategic growth areas; and works to amplify the organization's advocacy initiatives and action-oriented programs.Rick Perlstein is an American historian, writer and journalist who has garnered recognition for his chronicles of the post-1960s American conservative movement. He is the author of five bestselling books. Perlstein received the 2001 Los Angeles Times Book Award for History for his first book, Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, and appeared on the best books of the year lists of The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune. His essays and book reviews have been published in The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Nation, The Village Voice and Slate, among others. A contributing editor and board member of In These Times magazine, he lives in Chicago.Douglas Brinkley is the Katherine Tsanoff Brown Chair in Humanities and Professor of History at Rice University, CNN Presidential Historian and a contributing editor at Vanity Fair. He works in many capacities in the world of public history, including on boards, museums, colleges and historical societies. The Chicago Tribune dubbed him “America's New Past Master.” The New York Historical has chosen Brinkley as their official U.S. Presidential Historian. His recent book Cronkite won the Sperber Prize, while The Great Deluge: Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast received the Robert F. Kennedy Book Award. He has received a Grammy Award for Presidential Suite and seven honorary doctorates in American Studies. His two-volume annotated The Nixon Tapes recently won the Arthur S. Link – Warren F. Kuehl Prize. He is a member of the Century Association, Council of Foreign Relations and the James Madison Council of the Library of Congress. He lives in Austin, Texas, with his wife and three children.Adav Noti coordinates all of Campaign Legal Center's operations and programmatic activities, overseeing CLC's efforts to protect elections, advance voter freedom, fix the campaign finance system, ensure fair redistricting and promote government ethics. Adav has conducted dozens of constitutional cases in trial and appellate courts and the United States Supreme Court. He also advises members of Congress and other policymakers on advancing democracy through legislation. Prior to joining CLC, Adav served for more than 10 years in nonpartisan leadership capacities within the Office of General Counsel of the Federal Election Commission, and he served as a Special Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. Adav regularly provides expert analysis for television, radio and print journalism.Links: Voting Is an American Freedom. The President Can't Change That – CLC  What Are Executive Orders and How Do They Work? – CLC  The Significance of Firing Inspectors General: Explained – CLC  CLC's Kedric Payne on Trump's Brazen Removal of Nation's Top Ethics Official – CLC  The Justice Department Is In Danger Of Losing Its Way Under Trump – CLC  It's almost Inauguration Day. Will there be any checks on Trump's power? – Trevor Potter op-d in The Hill Amidst the Noise and Confusion – Trevor Potter's newsletter Understanding Corruption and Conflicts of Interest in Government | Campaign Legal Center – CLC  CLC Sues to Stop Elon Musk and DOGE's Lawless, Unconstitutional Power Grab | Campaign Legal Center – CLC  Trump's Executive Orders 2025 – Federal Register  Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections (Trump's EO on voting) – The White House  Defending the Freedom to Vote from the Trump Administration's Unconstitutional Presidential Overreach (LULAC, et al. v. Executive Office of the President) – CLC  CLC Sues to Block Trump Administration's Illegal Election Overreach – CLC  Victory! Anti-Voter Executive Order Halted in Court – CLC  Understanding the election tech implications in the Trump Administration's executive order – Verified Voting  Independent Agencies Must Remain Independent – CLC  Can President Trump Do That? – CLC  Why Birthright Citizenship Is an Essential Part of Our Democracy – CLC  Authoritarianism, explained – Protect Democracy The Authoritarian Playbook – Protect Democracy U.S. Supreme Court Significantly Limits Restraints on Unconstitutional Presidential Actions – CLC  Reconciliation Bill Passes the Senate Without Two Dangerous Provisions: Campaign Legal Center Reacts – CLC  The “Self-Evident” Case for Opposing Tyranny – Trevor Potter's Newsletter White House Eyes Rarely Used Power to Override Congress on Spending – NY TimesAbout CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy. Campaign Legal Center fights for every American's freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process. Learn more about us.Democracy Decoded is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Hey BillOReilly.com Premium and Concierge Members, welcome to the No Spin News for Tuesday, October 21, 2025. Stand Up for Your Country.  A look at President Trump's request for Congress to pass Kate's Law, and his mention of Bill. Talking Points Memo: Bill presents the truth about the Constitution, emphasizing that the President has broad powers to combat insurrection. New York attorney Rebecca Rose Woodland joins the No Spin News to discuss the Insurrection Act and whether President Trump has the authority to define what constitutes an insurrection. It's Day 21 of the government shutdown, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D‑NY) has become the Democrats' spokesperson.  Former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre continues to defend Joe Biden's mental state. Final Thought: Bill shares a personal letter he received from President Trump. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dr. Tevi Troy, former Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Senior Fellow and at the Ronald Reagan Institute, and best-selling presidential historian, on the peace deal in the Gaza war between the State of Israel and the terrorist group Hamas, the growing powers of the presidency in the 21st Century, last night’s New York City mayoral debate, and more!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jen Psaki looks at the myriad conflicts of interest and outright corruption by the Trump administration while taxpayers foot the bill for his self-serving deals and federal workers scramble to live without getting paid because of Trump's government shutdown.Jen Psaki points out how the combination of Donald Trump's poor sourcing of information and weak comprehension skills suggest he doesn't understand what is happening in his own administration. But when the facts are self-evident, perhaps a more reasonable explanation of Trump's behavior is that he simply doesn't care.House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi talks with Jen Psaki in an exclusive interview about California Democrats' enthusiasm for Prop 50 to redistrict the state and increase the number of likely Democratic districts in a bid to counter Republican states redistricting to try to rig the midterm election to maintain Donald Trump's control of Congress. Not only is Pelosi bullish on a win for Prop 50, but she is confident that Democrats wil "win big" in the midterms. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

