Podcasts about Radical Republicans

From the publisher:"Esteemed presidential historian Stephen F. Knott takes readers on a sobering tour of the lowlights in the American presidency, showing how presidents from Thomas Jefferson to Donald Trump have engaged in reckless conspiracy-mongering about their political opponents in an effort to increase their power and privilege.Today we are inundated with conspiracy theories—QAnon, the “Big Lie,” Pizzagate, the Epstein Files, and innumerable false claims about vaccines and other medicines. But the widespread proliferation of lies and misinformation can make it easy to forget that conspiracy theories have been part of American life from the beginning. The land of the free and the home of the brave has also been the den of false rumors and conspiratorial claims about one's political enemies—not merely by rank-and-file Americans but also by our most powerful and consequential elected leaders. As political historian Stephen F. Knott recounts in painful detail, the Commander in Chief of the United States has often acted as Conspirator in Chief.Part presidential history and part descent into a political Dante's Inferno, Conspirator in Chief is a tour through the Hall of Shame in American politics. Thomas Jefferson used surrogates to spread false claims about Alexander Hamilton in order to destroy his political influence, attacked newspaper editors who were critical of his party and policies, and used conspiracy theories about the Federalists to tarnish them in the eyes of the American people. This brand of demagoguery reached an apex in the presidency of Andrew Jackson, who publicly defamed abolitionists, manipulated newspapers to publish his conspiracies, and spread his own “Big Lie” about the 1824 election being stolen from him in a “corrupt bargain.” Andrew Johnson spread false accusations about the Radical Republicans, declared the need for “white emancipation,” and made spurious claims about the dangers of a coming Black supremacy as a result of Reconstruction. Woodrow Wilson, according to Knott, continued Johnson's racist and conspiratorial interpretation of American history.In addition to our most infamous presidents, Knott uncovers the surprising conspiratorial inclinations of our more esteemed leaders, including Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S Truman. Knott shows how both presidents painted their opponents in an extreme light, casting aspersions on political rivals by calling them “betrayers of America,” “spies, saboteurs, and traitors,” and comparing them to Nazis, fascists, and communists. Less surprising are the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Donald J. Trump, both known for their propagation of racist and paranoid beliefs and their denigration of political opponents. As Knott demonstrates in excruciating detail, Trump epitomizes the worst of this long American tradition. While Trump is in a league of his own regarding the sheer output and outlandishness of his conspiracy-mongering, he did not begin this odious practice."Information on Dr. Knott's book can be found at https://kansaspress.ku.edu/9780700641284/His website can be found at https://www.stephenfknott.com/AxelbankHistory.com is designed by https://www.ellieclairedesigns.com/Axelbank Reports History and Today" can be found on social media at https://twitter.com/axelbankhistoryhttps://instagram.com/axelbankhistoryhttps://facebook.com/axelbankhistory

The Radical Republicans Live Show - The most dangerous hour in conservative media. Retired Navy Chief Jarome Bell delivers uncensored, unfiltered, unedited, unscripted, and unapologetic truth every Sunday night. While fake conservatives bow to their corporate masters, we're exposing the swamp, calling out the controlled opposition, and fighting for the complete refounding of America. No censorship. No surrender. No bullshit. If you can't handle the truth, don't tune in.

The Radical Republicans Live Show - The most dangerous hour in conservative media. Retired Navy Chief Jarome Bell delivers uncensored, unfiltered, unedited, unscripted, and unapologetic truth every Sunday night. While fake conservatives bow to their corporate masters, we're exposing the swamp, calling out the controlled opposition, and fighting for the complete refounding of America. No censorship. No surrender. No bullshit. If you can't handle the truth, don't tune in.

he Radical Republicans Live Show - The most dangerous hour in conservative media. Retired Navy Chief Jarome Bell delivers uncensored, unfiltered, unedited, unscripted, and unapologetic truth every Sunday night. While fake conservatives bow to their corporate masters, we're exposing the swamp, calling out the controlled opposition, and fighting for the complete refounding of America. No censorship. No surrender. No bullshit. If you can't handle the truth, don't tune in.

The Radical Republicans Live Show - The most dangerous hour in conservative media. Retired Navy Chief Jarome Bell delivers uncensored, unfiltered, unedited, unscripted, and unapologetic truth every Sunday night. While fake conservatives bow to their corporate masters, we're exposing the swamp, calling out the controlled opposition, and fighting for the complete refounding of America. No censorship. No surrender. No bullshit. If you can't handle the truth, don't tune in.

The Radical Republicans Live Show - The most dangerous hour in conservative media. Retired Navy Chief Jarome Bell delivers uncensored, unfiltered, unedited, unscripted, and unapologetic truth every Sunday night. While fake conservatives bow to their corporate masters, we're exposing the swamp, calling out the controlled opposition, and fighting for the complete refounding of America. No censorship. No surrender. No bullshit. If you can't handle the truth, don't tune in.

THE RISE OF THE PARIS COMMUNE FOLLOWING THE SIEGE Colleague Sebastian Smee. By March 1871, following a winter of starvation where Parisians ate rats and zoo animals, the city's radical Republicans revolted against the provisional government. The radicals, frustrated by the government's failure to break the Prussian siege and the subsequent humiliating surrender terms, seized cannons and established the Commune. This new government aimed for localized, democratic control but was viewed by the national government, now retreated to Versailles under Adolphe Thiers, as an insurrection. The Commune was libertarian and progressive but faced immediate isolation. Having survived the Prussian siege, the Communards now found themselves besieged by French government forces, setting the stage for a brutal civil conflict where the "brother fought brother" narrative of the 19th century would reach a violent climax. NUMBER 4 1890

The Siege, Starvation, and the Start of the Communard Revolt. Sebastian Smee discusses how during the Prussian siege of Paris, Parisians suffered terribly in the coldest winter on record. Radical Republicans grew furious at the moderate government's failure to defeat the Prussians. When the government surrendered and accepted severe conditions, the radicals decided to revolt. The revolutionaries, gathering in March 1871, seized cannons and established the Commune. The Communards were more libertarian than communist, aiming to democratize society. They were violent immediately, and the government forces retreated to Versailles. Paris found itself besieged again by French government forces directed by Adolphe Thiers.