When President Trump deployed the military to Los Angeles in June, former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano called it an “abuse of presidential power.” Napolitano, who is also the former governor of Arizona, told MSNBC that to federalize the national guard over California Governor Gavin Newsom's objections was “simply outrageous.”  During Napolitano's time at DHS, she beefed up border security and increased deportations while also spearheading the creation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative. Now director of the new Institute for Security and Governance at UC Berkeley, Napolitano joins Commonwealth Club World Affairs to talk about the current administration's border crackdown, criticism of ICE tactics, and what it all means for immigration policy, civil liberties and the economy.  We'll also hear from Napolitano, the former president of the University of California, about Trump's efforts to reshape higher education. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's been quite a week watching the unfolding drama in our nation's courts, as the spotlight turns squarely on Donald Trump and the tsunami of litigation swirling around him. I'm here to walk you through what's happened—rapid fire—so let's jump right into the heart of the courtroom battles gripping the country.Washington D.C. has become the epicenter for Trump's most recent legal showdowns. Major cases have been dragging executive actions from his administration into the harsh glow of judicial scrutiny. The National Association of the Deaf, for example, is in the thick of a civil liberties battle. They've sued Trump alongside White House staff Susan Wiles and Karoline Leavitt, arguing that the administration's decision to halt ASL interpretation at official briefings violates not only the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 but the core tenets of the First and Fifth Amendments. This case highlights not just accessibility, but the larger question of equal protection and freedom of information. The deaf and hard of hearing community is demanding that the government reinstate these vital services or face judicial intervention.Meanwhile, Executive Order 14248 has triggered another storm of litigation over election law. The Democratic National Committee, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and the states of Washington and Oregon have challenged sweeping changes that require documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, freeze federal funds to noncompliant states, and reassess voting systems across the country. Judge Kollar-Kotelly denied a motion by Trump's team to strike the case, signaling that the courts are taking these challenges seriously as they weigh the balance between election integrity and civil rights. The stakes are sky-high as the nation looks ahead to November.But the drama extends all the way to the Supreme Court. As the new term kicked off last week, the justices are staring down monumental cases that could redefine presidential power itself. The most contentious? Trump v. V.O.S. Selections and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which thrust the issue of massive tariffs right onto the Supreme Court's docket. The lower courts have said Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, but Trump maintains that his ability to “regulate” foreign imports implicitly includes imposing tariffs. Legal analysts, like Deepak Gupta, are calling it a once-in-a-century test—a battle that could fundamentally alter how much power the presidency wields.Behind the scenes, litigation trackers from Lawfare and Just Security have been working overtime, cataloging dozens of actions challenging Trump's sweeping executive orders. From restoring the death penalty to accessibility and election rules, each case chips away at—or tries to reinforce—the boundary between presidential power and constitutional rights.It's clear that the coming days, and indeed the next several months, will see Trump's legal fate played out not just in headlines but in courtroom arguments and rulings with profound national impact. The questions swirling in America's courts aren't just about Donald Trump—they're about what the presidency itself should be.Thanks for tuning in, and be sure to come back next week for more of the latest updates. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

The scope of presidential power is front and center as the Supreme Court begins a new term. Cases on the docket will test Trump's agenda, including his ability to levy tariffs and his attempts to fire Federal Reserve members. Also at stake are the survival of the Voting Rights Act, as well as a state's authority to ban conversion therapy, and the rights of transgender athletes.  We talk about how the conservative-leaning Roberts court might rule, and what role the Court will play in supporting or stopping Trump's efforts to shape the country. Guests: Olatunde C. Johnson, professor of law, Columbia Law School; she served on President Biden's Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court Mark Joseph Stern, senior writer, Slate; co-host of the "Amicus" podcast Melissa Murray, professor of law, NYU School of Law; co-host of the "Strict Scrutiny" podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The foundation of our democracy is the Constitution, a system of checks and balances and the rule of law. But today, those cornerstones are being blatantly disrespected by a presidential administration attempting to consolidate power at all costs..In this episode, host Simone Leeper is joined by Campaign Legal Center litigators Anna Baldwin and Brent Ferguson. They examine the most pressing examples of the erosion of the rule of law, from the politicization of the Department of Justice to the stifling of free speech. Along the way, they highlight how Congress and the courts have failed as effective checks — leaving civil society and citizens to defend constitutional principles — and explore the reforms that could restore accountability, protect the rule of law and strengthen democracy against threats. Timestamps:(00:05) — Why is free speech under attack in the U.S.?(03:50) — How is political opposition being falsely linked to political violence?(05:38) — Why is deploying federal troops in U.S. cities a threat to democracy?(09:50) — How are Congress and the courts failing to check presidential abuses of power?(15:09) — How has the DOJ been transformed into a political tool?(20:17) — Why is the Voting Rights Act no longer being enforced?(21:17) — What's at stake with the DOJ's demand for voter data?(27:27) — How is CLC challenging unlawful executive orders?(32:30) — What reforms are needed to restore checks and balances?Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at Campaign Legal Center, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Anna Baldwin is a member of Campaign Legal Center's voting rights team working to protect the freedom to vote, litigating cases in state and federal courts, from filing through appeal to the Supreme Court. Prior to joining CLC, Anna spent 14 years in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. In North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory, Anna led briefing and appellate argument for the United States to overturn a North Carolina law that purposefully restricted voting and registration opportunities for Black voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Anna was also a member of the trial team that successfully challenged Texas's racially discriminatory voter ID law. Anna has argued eighteen cases before the federal courts of appeal, including four en banc cases. Previously, Anna was an associate in the Washington D.C. office of Jenner & Block LLP, and clerked for Judge James Robertson on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and for Judge M. Blane Michael on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.Brent Ferguson leads Campaign Legal Center's strategic litigation team, focusing on anti-authoritarianism and litigating in all areas of election law. Brent has worked on protecting and improving our democracy for most of his career. At CLC, he has led litigation teams challenging state and federal laws and policies that seek to unlawfully purge voters, limit voter registration activity and otherwise prevent Americans from exercising their constitutionally protected rights. He has authored academic articles on election law and other constitutional issues in the Washington Law Review, the Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy, the Emory Law Journal Online and elsewhere. Before coming to CLC, Brent was senior counsel at the National Redistricting Foundation, where he helped develop strategy for federal and state redistricting litigation. For four years, he served as counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, focusing on campaign finance reform and working on a broad range of other democracy issues. He was also an assistant district attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney's office, where he litigated appeals of public corruption convictions. He clerked for Judge Michael Chagares of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and Judge Jeffrey Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.Links:Taking Action Against Presidential Abuses of Power | Campaign Legal CenterAbout CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy. Campaign Legal Center fights for every American's freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process. Learn more about us.Democracy Decoded is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

AP correspondent Ben Thomas reports President Trump's efforts to deploy National Guard to U.S. cities is setting up a legal clash testing presidential power.