·

The Radical Republicans Live Show: New Episode Alert! DOJ Shuts Down Epstein Case

Radical Republicans Live Show – Sunday, 8 PM EST

Radical Republicans Live Show - Weekly Podcast** **This Sunday Night May 4th at 8 PM EST: IT'S LADIES NIGHT in the Lions Den!** Join us for an electrifying episode where we dive into unedited, uncensored, unfiltered, and unapologetic truths! This week, we're rolling out the red carpet for an incredible lineup of fierce voices ready to shake things up: **Featured Guests:**- **Trevian Kutti** - A powerhouse of insight and passion! @FreeTrevian - **Laverne Spicer** - Fearless, bold, and always ready to challenge the status quo! @lavern_spicer - **Karen Jean** - Bringing her unique perspective and unfiltered opinions! @realkarenjean - **Leticia Perkins** - A dynamic force ready to ignite the conversation! @Leticia63996798 - **The Real Dana** - No topic is off-limits with her on the mic! @therealdana7 This is more than just a podcast; it's a lively discussion that dives deep into the heart of pressing issues with humor, candor, and a touch of sass. Expect lively debates, passionate opinions, and the kind of real talk that will leave you inspired and motivated! **Don't miss out!** Grab your favorite drink, settle in, and be ready for a night full of laughter, insight, and truth-telling. Whether you're a long-time listener or a first-time guest, this is the perfect opportunity to join the conversation! **Tune in live this Sunday May 4th at 8 PM EST!** Let's make some noise together in the Lions Den! #LadiesNight #RadicalRepublicans #Podcast #LiveShow #UnfilteredTruth

Jarome Bell@JaromeBellForIdaho·

FAN MAIL--We would love YOUR feedback--Send us a Text MessageApril 9th marks 160 years since the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse – the moment that effectively ended America's bloodiest conflict. This anniversary offers a powerful opportunity to reflect on the Civil War's enduring impact on our national identity and democratic principles.The surrender scene itself carries deep symbolism: Lee in his pristine gray uniform meeting Grant in his characteristically muddy field attire, negotiating terms in a small Virginia parlor. What followed wasn't vengeance but surprising generosity – Confederate soldiers allowed to return home under parole, keeping their sidearms and horses, embodying Lincoln's vision for national healing "with malice toward none, with charity for all."But understanding Appomattox requires grasping the full arc of the Civil War. That's why I've curated three essential books that offer fresh perspectives on this pivotal historical moment. James McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom" provides the definitive single-volume account, weaving military strategy and social transformation into a compelling narrative that firmly establishes slavery as the war's central cause. Fergus Bordwitch's "Congress at War" illuminates how Radical Republicans in Congress pushed an aggressive legislative agenda that permanently altered federal-state relationships and protected civil rights. And Edward Bonekemper's "Lincoln and Grant" examines how these two underestimated "Westerners" formed an unstoppable partnership of moral vision and military tenacity.As we approach America's 250th anniversary in 2026, these readings help us comprehend how the Civil War fundamentally redefined our nation. The conflict wasn't just about preserving the Union – it transformed America's understanding of liberty itself, creating a constitutional framework that finally began aligning our practices with our founding ideals of equality. Pick up one of these books today and discover how this crucial chapter in our past continues to shape America's present and future.Key Points from the Episode:• Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson - Pulitzer Prize-winning comprehensive history that weaves military, political and social dimensions into one gripping narrative• McPherson clearly establishes slavery as the central cause of the Civil War, not simply "states' rights"• Lincoln's evolving definition of liberty shows how the war transformed American identity• Congress at War by Fergus Bordwitch - Reveals how lawmakers drove anti-slavery legislation even beyond Lincoln's initial vision• With Southerners absent, Congress embarked on transformative legislation that laid foundations for modern America• The book highlights how Congress profoundly altered federal-state relationships and protected civil rights• Lincoln and Grant by Edward Bonekemper - Examines the partnership between two "Western" leaders who brought the Confederacy to its knees• Grant's Vicksburg campaign stands as a masterpiece of military strategy• Their collaboration demonstrates how visionary leadership paired with relentless execution changed history• The Impending Crisis by David Potter (honorable mention) - Brilliant analysis of the tense pre-war years from 1848-1861As we approach America's 250th anniversary in 2026, I encourage you to pick up one of these essential reads to understand this critical chapter in our national story.Other resources: Want to leave a review? Click here, and if we earned a five-star review from you **high five and knuckle bumps**, we appreciate it greatly, thank you so much!

**Episode Title: Understanding Detransition and Controversial Truths** Join us for **THE RADICAL REPUBLICANS LIVE SHOW** this Sunday night at 8 PM Eastern Standard Time! Streamed live on GETTR, X, YouTube, Rumble, and on every podcast station in America. **In the First Hour: Laura Becker** We're thrilled to welcome Laura Becker, a detransitioner, author, and coach dedicated to supporting families navigating gender issues. After identifying as trans in her teenage years, Laura faced significant challenges rooted in childhood trauma, further complicated by medical interventions. Now, she passionately advocates against gender ideology and offers invaluable guidance to parents with gender-confused children. Don't miss Laura's inspiring story and her insights on this crucial topic. **In the Second Hour: Stew Peters** For the first time in the Lions Den, we have the controversial truth-teller Stew Peters. Known for his bold perspectives and influential voice on X (formerly Twitter) and through his platform, @realstewpeters, Stew will engage us in a riveting conversation about current events, media narratives, and the importance of standing up for the truth in today's society. Mark your calendars and join the conversation this Sunday! Follow on rumble at https://rumble.com/c/maverickbroa... subscribe, rate, and review to keep up with all our latest episodes! #RadicalRepublicans #Podcast #Detransition #LauraBecker #StewPeters #TruthTalk #GenderIssues #FamilySupport

**

**

"Abolition and Capitalism: Breaking the Ties" w/ Andy “Hood Candidate” Williams Jr.Mass incarceration isn't just about crime and punishment—it's about profit. In this episode, we examine how capitalism fuels the prison-industrial complex, from private prisons to forced prison labor, and why abolition is inherently an economic justice movement. We'll also explore alternative systems that prioritize care over punishment and justice over profit.Andy “Hood Candidate” Williams, Jr., is an abolitionist, advocate, and social entrepreneur. He is the ambassador of AWJ Ministries, a marketplace ministry that sets people free from financial, physical, and spiritual bondage. He is the director of litigation, advocacy, and strategy at For the People: Kingdom Litigators, LLC, a public interest law firm. He has made two bids to become President of the United States, running with the Libertarian Party in 2020 and as an independent in 2024.His life mission is to set people free by any means necessary. To achieve his vision, Andy co-founded a series of social enterprises, including National Coalition for Prisoner Voting Rights, Jailhouse and Street lawyers Association, and the Radical Republicans. Andy serves on the committee for the National Lawyers Guild, New Illinois, and collaborates with many National Organizations and freedom led movements. He speaks regularly about freedom issues primarily around the current and formerly incarcerated rights and government accountability as he strives for freedom of all the people.Turning A Moment Ino A Moment Team:-Jay Love Host: Founder and Creator of Turning A Moment Into A Movement, The Justice for Gerard Movement, to learn more about The Justice for Gerard Movement go to: ⁠www.change.org/Justice4Gerard⁠Executive Board member of Michigan Coalition of Human Rights, G100 Prison Reforms & Reintegration Global Advisory Council Member -Rev. Tia Littlejohn: Behavioral Therapist, Founder of the Choice Zone, G100 Global Chair G100 Prison Reforms & Reintegration, Co-Chair & Executive Board member of Michigan Coalition of Human Rights, Author, www.thechoicezone.com-Trische' Duckworth: Executive Director/Founder of Survivors Speak, Founder/ Lead Consultant of Value Black Lives, Social Worker, Justice Advocate, Board member of Michigan Coalition of Human Rights,https://www.survivorsspeak.info-Alexanderia Hudges: Mental health and human rights Activist, Master's degree student at Wayne State University, and Board member with the Michigan Coalition of Human Rights https://linktr.ee/AlexandriaJHughes -Leslie McGraw: Poet, Writer, and Social Media and Voting Rights ActivistOwner, Les Go Social Media Marketing & Training (Les Go Social MM&T) Founder, Elbert Williams Voting Corner, Board Member and VOTE Caucus Leader, Interfaith Council for Peace & Justice (ICPJ) Communications Lead, Protectors of Equality in Government (PEG), Member, Allies of Mental Health of Washtenaw County www.elbertwilliamsvotingcorner.com***Turning A Moment Into A Movement Podcast MISSION:To bring awareness, organize, and create content that will be a resource that will aide families, communities, and those seeking Justice for WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS and Injustice. ...and advocating for Justice & Exoneration for GERARD HAYCRAFT. change.org/Justice4GerardI do not own the rights to the music.No copyright infringement intended.Musical Content Copyright Disclaimer (Fair Use) under section 107 Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes.