The new Supreme Court term will feature arguments over Donald Trump's power to fire officials at independent agencies, his tariffs policies, as well as cases involving transgender issues. Paul Gigot and legal scholar Ilya Shapiro discuss why the conservative majority on the Court doesn't guarantee as many wins for the President as he thinks.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Marc Cox and Dan Buck talk with Hans von Spakovsky about crime in Washington DC, the president's authority to deploy the National Guard, and the limits of federal power in the capital. They examine broader presidential powers, including sending troops to cities, imposing tariffs, and firing federal officials. The conversation turns to immigration after a recent Supreme Court ruling on immigration stops, covering reasonable suspicion, ICE worksite checks, and concerns about profiling. Hans also weighs in on trade barriers with the EU, the U.S. trade deficit, potential Federal Reserve rate cuts, and the president's upcoming trip to the UK to discuss the war in Ukraine and international trade.

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

Richard Epstein analyzes Justice Breyer's ruling on Trump's use of federal troops in Los Angeles. They explore the Posse Comitatus Act, the limits of presidential emergency powers, and why the courts often avoid tough factual questions—raising big issues about federal vs. state authority and executive overreach.

P.M. Edition for Aug. 27. Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook has vowed to fight President Trump's effort to remove her from her post—a legal challenge likely to end up in front of the Supreme Court. WSJ Supreme Court correspondent Jess Bravin talks about the legal precedents for the president's moves, and how such a case might be decided. Plus, we have the latest on the shooting at a Catholic school in Minneapolis that left two children dead. And the FBI says that Salt Typhoon, the Beijing-linked yearslong espionage campaign, was much more extensive than investigators had previously understood. WSJ editor Aruna Viswanatha joins to discuss just how huge it really was. Alex Ossola hosts. Sign up for the WSJ's free What's News newsletter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Michael Wynne, a public corruption lawyer based in Houston, Texas, joins the conversation to weigh in on the legal and constitutional battle over immigration. The courts are being forced to answer a fundamental question: how far does presidential power really go in shaping and enforcing immigration policy? Wynne unpacks the legal showdown, the political stakes, and what this fight could mean for the balance of power between the executive branch and the states.

EASY LISTENING DEP'T.: You just invented a completely fake justification for lawless behavior from the president and then appealed to the authority of experts to say that it's completely fake. The reader gains nothing from the effort to reframe completely abnormal behavior as if it were normal, followed by the conclusion that the frame just doesn't fit. The president is shaking down companies for ownership shares. Don't pretend there's some sort of case that this could be something other than what it is. Please visit, read, and support INDIGNITY! https://www.indignity.net/

Unpacking the implications of political power and the militarization of police in urban settings, Michael Steele shares his insights on the constitutional concerns surrounding a president's unchecked authority and explores the broader impact on cities across America. Catch Michael Steele on The Weeknight Mondays - Fridays at 7pm EST on MSNBC: https://www.msnbc.com/weeknight Follow Michael on X: https://x.com/MichaelSteele Follow Michael on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/michaelsteele.bsky.social Follow Michael on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chairman_steele/  Follow Michael on Threads: https://www.threads.net/@chairman_steele Listen to The Michael Steele Podcast: https://www.thebulwark.com/s/the-michael-steele-podcast Watch The Michael Steele Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJNKzTkCZE9uNqPiKYw5eU5YkS_mMsr6o

It's August 13th, 2025, and once again, the spotlight is trained on former President Donald Trump—this time not for a campaign rally or a press conference, but for a series of high-stakes courtroom dramas that have played out across the country over the last several days. The legal turbulence circling Trump feels relentless, but the energy in and around courthouses from San Francisco to Washington, D.C. is unmistakable—these aren't just headline-grabbing disputes, they're shaping the future boundaries of presidential power, military deployment, and civil liberties.Right now, all eyes are on San Francisco where a landmark civil trial is underway, scrutinizing Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles during massive protests earlier this summer. The State of California, led by Deputy Attorney General Meghan Strong, is making its case that Trump's administration illegally used the military for domestic law enforcement—essentially, arguing that the lines between troop and police vanished somewhere on the streets of LA. Yesterday's courtroom scene was tense, with a senior military officer—testifying just after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted about plans to “flood” D.C. with National Guard—insisting that every move was above board. But Judge Charles R. Breyer suggested to all present that Hegseth's words may very well sway the decision, especially as the state warns this was only “the beginning,” with cities like Baltimore and Oakland on Trump's own shortlist for future troop deployments, and California demanding immediate, enforceable boundaries on the use of federal force in civilian cities.Meanwhile, these California proceedings are just the latest in an avalanche of legal challenges enveloping Trump. In fact, the Lawfare Litigation Tracker reports nearly 300 active cases challenging Trump administration executive actions—many dealing with national security or broad assertions of federal authority. Several judges over the summer ruled both for and against the federal government, and 14 Supreme Court orders have granted stays or vacated lower court decisions, underscoring that the legal battles are playing out at every judicial level.Speaking of the Supreme Court, just days ago, in Trump v. CASA, Inc., the justices weighed in on Trump's controversial executive order ending birthright citizenship. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, granted a partial stay on nationwide injunctions, sharply limiting lower courts' reach and only preventing enforcement in cases where plaintiffs had standing. While the government won an important tactical victory, three justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan—vocally dissented, warning that narrowing such injunctions left many at risk.Through it all, Trump and his officials mostly shrug off the court orders, pressing ahead with their agenda across the country. For the next two weeks, with more hearings set—like the August 26th showdown in the Thakur et al v. Trump case—Americans remain riveted, waiting to see not just how the courts will judge Trump's actions, but how those judgments might redefine the balance between executive authority and states' rights.Thanks for tuning in. Come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease.AI.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Presidents have used executive orders to direct the executive branch since the founding, but over the years the modern Presidency has drastically expanded its use of executive orders. Executive Orders have always been an important means of moving the Executive Branch into alignment with the President’s interpretation of the law consistent with his duty of faithful execution and a primary way President’s exercise their executive discretion under law. Yet all power is subject to expansion and abuse. In January 2014, for example, then-President Obama announced his “pen and phone” strategy: “I’ve got a pen to take executive actions where Congress won’t, and I’ve got a telephone to rally folks around the country on this mission.”Subsequent administrations have similarly relied on presidential authority to govern by way of Executive Orders, leading to significant litigation challenging the breadth of such authority. This panel will examine the use of executive orders and the “pen and phone” strategy throughout our nation’s history, especially from a separation of powers perspective. This broad power is not expressly identified in either the Constitution or statute, but it has long been accepted as inherent to presidential power over the federal government, federal agencies, foreign affairs, and our military. This panel will discuss the impact of executive orders, what precedent they set for future administrations in the robust exercise of executive authority, and how the “unitary executive” theory plays into that analysis.This webinar will be the first of four webinars previewing the Thirteenth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on the topic of Theories of Presidential Power.Featuring: John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government; Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage FoundationProf. Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law SchoolProf. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law SchoolModerator: Beth Williams, Board Member, U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board

We kicked off the program with four news stories and different guests on the stories we think you need to know about!A new AP poll finds that 86 percent of Americans are stressed over rising food prices and their ability to afford increased costs of living. How policy impacts prices that we pay for food, goods and services...Guest: Dr. Frank M. Sorrentino - Political Economic Analyst & author of Presidential Power and The American Political System How one Massachusetts company is quietly leading the Made-in-USA movement!Guest: William Gagnon - Excel Dryer Exec. VP and COO What are moon jellyfish? Why do they sting off Cape Cod but nowhere else?Guest: Nicole Corbett – Local marine researcher – Director/President of the Popponesset Water Stewardship Alliance Weekend Weather Forecast for BostonGuest: AccuWeather Meteorologist Brian Thompson checked in!

What does it mean when people start calling Donald Trump a king? And why are some political theorists — on both the right and left — exploring the possibility of leaving democracy behind? All this debate got co-host Tom Ginsburg thinking about an argument he's been turning over in his head for years: could constitutional monarchy actually be the best form of government?Is it possible that constitutional monarchy actuallystrengthensdemocracy? Do monarchs serve as symbols of national unity that modern republics are missing? And is America's obsession with political dynasties — the Obamas, the Bushes, the Kennedys — actually more monarchical than we'd like to admit?This wide-ranging conversation takes us from Thailand to the United Kingdom, from the founding ideals of the U.S. Constitution to the rise of populist leaders. Along the way, Tom and Claudia debate whether democracy is still holding strong — or if we're inching toward something more authoritarian.