**

Today, The Two Mikes had the pleasure of talking to the author James Perloff about his new book, Exploding the Official Myths of the Lincoln Administration. Mr. Perloff's book is startlingly well documented and raises the distinct possibility that senior officials in Lincoln's government – including the Secretary of War Edward Stanton – were involved in planning the operation and letting John Wilkes Booth escape after the attack on Lincoln. Why was this murderous operation undertaken? Because the Radical Republicans in Congress wanted no part of Lincoln's plans to let the South up easy after the war, and resume its role in the union and in the U.S. government. The Radical Republicans wanted to squeeze what was left of the southern economy and draw off whatever riches could be had after the war's end. The also intended to militarily occupy the south and then rule it by the sword. Ultimately, the scourge of military occupation in the south lasted from 18165 until 1877.

This Day in Legal History: President Johnson AcquittedOn May 16, 1868, a significant moment in U.S. legal and political history occurred when President Andrew Johnson was acquitted in his impeachment trial. Johnson, who had ascended to the presidency following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, was charged with high crimes and misdemeanors, primarily stemming from his violations of the Tenure of Office Act. This law, which was later repealed, had been designed to restrict the power of the President to remove certain officeholders without the Senate's approval.The crux of the case against Johnson was his attempt to remove Edwin Stanton, the Secretary of War, without Senate consent, which ignited a fierce political battle with the Radical Republicans who dominated Congress. These lawmakers sought a stricter Reconstruction of the Southern states following the Civil War, a process Johnson had obstructed through his lenient policies towards the former Confederate states.The impeachment trial in the Senate was a closely watched affair, reflecting deep national divisions during a tumultuous period in American history. Johnson narrowly escaped removal from office by one vote, securing a "not guilty" verdict with a tally of 35-19, just shy of the two-thirds majority required for conviction.This verdict had lasting implications for the balance of power between the presidency and Congress, highlighting the complexities of presidential impeachment. Johnson's trial set a significant precedent, establishing that political disagreements alone were not sufficient grounds for removal from office under the Constitution. This event remains a pivotal chapter in the saga of American governance and legal standards, underscoring the enduring struggle over the limits of presidential authority.Ghostwriting in legal briefs refers to the practice where an experienced attorney, often a specialist in Supreme Court matters, writes or significantly contributes to a brief without their name appearing on the document. This tactic is predominantly used in opposition briefs—the documents that argue why the Supreme Court should not agree to hear a particular case. The strategy behind ghostwriting is to leverage the expertise of seasoned Supreme Court advocates without drawing attention to the case with a high-profile name. This can make the brief more persuasive without signaling that the case might be significant enough to warrant the Court's attention.Despite there being no explicit rules against ghostwriting in court documents, and the American Bar Association deeming it ethically permissible under certain circumstances, the practice has sparked debate. Critics, like law professor Daniel Epps, argue that it might be seen as misleading because it intentionally hides the involvement of influential lawyers to influence the Court's decisions indirectly. Advocates of transparency suggest that disclosing all authors of a brief could lead to more informed decision-making by the justices.However, some legal experts argue that ghostwriting is detectable by justices familiar with the distinct writing styles and argumentative structures typical of veteran Supreme Court lawyers. This recognition could potentially undermine the purpose of ghostwriting by making the justices aware of the underlying significance and expert handling of the case. Despite these concerns, ghostwriting remains a utilized, albeit controversial, tactic in the strategic presentation of cases to the Supreme Court.Ghostwriters Try Steering Supreme Court Justices Away from CasesQuinn Emanuel, a prominent law firm, has integrated an AI-powered tool from Pre/Dicta to predict judicial decisions in litigation cases, enhancing strategic planning and case management. The tool, developed by Pre/Dicta—a company specializing in judicial analytics—utilizes artificial intelligence to analyze various judge-specific factors such as age, gender, education, and net worth, which the company's CEO, Dan Rabinowitz, suggests, in reporting by Bloomberg Law, influence decision-making. This predictive capability is seen as critical for litigators, akin to writing briefs.The technology is designed to anticipate judges' rulings on various motions including summary judgments, class certifications, and venue transfers with an impressive accuracy of about 85%, as evidenced by tests on 50,000 cases. Ryan Landes, a partner at Quinn Emanuel, highlights the strategic advantage this provides, potentially altering the cost-benefit analysis of legal actions based on predicted outcomes.Currently, the tool is used only for analyzing federal court cases, with plans to expand to state court cases, starting with California. This AI application underscores the broader trend of law firms leveraging new technologies to improve efficiency and decision-making.Quinn Emanuel Adopts AI-Powered Tool to Predict Judicial RulingsFederal lawmakers have begun efforts to repeal a new rule by the Department of Labor (DOL) that broadens the definition of a fiduciary, impacting more financial advisors. This rule, finalized in April, extends fiduciary responsibilities to include advice on rolling over 401(k) funds into annuities and individual retirement accounts. Critics, including some Wall Street firms and life insurers, argue that this rule could hinder their ability to earn commissions and offer services, potentially complicating retirement planning for individuals.The resolution to overturn the rule is led by Senators Ted Budd, Bill Cassidy, Joe Manchin, and Roger Marshall, along with support in the House from Representatives Rick Allen and Virginia Foxx. They claim the rule constitutes executive overreach and could limit consumers' financial management options and access to advice, risking their future financial security.The rule is already facing legal challenges from the insurance industry, which seeks to prevent its enforcement through a lawsuit filed under the Administrative Procedure Act. This legal action requests both a preliminary and permanent injunction against the rule.The process to repeal the rule involves a Congressional Review Act (CRA) procedure, where Congress, after receiving a report from the Labor Department, has 60 days to pass a joint resolution of disapproval. If passed, this would proceed to President Joe Biden's desk, where he is likely to veto it based on previous actions, such as his veto of a resolution against the DOL's ESG rule in March 2023. However, there remains a possibility for Congress to override such a veto.Biden 401(k) Advice Rule Repeal Effort Begins in Congress (2)Boeing Co. is facing significant scrutiny from shareholders at its annual meeting on May 17, reflecting deep dissatisfaction with the company's management and response to ongoing safety issues with its jets. Shareholders, advised by proxy-voting firms Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), are particularly critical of Boeing's board and executive compensation, signaling discontent with how the company has addressed the systemic safety failures that have plagued its newer aircraft models.Glass Lewis has recommended voting against the reelection of certain board members, including those leading the audit and aerospace safety committees, due to their perceived failure in overseeing necessary safety improvements. Additionally, ISS has advised shareholders to reject the outgoing CEO Dave Calhoun's pay package, which saw a substantial increase despite the company's troubling safety record and operational challenges. This package includes a significant bonus that coincided with additional safety incidents, raising concerns about the misalignment between executive compensation and company performance.The dissatisfaction comes amid a backdrop of operational failures that have not only affected Boeing's share price, which has dropped significantly, but also raised potential for criminal prosecution due to violations of a deferred-prosecution agreement related to past crashes. These ongoing issues, coupled with a wave of executive retirements, including that of CEO Calhoun, suggest a tumultuous period for Boeing.Despite the likelihood that the board members and executive pay proposals will pass, a substantial number of dissenting votes would highlight the shaky confidence investors have in the current leadership's ability to turn around the company's fortunes and address its safety culture effectively. This climate of uncertainty could also impact Boeing's ability to attract a capable successor for Calhoun, as potential candidates may be deterred by the reputational risks and scrutinized compensation involved.Boeing Safety Woes Fuel Opposition to CEO's Pay, Board Make-Up Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Andrew Johnson is a Scoundrel On this day in legal history, March 27, 1866, President Andrew Johnson enacted one of the most consequential vetoes in American history. Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Bill, a pivotal piece of legislation intended to extend full U.S. citizenship to all former slaves and to fundamentally reshape the landscape of civil rights in the aftermath of the Civil War. This bill was a direct response to the Black Codes, laws passed by Southern states that severely restricted the rights of newly freed African Americans.Johnson, a Southern Democrat who ascended to the presidency after Lincoln's assassination, argued that the bill encroached upon states' rights and would lead to federal overreach. His veto underscored a profound political and ideological rift between the President and the Radical Republicans in Congress, who advocated for more stringent Reconstruction policies and greater protections for former slaves.The veto of the Civil Rights Bill did not mark the end of the struggle for equality; rather, it galvanized Congress to action. In a rare and historic move, Congress overrode Johnson's veto in April 1866, marking the first time in U.S. history that a major piece of legislation became law over a presidential veto. This event signaled a shift in the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches and underscored the growing commitment of the federal government to civil rights.The passage of the Civil Rights Bill set the stage for the 14th Amendment, which would be ratified two years later in 1868. The amendment enshrined in the Constitution the principles of birthright citizenship and equal protection under the law, fundamentally transforming the nature of American citizenship and laying the groundwork for future civil rights advancements. Johnson's veto, and the legislative response it provoked, remain a testament to the turbulent and transformative nature of the Reconstruction era, highlighting the enduring struggle for justice and equality in the United States.The U.S. Justice Department strategically filed its significant antitrust lawsuit against Apple Inc. in New Jersey, aiming to leverage the Third Circuit Court's history of plaintiff-friendly rulings in monopoly cases. This move is part of the broader Biden administration effort to regulate the dominance of Big Tech through antitrust law, targeting practices Apple uses to maintain its smartphone market monopoly. The Third Circuit, known for its openness to cracking down on monopolistic behavior, contrasts with other circuits perceived as more defendant-friendly in antitrust matters.Legal experts point out the Third Circuit's precedents in supporting the government's stance against monopolistic practices, citing past rulings against companies like Dentsply and 3M Co. for violating the Sherman Act. These precedents underline the court's stricter standards for monopolists, relevant to the DOJ's allegations against Apple for Section 2 violations of the same act. The choice of New Jersey also reflects tactical considerations regarding subpoena power and the desire for a court that might approach the case with fresh eyes, avoiding circuits like the Ninth, where Apple has previously secured favorable rulings.The DOJ's lawsuit, joined by New Jersey and other states, underscores the strategic legal and geographic considerations at play in selecting a venue. This reflects a deliberate effort to position the case advantageously within the U.S. legal landscape, aiming for a fresh judicial examination of Apple's business practices and their impact on competition and consumers.DOJ's Apple Suit Filed in New Jersey for Friendly Third CircuitThe 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals has temporarily halted a Texas law, SB4, which authorizes state officials to arrest, detain, and deport individuals entering the U.S. illegally, pending an appeal. This decision represents a temporary victory for the Biden administration in a legal battle with significant ramifications for U.S. immigration policy. The court's 2-1 ruling maintains the suspension of the law, following a lower court judge's determination that it conflicts with federal immigration statutes.Chief Judge Priscilla Richman, writing for the court, underscored that immigration enforcement predominantly falls within federal jurisdiction, despite Texas' efforts to address what it perceives as a failure by Congress to fund adequate responses to increased illegal entries into the United States. She emphasized that Texas cannot assume the federal government's role in immigration matters according to the Constitution and laws.The contested law has caused considerable confusion and uncertainty in Texas, especially regarding its potential enforcement mechanisms. Texas officials argue that SB4 is necessary to mitigate the border crossing influx, criticizing federal inaction. Conversely, the Biden administration contends that the law unlawfully encroaches on federal authority to manage immigration policy and could hinder border management efforts.The appeals court noted that the Texas statute would likely disrupt the federal government's established processes for managing the removal of individuals in the country illegally, pointing out the federal system's complexity and national scope. The 5th Circuit is set to further review the state's appeal of a February ruling by US District Judge David Ezra, who blocked the law on grounds that it would effectively nullify federal law and authority. Oral arguments for the appeal are slated for April 3, as the broader legal challenge to SB4's enforceability continues, with the federal government, a Texas border county, and immigrant rights organizations seeking its permanent injunction.Texas Deportation Law Stays Blocked Until Appeal Is Resolved (1)Disney has settled a lawsuit with the state of Florida, marking the end of its dispute with Governor Ron DeSantis. This resolution came about after a board, appointed by DeSantis to manage the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District which oversees Disney's operations in the region, accepted Disney's settlement offer. The conflict, lasting nearly a year, stemmed from Disney's implementation of certain changes that diminished the municipal authority's powers, specifically limiting the new board's oversight on theme park expansions and billboard advertising.These changes were enacted just before the takeover by the DeSantis-appointed board, leading to a significant legal and public relations battle between the state and Disney, one of Florida's largest employers. Under the terms of the settlement, Disney has agreed to withdraw these controversial changes, thereby restoring the authority of the municipal board.Jeff Vahle, president of Walt Disney World Resort, expressed satisfaction with the settlement, highlighting that it not only concludes the ongoing litigation in Florida's state court but also initiates a period of positive engagement with the district's new leadership. He emphasized that this agreement facilitates further investments and job creation in Florida, benefiting both the state's economy and its workforce. This settlement represents a significant step towards resolving the tensions between Disney and the Florida government, opening the door to future cooperation and development.Disney Ends Fight With Ron DeSantis by Settling Florida LawsuitFlorida governor, Disney reach settlement | ReutersA consumer lawsuit accusing Apple of anti-competitive practices related to cryptocurrency transactions in its App Store was dismissed by a federal judge in San Francisco. The lawsuit, filed in November 2023, claimed Apple's restrictions on cryptocurrency technology stifled competition and increased transaction fees for services like Venmo and Cash App. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria criticized the lawsuit as "speculative," identifying several critical flaws, but allowed the plaintiffs 21 days to amend their complaint. Apple, which has faced various antitrust challenges, including a notable lawsuit from the U.S. Justice Department over smartphone market monopolization, denied any wrongdoing. This dismissal adds to the ongoing debate about Apple's influence on app market competition and its regulatory compliance amidst growing legal scrutiny.Apple defeats consumers' crypto-payment antitrust case for now | ReutersHunter Biden is set to request the dismissal of tax evasion charges against him, claiming the case is politically motivated. His legal team will argue before a Los Angeles federal court that the prosecution was influenced by Republican scrutiny of his father, President Joe Biden. Hunter has pleaded not guilty to charges of evading $1.4 million in taxes from 2016 to 2019, despite having repaid the amount. His trial is scheduled for June, ahead of the contentious November presidential election. Additionally, Hunter faces separate charges in Delaware related to the alleged purchase of a handgun while using illegal drugs, to which he has also pleaded not guilty. His defense includes claims of selective prosecution and challenges the appointment of Special Counsel David Weiss, asserting the case should be dismissed due to an earlier plea deal that fell through.Hunter Biden to ask judge to dismiss tax charges as politically motivated | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

fWotD Episode 2495: James G. Blaine Welcome to featured Wiki of the Day where we read the summary of the featured Wikipedia article every day.The featured article for Monday, 4 March 2024 is James G. Blaine.James Gillespie Blaine (January 31, 1830 – January 27, 1893) was an American statesman and Republican politician who represented Maine in the United States House of Representatives from 1863 to 1876, serving as Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives from 1869 to 1875, and then in the United States Senate from 1876 to 1881.Blaine twice served as Secretary of State, first in 1881 under President James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur, and then from 1889 to 1892 under President Benjamin Harrison. He is one of only two U. S. Secretaries of State to hold the position under three separate presidents, the other being Daniel Webster. Blaine unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination for President in 1876 and 1880 before being nominated in 1884. In the 1884 general election, he was narrowly defeated by Democratic nominee Grover Cleveland. Blaine was one of the late 19th century's leading Republicans and a champion of the party's moderate reformist faction, later known as the "Half-Breeds".Blaine was born in the western Pennsylvania town of West Brownsville and moved to Maine after completing college where he became a newspaper editor. Nicknamed "the Magnetic Man", he was a charismatic speaker in an era that prized oratory. He began his political career as an early supporter of Republican Abraham Lincoln and the Union war effort in the American Civil War. During Reconstruction, Blaine was a supporter of black suffrage, but opposed some of the more coercive measures of the Radical Republicans. Initially in favor of high tariffs, he later worked to lower tariffs and expand international trade. Railroad promotion and construction were important issues in his time and, as a result of his interest and support, Blaine was widely suspected of corruption in awarding railroad charters, especially with the emergence of the Mulligan letters. Though no evidence of corruption ever surfaced from these allegations, they nevertheless plagued his 1884 presidential candidacy.As Secretary of State, Blaine was a transitional figure, marking the end of an isolationist era in foreign policy and foreshadowing the rise of the American Century that would begin with the Spanish–American War. His efforts to expand U. S. trade and influence began the nation's shift to a more active American foreign policy. Blaine was a pioneer of tariff reciprocity and urged greater involvement in Latin American affairs. An expansionist, Blaine's policies would lead in less than a decade to the establishment of the U. S. acquisition of Pacific colonies and dominance in the Caribbean.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:49 UTC on Monday, 4 March 2024.For the full current version of the article, see James G. Blaine on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm Salli Standard.

The death of Abraham Lincoln sets the stage for one of the greatest political showdowns in American history. On one side stands President Andrew Johnson, a notorious drunk and bigot who was sympathetic to the South. On the other side, Edwin M Stanton and the Radical Republicans in Congress, who want to secure Abraham Lincoln's legacy and protect the 4 million Freed Slaves in the South. The Reconstruction era brings with it a series of firsts: the end of the Civil War, the first president assassinated, and the first impeachment of a president in US History. In the midst of the turmoil, a beloved war hero rises to the occasion and seeks to fill the void left by President Lincoln's murder: General Ulysses S Grant. *** To listen to the entire series—all 59 episodes—right now and ad-free, become a subscriber at IntoHistory.com, a channel of history podcasts made just for history lovers like you. Enjoy ad-free listening, early releases, bonus content and more, only available at IntoHistory.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Many Americans would agree with Henry Ford's famous statement that “History is bunk.” Do the events of a century and a half ago really have any relevance to our daily lives in the twenty-first century? Fergus Bordewich, in his new book Klan War: Ulysses S. Grant and the Battle to Save Reconstruction, argues that America's critical missed turning point in the 1860s and ‘70s continues to haunt the present. In the wake of the Confederacy's defeat in the Civil War in 1865, federal forces attempted to rebuild the post-slavery South as an industrial, biracial democracy. The policy of this Reconstruction was made in Washington by a Congress dominated by Radical Republicans — members of the Republican Party who were committed to a thoroughgoing transformation of the South. Former Union general Ulysses S. Grant, elected as president on the Republican ticket in 1868, was equally committed to this revolutionary transformation. But Reconstruction increasingly was thwarted by the Ku Klux Klan – a secret paramilitary group formed in late 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee – which morphed into what Bordewich calls “the first organized terror movement in American history.” The Klan used threats, abuse, arson, rape, torture, and lynching to terrorize African Americans into servility and to destroy the Republican Party in the South. In this podcast discussion, Bordewich discusses how Grant pushed Congress to grant him the powers he needed to combat the Klan, and how he used these powers to shatter the “Invisible Empire.” But Grant's efforts were largely undone by members of his own party who formed the so-called Liberal Republican faction, largely because they distrusted strong central government. In the aftermath of Grant's presidency, the Klan faded away because Democratic-controlled legislatures in the South increasingly were able to enforce white supremacy on the region through legal means. One of the lessons from this episode of history, in Bordewich's view, is “the danger of politically crippling what is necessary for government to do to sustain what's best in society and to sustain the rights and protections of Americans.”

We have another Andrew Johnson-related “this day in legal history” for today – on May 26 in 1868, the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson concluded without conviction. In 1868, President Johnson faced impeachment, and his fate rested on a single vote in the Senate trial. Johnson had become president after Abraham Lincoln's assassination and had a strained relationship with Republican leaders, particularly the Radical Republicans. The House of Representatives impeached Johnson on charges of violating the Tenure of Office Act by removing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton without approval. The Senate trial required a two-thirds majority to convict Johnson.Senator Edmund Ross of Kansas, a Republican, cast the deciding vote. It was expected that Ross would vote against Johnson, but to the surprise of many, he voted "Not guilty." The Radical Republicans requested an adjournment, and the trial concluded on May 26 with failed votes on two more articles.The controversy surrounding Ross's vote centers on why he changed his mind. Some speculate that he may have been influenced by a $150,000 slush fund set up by Johnson's supporters. However, there is evidence that Ross's vote may not have been crucial, as at least four other senators were prepared to oppose conviction if necessary.Skadden, one of the largest law firms in the US, has announced a new policy requiring lawyers to work in the office four days a week. Previously, attorneys were required to be in the office only on Tuesdays through Thursdays. The firm stated that the modified hybrid work model aims to leverage the benefits of remote work while fostering innovation and professional development through increased in-person collaboration. Other prestigious law firms like Davis Polk & Wardwell, Milbank, and Simpson Thacher have already implemented similar office attendance policies. Some firms, such as Simpson Thacher and Sidley Austin, have even threatened to withhold bonus money from associates who do not comply with the office attendance requirements. The shift in policies reflects a power shift in the legal industry, with employers holding more sway due to economic conditions and cost-cutting measures. Younger lawyers, in particular, prefer flexible work arrangements, and a significant number would consider leaving their current jobs for opportunities with greater remote work options. Hybrid work arrangements have become prevalent across industries, with companies like Starbucks, Amazon, and Walt Disney implementing similar policies. However, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has expressed skepticism about remote work, stating that it doesn't work well for younger staff and management roles.Skadden Forces Lawyers Back to Offices Four Days Per Week (1)Stewart Rhodes, the founder and leader of the Oath Keepers, has been sentenced to 18 years in prison for his involvement in a plot to keep former President Donald Trump in power after losing the 2020 election. Another member of the Oath Keepers, Kelly Meggs, the leader of the Florida contingent, received a 12-year prison sentence. These are the first sentences for seditious conspiracy in over a decade. The judge emphasized that Rhodes' actions posed a threat to democracy and the fabric of the country, and he expressed concerns about future election-related violence. Rhodes was convicted of seditious conspiracy by a Washington, DC, jury in November, and the judge ruled that his actions amounted to domestic terrorism. Prosecutors had requested a 25-year prison sentence for Rhodes, while Meggs showed contrition and received a lesser sentence due to his lesser role in the conspiracy. Rhodes, before his sentencing, claimed to be a political prisoner and repeated false allegations about the 2020 election. The sentencing is seen as having a chilling effect on extremist groups, and Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn stated that he hopes former President Trump will be held accountable next.Stewart Rhodes: Oath Keepers leader sentenced to 18 years in prison for plot to keep Trump in power | CNN PoliticsThe Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has announced plans to restrict the growth of large banks and potentially force them to sell assets if they fail to address ongoing issues. The decision follows concerns raised by acting Comptroller Michael Hsu that certain banks are becoming "too big to manage." The OCC intends to use various measures against banks that receive poor management grades, fail to address problems identified in enforcement actions, or face multiple enforcement actions over three years. These measures could include increasing capital and liquidity levels, limiting expansion plans, or canceling dividend payments. In severe cases, the OCC may consider mandating banks to reduce their asset size, divest subsidiaries or business lines, or exit certain markets. The policy aims to ensure that deficiencies are identified and that banks are given opportunities to rectify them. The new enforcement policy comes at a time when U.S. regulators are sending mixed signals regarding allowing further consolidation in the banking industry. Some regulators, such as Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Rohit Chopra, argue for dismantling large banks that pose risks to the economy, while others, including Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, suggest that increased merger activity may be necessary to strengthen the financial system.Big Banks With ‘Persistent Weaknesses' Targeted for BreakupHouse Republicans are preparing to introduce a tax package that reveals divisions within the caucus and provides insights into the policy approach of the new Ways and Means Committee chairman. The economic package, set to be unveiled in early June, is expected to include measures such as research and development tax breaks, full bonus depreciation, and interest expense deductions. Lawmakers are vying to ensure their priorities are included in the package, with potential measures including lifting the state and local tax deduction cap and changes to the Child Tax Credit. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith has shown interest in the Child Tax Credit, and the bill will provide an indication of his stance on various tax issues. The package will need to garner enough votes from the caucus to pass the House. Republican lawmakers have been discussing potential provisions, including individual tax relief and increasing the 1099-K tax reporting threshold. There is also support for a version of the Child Tax Credit to be included, as it expired in 2021. The inclusion of some Child Tax Credit provisions would signal willingness to collaborate with Democrats. Additionally, Republican lawmakers from high-tax states are meeting with Smith to address the cap on state and local tax deductions. The caucus has not decided on its position if the package does not address the SALT cap, but it remains an important issue for them.SALT Cap Tweak, Child Tax Credit in the Mix for GOP Tax Package Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Friends,Welcome back to another Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse (executive director of Inequality Media and my former student) where we look at the highs and lows and even lowers of the week. Today, we examine:— Joe Biden's unsurprising announcement that he's running for reelection. But what does it really mean, and what are his chances?— Kevin McCarthy and the radical House Republicans' gonzo demands for raising the debt ceiling. What are Biden's options?— Radical Republicans in Montana, preventing a transgender lawmaker from speaking. Why are Republicans across the nation targeting transgender people?— Goodbye to Tucker. What happened, and where is he going?— Bob's last class! Please pull up a chair, grab a cup, and if you're inclined, take our poll.Loading... This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

On this edition of Parallax Views, Joseph Fishkin, Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law, joins us to discuss his new book, co-authored with William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy. Oligarchy is a term often used when describing power players in countries like Russia. But what of the United States? And what can a look at the Founding Father and the Constitution tells us about American concerns about oligarchic wealth and power throughout U.S. history? In this conversation we seek to answer that question and we talk about the history of progressive reforms in the U.S. and debates that have been had over the Constitution over the years. Additionally, Joseph and I discuss constitutional arguments, the problem with overconcentration of wealth into the hands of the few, and Fishkin's belief that American liberals and the left must not ceded constitutional arguments to the right-wing. Among the topics covered: - Beliefs among the Founding Fathers about the need for a broad middle class for the Republic to function and how to much wealth concentrated into the hands of landed oligarchs would be disruptive - FDR and the "Democracy of Opportunity" tradition; wealth inequality as a hinderance to freedom; how we conceptualize the idea of freedom on the right and the left of the political spectrum - How the American right-wing seized the ground of Constitutional arguments - The Supreme Court - Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Alexander Hamilton, class, and divisions amongst the Founding Fathers on certain issues - The Civil War, Reconstruction,  Abolitionists, Radical Republicans, the landed aristocracy, slavery and "Forty Acres and a Mule" - The collapse of Reconstruction, the political system in the South, the landed aristocracy and the use of wealth to influence politics - The landed aristocracy's attempts to prevent fusion politics between the poor black and poor whites; fusionist pro-labor politics as a challenge to oligarchic interest in the South - Explaining the Gilded Age of the late 19th and early 20th century; the resistance to the massive wealth concentration and monopolies of that time; the emerging American underclass in the Gilded Age; the call for better wage, redistribution of wealth, and more that informed the early 20th century labor movement - How early 20th century courts used constitutional law arguments to put down labor strikes; how populists and progressives crafted constitutional counter-arguments against the courts' arguments in response; parallels between the Gilded Age and today (are we living in The Second Gilded Age?) - Constitutional arguments as needing to be within the realm of politics rather than just arguments to be made in the courts; progressive claims on the Constitution; Franklin Delano Roosevelt's contention that the Constitution is a "laymen's document" rather than just a lawyer's document full of arcana to be argued over by elites - The history of American populism and it's importance; the hijacking of American populism; right-wing populism and how the right-wing defines elitism and elites in a way that differs from the left; "The Kingfish" Huey Long; Bernie Sanders and populism - LBJ's "The Great Society" and the phenomena Fishkin and Forbath refer to as "The Great Forgetting"; FDR and the New Deal; court-packing; social security and labor law; the left's move towards making technical expertise arguments over constitutional arguments - Campaign finance law and the need for Constitutional arguments in the U.S. today - And much, much more!

Emma hosts Timothy Shenk, Co-Editor of Dissent and Assistant Professor of Modern U.S. History at George Washington University, to discuss his recent book Realigners: Partisan Hacks, Political Visionaries, and the Struggle to Rule American Democracy. First, Emma runs through updates on Sinema jumping right back into working with the Right, Kari Lake's lawsuit against Arizona, and polls revealing that the only thing the public wants less than a Trump candidacy, is a Biden one, before diving deeper into this weekend's Keystone Pipeline spill, and the complete joke that is letting corporations regulate themselves. Timothy Shenk then joins as he dives right into the inspiration he found in the failure of the US political system leading up to the election of Donald Trump, with the inability of either party to build a durable majority following the collapse of the New Deal Coalition in 1968. Next, Shenk jumps back to the 18th Century as he begins the walk through the major political realignment that set up this coalition-stifling system, first parsing through the aristocratic civil war between Federalists and Jeffersonians in the 1790s that set up the two-party system that centered the ability to sway the electorate (rather than the belief in an aristocracy naturally rising to the top), before moving forwards through the 1800s and Andrew Jackson's rallying of a populist coalition of his Jacksonian Democrats to bolster this political party machine. Next, Timothy and Emma explore the shift away from the Jacksonian Democrats as Martin Van Buren and the “Radical Republicans” began to take on the institution of slavery, and walk through the impact of changing party politics in the leadup to the Civil War, before shifting to the third realignment under Lincoln and beyond, as reconstruction's vision of a multiracial democracy began to fall apart. They then discuss the rise of FDR's New Deal Coalition in the 20th Century, as the Great Depression forced Americans to get over their lingering resentment from the Civil War, and for the first time centered class as the major political divide in the US, before they wrap up the interview by walking through the Right's various coalition attempts (largely shrouded in a populist veneer) from Phyllis Schlafly to Donald Trump and tackling the failure of Democrats to ever see a return of FDR's labor coalition. And in the Fun Half: Emma and the crew bask in the jeers Elon Musk received at Dave Chapelle's recent SF show, despite Dave's best efforts, Jesse James from the Hudson Valley dives into reactionaries and pop-culture race swaps, and Sunil from San Jose discusses various elements of Democrats' campaigning strategies. They also tackle Christian Walker refusing to back down to the weirdos on the Right that blame him for his father's loss, Zack from Missouri discusses the role of religion in various elements of our politics, and Serena from Tucson walks through serious tenants' rights issues going on in her complex, plus, your calls and IMs! Check out Timothy's book here: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374138004/realigners Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: LiquidIV: Cooler weather makes it easier to miss signs of dehydration like overheating or perspiration, which means it's even more important to keep your body properly hydrated. Liquid I.V. contains 5 essential vitamins—more Vitamin C than an orange and as much potassium as a banana. Healthier than sugary sports drinks, there are no artificial flavors or preservatives and less sugar than an apple. Grab your favorite Liquid I.V. flavors nationwide at Walmart or you can get 25% off when you go to https://www.liquid-iv.com/ and use code MAJORITYREP at checkout. That's 25% off ANYTHING you order when you get better hydration today using promo code MAJORITYREP at https://www.liquid-iv.com/. Givewell: Many of us open our hearts and make donations during the holiday season. But when you donate, how can you feel confident that your donations are really making a big impact? GiveWell spends over 30,000 hours each year researching charitable organizations and only directs funding to a few of the HIGHEST-IMPACT, EVIDENCE-BACKED opportunities they've found.If you've never donated to GiveWell's recommended charities before, you can have your donation matched up to ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS before the end of the year or as long as matching funds last. To claim your match, go to https://givewell.org/ and pick PODCAST and enter The Majority Report with Sam Seder at checkout. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattBinder @MattLech @BF1nn @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.com/ Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Joe Biden's anti-MAGA speech has been either panned or praised. But no one has focused on the purely Lincolnian nature of the speech. In fact, any neoconservative or Straussian could have written it. Poor optics aside, Biden's speech is the result of the dangerous Lincoln myth and the recreation of America by the Radical Republicans. https://mcclanahanacademy.com https://brionmcclanahan.com/support --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/support

The 1850s-1870s Radical Republicans are the most important group of people in American political history. Why? Because they changed the way Americans think about the United States, both historically and into the present day. Their vision of America has become the accepted narrative of American history. This is why I dedicated an entire class to some of the more prominent members of this group at McClanahan Academy and why you need to understand these men. https://mcclanahanacademy.com https://brionmcclanahan.com/support --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/support

In this episode we cover the assassination of President Lincoln, Lincoln's successor Andrew Johnson, the relationship between Johnson and Radical Republicans, the Freedmen's Bureau, and Wilson's advocacy for Black suffrage.

This morning, I heard a commentator allude to “Mitch McConnell and other conservative senators.” Yesterday, a news report described the upcoming Alaska Republican primary as pitting Trump's “conservative wing against Murkowski's more moderate base.” I keep seeing references to the “conservative majority” on the Supreme Court.Can we get real? There is nothing conservative about these so-called “conservatives.” They don't want to preserve or protect our governing institutions — the core idea of conservatism extending from Edmund Burke to William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater. They are radicals, intent on wrecking these institutions to impose their ideology on everyone else.The Supreme Court's Republican appointees have all but obliterated stare decisis — the conservative principle that the Court must follow its precedents and not change or reverse them unless clearly necessary, and with near unanimity. Recent decisions reversing Roe v. Wade, elevating religious expression over the Constitution's bar on established religion, questioning Congress's ability to delegate rule making to the executive branch, and barring states from regulating handguns, all call into question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as an institution.Meanwhile, Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, are abusing the filibuster and undermining the legitimacy of the Senate.Throughout much of the 20th century, filibusters remained rare. But after Barack Obama moved into the Oval Office in 2009, McConnell and his Republican senate minority blocked virtually every significant piece of legislation. Between 2010 and 2020, there were as many cloture motions as during the entire 60-year period from 1947 to 2006. Now McConnell and his Republicans are stopping almost everything in its tracks. Just 41 Senate Republicans, representing only 21 percent of the country, are blocking laws supported by the vast majority of Americans.At the same time, Trump and his Republican enablers in Congress and in the states have upended the centerpiece of American democracy, the peaceful transition of power, and undermined the legitimacy of our elections. They continue to assert without any basis in fact that the 2020 election was stolen. Trump encouraged an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol and threatened the life of the Vice President. Republican state legislatures are enacting legislation to suppress votes and take over election machinery.Make no mistake: Republican appointees to the Supreme Court, most Republicans in Congress, and Trump Republican lawmakers across America are not conservative. They are radicals. They have embarked on a radical agenda of repudiating our governing institutions and taking over American democracy. It is time to stop using the term “conservative” to describe them and their agenda. And it is time it to fight back: Enlarge the size of the Supreme Court and limit the terms of justices. Abolish the filibuster and then pass laws most Americans want — protecting voting rights and reproductive rights, and controlling guns. Criminally prosecute Trump and his insurgents. These are conservative measures. They are necessary to conserve and protect our governing institutions from the radicals now bent on destroying them. Please consider a paid or gift subscription. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

Oligarchy is a threat to the American republic. When too much economic and political power is concentrated in too few hands, we risk losing the “republican form of government” the Constitution requires. Today, courts enforce the constitution as if it had almost nothing to say about this threat. The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) is a bold call to reclaim an American tradition that argues the constitution imposes a duty on government to fight oligarchy and ensure broadly shared wealth. In this revolutionary retelling of constitutional history, Dr. Joseph Fishkin and Dr. William Forbath show that a commitment to prevent oligarchy once stood at the center of a robust tradition in American political and constitutional thought. Dr. Fishkin and Dr. Forbath argue that “The constitutional order does rest and depend on a political-economic order. That political-economic order does not maintain itself. It requires action (as well as forbearance from action) from each part of the government. The content of what is required changes radically over time in a dynamic way in response to changes in the economy and in politics. But we believe the basic principles of the democracy-of-opportunity tradition remain affirmative constitutional obligations of government today: to prevent an oligarchy from emerging and amassing too much power; to preserve a broad and open middle class as a counterweight against oligarchy and a bulwark of democratic life; and to include everyone, not just those privileged by race or sex, in a democracy of op- portunity that is broad enough to unite us all.” Dr. Fishkin and Dr. Forbath demonstrate that reformers, legislators, and even judges working in this “democracy-of-opportunity” tradition understood that the Constitution imposes a duty on legislatures to thwart oligarchy and promote a broad distribution of wealth and political power. These ideas led Jacksonians to fight special economic privileges for the few, Populists to try to break up monopoly power, and Progressives to fight for the constitutional right to form a union. During Reconstruction, Radical Republicans argued in this tradition that racial equality required breaking up the oligarchy of the Slave Power and distributing wealth and opportunity to former slaves and their descendants. President Franklin Roosevelt and the New Dealers built their politics around this tradition, winning the fight against the “economic royalists” and “industrial despots.” The book argues that our current understanding of what counts as a constitutional argument is anachronistic and limiting. In fact, the authors argue that “advocates of the democracy-of-opportunity tradition and their opponents throughout the long period from the founding through the New Deal disagreed about many things, but they agreed that part of arguing about the Constitution is making claims about what it requires of our political economy. “ This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. 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

Oligarchy is a threat to the American republic. When too much economic and political power is concentrated in too few hands, we risk losing the “republican form of government” the Constitution requires. Today, courts enforce the constitution as if it had almost nothing to say about this threat. The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) is a bold call to reclaim an American tradition that argues the constitution imposes a duty on government to fight oligarchy and ensure broadly shared wealth. In this revolutionary retelling of constitutional history, Dr. Joseph Fishkin and Dr. William Forbath show that a commitment to prevent oligarchy once stood at the center of a robust tradition in American political and constitutional thought. Dr. Fishkin and Dr. Forbath argue that “The constitutional order does rest and depend on a political-economic order. That political-economic order does not maintain itself. It requires action (as well as forbearance from action) from each part of the government. The content of what is required changes radically over time in a dynamic way in response to changes in the economy and in politics. But we believe the basic principles of the democracy-of-opportunity tradition remain affirmative constitutional obligations of government today: to prevent an oligarchy from emerging and amassing too much power; to preserve a broad and open middle class as a counterweight against oligarchy and a bulwark of democratic life; and to include everyone, not just those privileged by race or sex, in a democracy of op- portunity that is broad enough to unite us all.” Dr. Fishkin and Dr. Forbath demonstrate that reformers, legislators, and even judges working in this “democracy-of-opportunity” tradition understood that the Constitution imposes a duty on legislatures to thwart oligarchy and promote a broad distribution of wealth and political power. These ideas led Jacksonians to fight special economic privileges for the few, Populists to try to break up monopoly power, and Progressives to fight for the constitutional right to form a union. During Reconstruction, Radical Republicans argued in this tradition that racial equality required breaking up the oligarchy of the Slave Power and distributing wealth and opportunity to former slaves and their descendants. President Franklin Roosevelt and the New Dealers built their politics around this tradition, winning the fight against the “economic royalists” and “industrial despots.” The book argues that our current understanding of what counts as a constitutional argument is anachronistic and limiting. In fact, the authors argue that “advocates of the democracy-of-opportunity tradition and their opponents throughout the long period from the founding through the New Deal disagreed about many things, but they agreed that part of arguing about the Constitution is making claims about what it requires of our political economy. “ This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history