Three different federal judges have issued nationwide blocks to President Trump's executive order to deny U.S. citizenship to some babies born to immigrants in the U.S.These court orders are called universal injunctions.But when the case reached the Supreme Court, the administration didn't focus on the constitutional right to birthright citizenship.Instead, government lawyers put most of their energy into arguing that universal injunctions themselves are unconstitutional.And on Friday, in a 6-3 decision on ideological lines, the Supreme Court agreed — limiting the power of lower courts and lifting a key restraint on the Trump administration.For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org.Email us at considerthis@npr.org.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

The Supreme Court delivered a major decision Friday that limits federal judges’ power to block the president’s agenda nationwide. Stemming from a case over Trump’s order on birthright citizenship, the ruling says that individual judges cannot grant nationwide injunctions against presidential policies. Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe and law professor Amanda Frost join Geoff Bennett to discuss. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Some Q&A from listeners. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Gillian Metzger of Columbia Law School and Saikrishna Prakash of the University of Virginia School of Law join Jeffrey Rosen to examine the founders' vision for the presidency, review how presidential power has changed over time, and debate the constitutional questions—including the unitary executive theory—that have shaped the modern presidency. Resources Federalist No. 70, New York Packet (March 18, 1788) Myers v. United States (1926) Trump v. United States (2024) Saikrishna Prakash, The Living Presidency: An Originalist Argument Against Its Ever-Expanding Powers, (2020) Saikrishna Prakash, Imperial from the Beginning: The Constitution of the Original Executive, (2015) Gillian Metzger, “Disqualification, Immunity, and the Presidency,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 138 (April 1, 2025) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. ⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠live program⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠. Support our important work. ⁠⁠Donate

Wednesday, May 21st, 2025Today, Trump prosecutors have dropped the charges against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, but have arrested and charged Congresswoman LaMonica McIver; Trump's Gestapo Czar doesn't know what habeas corpus is; the Supreme Court allows Maine Rep Libby to vote again despite her censure by the legislature for transphobic comments; USAID cuts leaves food for millions rotting in storage; a federal appeals court leaves in place an order requiring the Trump administration to return Daniel Lozano-Camargo to the US after having sent him there in violation of a legal settlement; Republicans in Congress have decided to phase out Biden's clean energy tax credits to make more room for billionaire tax cuts; the Senate has confirmed convicted felon Charles Kushner to be the ambassador of France; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You, Helix27% Off Sitewide plus Free Bedding Bundle with any Luxe or Elite Mattress Order, when you go to HelixSleep.com/dailybeansMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueStories:The Head of Trump's Gestapo Thinks Habeas Corpus is a Presidential Power | muellershewrote.comRep. LaMonica McIver charged after skirmish at ICE facility; Newark Mayor Baraka's charges dropped | ABC7 New YorkExclusive: US aid cuts leave food for millions mouldering in storage | ReutersTrump admin must seek return of wrongly deported man to El Salvador, appeals court rules | POLITICOUS Senate confirms Trump nominee Kushner to be ambassador to France | ReutersRepublicans tweak megabill's SNAP, Medicaid provisions - Live Updates | POLITICOA Jan. 6 rioter tried to recoup $63K he made filming the mob. A judge said no. | POLITICOGood Trouble: Your good trouble today is to contact the Attorney General of New Jersey, Matt Platkin, and have him look into code 3.12 Malicious Prosecution (Prior Criminal Proceeding) in the case of Mayor Ras Baraka. You can use the email dcjtipline@njdcj.org. Let him know you think Alina Habba has violated 3.12 by arresting and then dropping the case against Mayor Baraka, and that her actions satisfy the elements of malicious prosecution action based upon a prior criminal proceeding.Find Upcoming Demonstrations And Actions:50501 MovementJune 14th Nationwide Demonstrations - NoKings.orgIndivisible.orgFederal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Share your Good News or Good Trouble:dailybeanspod.com/goodFrom The Good NewsAdd or Manage a Security Freeze | InnovisThe Man Who Calculated Deaththreads.com/@indivisiblebuckscoDogs i pet (@dogs__i__pet) • InstagramReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Mega Happy Hour Zoom Call - you can interact with not just me and Harry Dunn, Andy McCabe, and Dana Goldberg. They'll all be there this Friday 5/23/2025 at 7 PM ET 4 PM PT. Plus, you'll get these episodes ad free and early, and get pre-sale tickets and VIP access to our live events. You can join at patreon.com/muellershewrote for as little as $3 a month. Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good Trouble:https://www.dailybeanspod.com/good/ Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote , Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote,Dana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts