Podcasts about section three

Como uma pessoa pode tornar firme seu chamado e eleição? Quem é o Segundo Consolador? Qual a relação entre o chamado e eleição e o Segundo Consolador? O que acontecerá com quem não tiver seu chamado e eleição assegurado nesta vida? Ed Sousa e Gustavo Rodrigues conversam sobre essas e outras questões neste episódio. Referências deste episódio: - Bruce R McConkie, Mormon Doctrine. p.109, 687 - Manuscript History of the Church, adendos do vol. C-1, páginas 8–9, josephsmithpapers.org - "John 13-17", New Testament Teacher Resource Manual, seminaries and Institutes, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Salt Lake City, Utah. - Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Three 1838-39, p.150. - thesecondcomforter.com - "What is meant by the Second Comforter?" em askgramps.org/what-is-meant-by-the-second-comforter.

The USA presidential debate has just taken place. Interestingly, the guys did an episode on Kamala back in Season 2. Check out Episode 2.10 - Indecent Proposal. Today, they turn to the last chapter of the Book of James and Section Three of the address. Here, Sam, John, and Ron wrap up the 'slow to anger' dialogue and enter into the conclusion of James.

We (of course) break down the Court's opinions in Trump v. Anderson, the Section Three case from Colorado. We also discuss the Court's cert. grant on Trump's immunity from criminal prosecution, and several other opinions on the orders list, dealing with rent control, magnet school admissions, and campus speech.

As promised, we return in very short order with the completion of our analysis and response to the oral argument in Trump v. Anderson - before the Court has ruled. Again, key clips from the argument are played and dissected. The previous Part I episode concentrated on arguments concerning self-execution of Section Three; this episode reviews many of the other issues addressed by the Court, from questions of the nature of the Presidential Election and the closely related Electoral College, to the persistent irritant of "officer" and "office" questions.  As in the prior episode, Professor Amar “slows everything down” to allow you and hopefully the Court avoid sweet-sounding but flawed paths.  This episode is posted 8 days early for this reason. Continuing legal education credit is available; visit podcast.njsba.com after listening.

In this episode of Conversations with a Shaman. We get into episode thirty-five of Survival Essentials. Shelter Solutions - Always stay protected from the harsh elements. Section three - CreationIf you enjoy this podcast, please remember to share this with your loved ones. Family and friends. Give us a rating and follow us so you don't miss any upcoming episodes.Thanks again for listening, and much love and God Bless. 

A case in which the Court will decide whether Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from being listed on the 2024 presidential primary ballot.

The U.S. Supreme Court has heard oral arguments concerning former President Donald Trump's eligibility to be on the 2024 presidential ballot. The arguments were based around the Section Three of the 14th Amendment, which states "No person shall hold any office under the United States who, having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." The arguments got technical right away, but the question at the heart of the arguments is this: Can Trump, who is once again the front runner for the Republican nomination for president, be excluded from the ballot from because of his role in the January 6 attacks on the U.S. Capitol? DFL Minnesota Secretary of State, Steve Simon joined MPR News Host Cathy Wurzer to unpack the arguments.

Oral arguments are scheduled for this Thursday in the Trump v. Anderson case, concerning the possible disqualification of former President Trump from the ballot in Colorado, and with a myriad of questions surrounding Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment at stake.  We have something new to offer, as the distinguished historian, Professor Ted Widmer, joins us to add his considerable expertise to the oh-so-timely topics of John B. Floyd and the conspiracy to prevent the certification of Abraham Lincoln's election with the aim to prevent his inauguration and otherwise cripple the Union during the Secession Winter. This was of course integral to our amicus brief in the case, and this podcast offers additional support for its theses.  We also review the promised “20 questions” that the brief explored - the perfect review or reference as the Court faces this vital case that has gripped the nation.  CLE Credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

The legal world is abuzz with the impending oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson in a couple of weeks.  In the forefront are the powerful arguments and compelling history that are introduced in the amicus brief from the Professors Amar.  We continue to delve into the principal lines of reasoning in the brief, and how they take the starch out for some of the tropes that were found in the media.  When you take the history one step at a time it is hard to escape the obvious parallels with the actions and inactions of ex-President Trump, and how they precisely align with the concerns the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had that prompted them to advocate for and ultimately author, pass, and successfully ratify Section Three.  Will the Court see it this way?  Time will tell, but follow the discussion as we take you through it.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

I've come full circle. A little more than three years ago, I launched Original Jurisdiction with an interview of superstar litigator David Boies, 82, one of the most famous living American lawyers. Now I'm speaking with him again, this time for a special two-part podcast interview.In today's interview, part one of two, David discusses current events. Most notably, given his representation of Al Gore in Bush v. Gore, he's critical of attempts to keep Donald Trump off the ballot based on Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, from both consequentialist and constitutional perspectives. He's also not a fan of most of the criminal and civil cases targeting the former president.This is just part one; in part two, David and I will focus on his life and career. And fear not, dear listeners: I will “go there” and ask about Harvey Weinstein, Elizabeth Holmes, the near-implosion of Boies Schiller Flexner, and other sensitive subjects.In the meantime, enjoy part one of my conversation with David Boies. Whether or not you agree with him, he always has interesting things to say.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

There's this incredible dissonance at the center of our politics right now. On the one hand, all the polling suggests that Donald Trump is about to win Iowa Republican caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. He seems overwhelmingly likely to be his party's nominee, and so possibly our next president. On the other hand, he could be constitutionally disqualified from taking office.Colorado and Maine concluded as much, and tossed him off their ballots. And now the Supreme Court is poised to take on this unprecedented question of whether a little-known provision of the Constitution, written in the aftermath of the Civil War, can bar Trump from running and scramble the election in 2024.The Times Opinion columnist David French has been on the show before, as both a guest and a guest host, to break down the criminal cases against Trump. This time, I've asked David back to make his case for why Trump is constitutionally disqualified. We discuss some of the biggest objections, what the Supreme Court is likely to do, and how the possible options risk destabilizing the country in different ways.Mentioned:Researcher applicationAssociate engineer application“The Sweep and Force of Section Three” by William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen“The Case for Disqualifying Trump Is Strong” by David French“Snakebit” by Nick CatoggioBook Recommendations:Operation Pedestal by Max HastingsInto the Heart of Romans by N. T. WrightManhunt by James L. SwansonThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast, and you can find Ezra on Twitter @ezraklein. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.This episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” was produced by Rollin Hu. Fact-checking by Michelle Harris, with Kate Sinclair and Mary Marge Locker. Our senior engineer is Jeff Geld, with additional mixing by Efim Shapiro. Our senior editor is Claire Gordon. The show's production team also includes Annie Galvin and Kristin Lin. Original music by Isaac Jones. Audience strategy by Kristina Samulewski and Shannon Busta. The executive producer of New York Times Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser.

Last month, the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine Secretary of State determined that President Trump “engaged in an insurrection” after taking an oath to uphold the Constitution and that he is therefore disqualified from serving as president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In this episode, professors Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston and Gerard Magliocca of the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law dive into the meaning and purpose of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and the arguments for and against Trump's eligibility to run for a second term this fall. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.   Resources:  Jeffrey Rosen, “The Supreme Court's Election Dilemma,” WSJ (Jan. 5, 2024)  Gerard Magliocca, “Background as Foreground: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and January Sixth,” (Dec. 21, 2022)  Gerard Magliocca, “Amnesty and Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment,” (July 20, 2021)  Gerard Magliocca, “What the Supreme Court Should Not Do in Trump's Disqualification Case,” NY Times (Jan. 5, 2024)   Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, “Sweeping and Forcing the President into Section Three,” (Sept. 19, 2023)   Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, “Is the President an ‘Officer of the United States' for Purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment?” (Dec. 20, 2021)   Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, Amicus Brief in Support of Trump in Trump v. Anderson  Griffin's Case (1869)   The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)   Bradwell v. Illinois (1873)   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.   Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

After catching up on a few odds and ends, we decide to give the people what they want and discuss Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and whether the Supreme Court could possibly declare Donald Trump ineligible for the Presidency. You won't want to miss it. 

The months of discussion of Section Three on Amarica's Constitution now make their way to Washington, as cert has been granted in Trump v. Anderson.  Amicus briefs will pour in - including the brothers Amar's brief.  We present some of the approach the brief will take, and we look at the nine Justices, taking account of their jurisprudential history and styles, and discuss how an intellectually honest brief-writer can make their best arguments even better by considering how their readers will read them, and what might be most useful to provide to those readers.  It's not quite "handicapping" but it is insightful, as all America is wondering if this case might actually result in the removal of Donald Trump from Colorado's primary ballot, and eventually possibly more states' ballots as well.  It has come to this.

THE TRUMP TRIALS 2024 - Donald Trump is gearing up for a year of multi-tasking in 2024. He is running for President, and he is running away from 91 Felony Counts in various State and Federal Courts.  In addition to the Criminal Charges, Trump is fighting to keep control of his business empire in the State of New York, and trying to defend himself in the E. Jean Carroll Defamation Case - Part Two.  There are some key dates in this month alone, including a DC Appeals Court hearing on his Election Interference Case, where he claims he has immunity and has asked that the charges be dismissed.  And hanging over all this is whether the United States Supreme Court is going to step in and rule on the 14th Amendment, Section Three. The States of Colorado and Maine want Trump's name off their Primary Ballots.  Whew! And this is just a short overview. I'll have more in the days to come. And I'm posting everything on gloriamoraga.com. Please subscribe, here and on YouTube and TikTok. I post videos every day.  

The nation awaits the Supreme Court's seemingly inevitable review of the Section Three case from Colorado, and perhaps Maine as well.  Media around the world is weighing in with editorials and op-Ed's; a smorgasbord of legal, political, and predictive arguments from professors, editors, elected officials, and others with their own range of expertise.  We continue our attempt to help you make sense of these by choosing pieces that make the range of arguments out there.  We do our best to present their argument and respond to it, bringing Professor Amar's considerable armamentarium to bear for your benefit.  And this week, Akhil has at least two - maybe three - major new ideas he brings to the national discussion.  They can be found here first.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

Pleadings and Pretrial Procedures. Complaints and Answers. Pleadings are formal documents filed with the court that outline the parties' primary claims and defenses. They set the stage for the litigation and define the scope of the dispute. Complaints. The complaint is the initial pleading filed by the plaintiff, which starts the lawsuit. It serves several key purposes: Statement of Jurisdiction: The complaint must explain why the court has jurisdiction to hear the case. Allegation of Facts: It should contain a clear and concise statement of the facts, laying out the plaintiff's case. Each fact must be alleged in a separate paragraph. Claims or Causes of Action: The complaint should articulate the legal theories under which the plaintiff seeks relief. Each claim should be stated separately. Demand for Relief: It concludes with a demand for judgment or relief, which may include monetary damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory judgment. Answers. The answer is the defendant's response to the complaint. It must be filed within a specific time frame, usually 21 days if the defendant is served within the United States. The answer serves several purposes: Responding to Allegations: The defendant must admit, deny, or state that they lack knowledge to respond to each allegation in the complaint. Asserting Defenses: The answer can include any defenses to the plaintiff's claims, such as statute of limitations, lack of jurisdiction, or failure to state a claim. Counterclaims and Crossclaims: The defendant may also raise counterclaims against the plaintiff or crossclaims against co-defendants. Motions. Motions are requests made to the court asking for a specific order or ruling. They are a critical aspect of pretrial procedures. Motion to Dismiss. A Motion to Dismiss, under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asks the court to dismiss the case for specified reasons, such as: Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Arguing that the court does not have the authority to hear the case. Lack of Personal Jurisdiction: Claiming that the court does not have power over the defendant. Improper Venue: Asserting that the case is in the wrong court location. Failure to State a Claim: Arguing that even if all the allegations are true, the law does not provide a remedy. If a Motion to Dismiss is granted, the plaintiff may be allowed to amend the complaint to address the deficiencies. Motion for Summary Judgment. A Motion for Summary Judgment, under Rule 56, is filed when one party believes that there are no material facts in dispute and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This motion can be filed by either the plaintiff or the defendant and is often submitted after discovery. The court will grant a summary judgment if the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Amendments and Rule 11 Sanctions. Amendments. Under Rule 15, parties are allowed to amend their pleadings to correct errors, add claims or defenses, or respond to developments in the case. Amendments must be made with the court's permission and the opposing party's consent, especially if made after certain deadlines. Rule 11 Sanctions. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ensures that pleadings, motions, and other papers are filed for proper purposes and have a legal basis. Under Rule 11, when an attorney or party submits a pleading, they certify that: The Document is Not for Improper Purpose: Such as harassment, unnecessary delay, or needless increase in the cost of litigation. Legal Contentions are Warranted: The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or a non-frivolous argument for modifying the law. Factual Contentions and Denials: The factual contentions have or will likely have evidentiary support. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

The Colorado Supreme Court opinion on disqualifying Donald Trump, though long anticipated, landed like a tornado.  Op-eds, pundits, academics, officials - all are weighing in.  It's a victory for democracy - no, it's antidemocratic.  Section Three is a dead letter - no, it's self-executing.  Trump is out - no, this helps him.  America is reaffirmed - no, there will be violence in the streets. Liberals are split; conservatives are split.  What will the Supreme Court do?  Spend some time with Amarica's Constitution and we will help you make sense of it, and we will present the best and worst arguments out there.  And - get some CLE for your trouble!  Visit podcast.njsba.com after listening.

John is joined by Sean Grimsley, Partner at Olson, Grimsley, Kawanabe, Hinchcliff & Murray LLC, one of the lawyers who represented the plaintiffs in the case in which the Colorado Supreme Court made the historic ruling that former President Donald Trump is not eligible to be elected President in 2024.  They discuss how Sean became involved in the case which his firm filed the day after it first opened its doors, how the case progressed rapidly as a special expedited state court proceeding under the Colorado Election Code, and the bench trial that concluded less than two and a half months after the case was filed.  They also discuss the fact witness who testified about the events of January 6, 2021 and the battle of historical legal experts on the original meaning of Section Three of the 14th Amendment which provides that no person may hold federal office if they previously took an oath of loyalty to the United States and later engaged in insurrection against it.  They also discuss the defenses asserted that the Colorado Election Code did not apply, that the Presidency is not an “office” within the meaning of the 14thAmendment, that this was a political question under federal constitutional law, that the only actions complained of consisted of protected speech under the First Amendment, and that the events of January 6 did not amount to an insurrection.  Finally, they discuss the expedited  appeal of the trial court's decision before the Colorado Supreme Court, the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will review the case and the status of similar 14th amendment  suits in other statesPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Trump should not appear on the ballot in 2024. This is surprising in part because they are reversing a lower court that found, while Trump did engage in an insurrection on January 6th, that Section Three of the 14th Amendment did not apply to presidents, and therefore, he should not be kept off the ballot. This as the Trump campaign expects to clinch the GOP nomination by March. Plus, a major legal challenge to a strict and sweeping new immigration law in Texas.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Colorado Supreme Court removed former President Donald Trump from the state's 2024 presidential ballot on Tuesday after ruling that he engaged in an insurrection with his actions on January 6, 2021.The 4-3 ruling will be placed on hold pending appeal until January 4, the Court said in its ruling.“A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” the ruling said. “Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.”The Trump campaign responded to the ruling by saying that they would “swiftly file an appeal,” calling it “a completely flawed decision” that was “deeply undemocratic.”“We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these unAmerican lawsuits,” a spokesperson for the campaign said.MERCH aka SWAG: https://my-store-d4b9d0.creator-spring.com/SOCIAL LINKS https://linktr.ee/derekosheashowPolitically Homeless Daily Comedy News ShowEmail: derekosheashow@gmail.comDisclaimerThis is a COMEDY podcast; please take everything said on the podcast as such.Live News,Current Events,Breaking News,Conservative,Conservative Comedy,Clean comedy,breaking news,colorado supreme court,donald trump news,trump,donald trump,trump indictments,president trump,trump news,trump 2024,trump latest,trump civil trial,trump trial,donald trump 2024,trump today,trump ballot,vivek,vivek ramaswamy,vivek ramaswamy debate best moments,2024 presidential election,ron desantis,gop debate,nikki haley,politics,gopSupport the show

The question of Donald Trump's disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is before the courts.  Last week the Colorado Supreme Court heard appeals of the District Court rulings.  As they consider their decision, we have the privilege of hearing from the nation's two leading experts on the subject, the author of The Sweep and Force of Section Three - the universally acknowledged definitive article. (Note: this episode is uploaded a day early because of the timing of the case.) They respond to the arguments made in court, as well as those that have been put forth in media and elsewhere - and we also consider the two other cases, in Michigan and Minnesota. The previous appearance by Profs. Baude and Paulsen were the highest rated episodes in Amarica's Constitution's 3 years, and this may be even more important for clerks, judges, and citizens to hear and consider.

A harrowing firsthand account of daily life in a dictatorship from our host Sandra, tragic family stories, and the many shocking but clear similarities between Ceausescu's tyrannical regime and Donald Trump's ambitions for a second presidency.This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Visit betterhelp.com/DUBIOUS today to get 10% off your first month of therapy. If you like our content, please become a patron to get all our episodes ad-free. Orange Jesus is a term coined not by democrats, but by Republicans themselves. In her new book entitled “Oath and Honor”, former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) describes a scene in which a fellow House member called former President Trump “Orange Jesus.” Cheney says that while in the GOP cloakroom in the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, members were encouraged to sign onto electoral vote objection sheets: “Among them was Republican Congressman Mark Green of Tennessee. As he moved down the line, signing his name to the pieces of paper, Green said sheepishly to no one in particular, ‘The things we do for the Orange Jesus.'” 1 “Trump is not only a danger to the United States and our democracy, but also a danger to the world. And because I was born in Romania and lived part of my life under a dictatorship, I think the best way to go about this subject is to tell some personal stories, things that happened to my family under Ceausescu's regime in Socialist/Communist Romania, make some analogies and point out some striking similarities between what Nicolae Ceausescu did in my native country, the aftermath of his policies, what some other dictators did too, and what Trump has done and plans to do here in the United States. The 2024 Presidential Elections have the potential, if Trump wins, to impact and reshape the geopolitical order.” – Sandra, Dubious Creator and Co-Host. Identified similarities: Refusal to relinquish power; Disdain for the free press; Censorship, propaganda and disinformation; Isolationism; Abortion bans; Criminalizing homosexuality and eroding LGBTQIA rights; Dehumanizing rhetoric like “vermin” (usually leads to genocide); Rampant corruption; Using religion to manipulate and radicalize people; Limited freedom of movement for certain demographics; The cult of personality; A love for grandiose military parades; Political repression; Turning truth on its head: Trump recently said that Joe Biden is a danger to democracy. Trump says he never swore an oath to support the constitution. His lawyers, in their appeal against the Colorado lawsuit, reiterated that the wording of Section Three of the 14th amendment does not apply to people running for president and that Trump technically did not swear an oath to "support" the Constitution. Trump: “I'll be a dictator, but only on day one.” 23 Donald Trump is the biggest danger to the world in 2024. A second Trump presidency would be more dangerous than the first to the United States and globally by orders of magnitude. 4 1. BESS LEVIN The Most Damning Details From Liz Cheney's Book on the GOP, January 6, and “Orange Jesus” Vanity Fair, November 2023 ⇤2. Ewan Palmer Donald Trump Says He Never Swore Oath 'to Support the Constitution' Newsweek, November 2023 ⇤3. David Jackson Donald Trump says he will be a 'dictator' only on 'day one.' Then he'll focus on drilling. USA Today, November 2023 ⇤4. The Economist Donald Trump poses the biggest danger to the world in 2024 The Economist, November 2023 ⇤

This episode, Section 3, Insurrection, and the 2024 Election: The Argument, features an interview with Michael Paulsen, a distinguished university chair and professor at University of St. Thomas School of Law,about his article The Sweep and Force of Section Three, in which asks the question: Does the Fourteenth Amendment Bar Donald Trump from the Presidency? Professor Alan Rozenshtein conducts the interview as well as hosts the day long event, Section 3, Insurrection, and the 2024 Election, that this interview was a part of. This event was recorded on October 30, 2023. A video replay of the entire event is available on the Minnesota Law YouTube channel. (https://z.umn.edu/Section3Event) Subscribe to the Minnesota Law podcast feed on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, SoundCloud or via your preferred podcast application by searching ‘University of Minnesota Law School', for more LawTalk episodes, as well as other podcast content produced by Minnesota Law. A transcript of this episode is available here: z.umn.edu/Ep36Transcript Learn more about the University of Minnesota Law School by visiting law.umn.edu

Donald John's legal team says he never swore to "support the Constitution" in response to an attempt to have him thrown off the presidential ballot in Colorado in 2024.  Colorado's Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal on a lawsuit filed by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group arguing that Donald John's actions on January 6, 2021 violated Section Three of the 14th Amendment and he should be prohibited from running for president again. 

Donald Trump's legal team has argued against an attempt to have him thrown off the presidential ballot in Colorado in 2024 by suggesting the wording of the U.S. Constitution's insurrection clause does not apply to him. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal on a lawsuit filed by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) watchdog group and Republican figures, who argue that Trump's actions on January 6, 2021, violated Section Three of the 14th Amendment and therefore he should be prohibited from running for the White House again. The section states a person who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" after taking an oath of office to support the Constitution should be barred from running for office again. In a previous ruling, lower court judge Sarah B. Wallace said that Trump had "engaged in the insurrection" on January 6, the day of the Capitol riot, but should remain on Colorado's primary ballot as the wording of the 14th Amendment does not specifically mention preventing people from running for the presidency. In their appeal against the Colorado lawsuit, Trump's lawyers reiterated that the wording of Section Three does not apply to people running for president and that Trump technically did not swear an oath to "support" the Constitution. Instead, during his January 2017 inauguration, Trump swore to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution during his role as president.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/conspiracy-theories--5194379/support.

Sarah and David have a big ol' pod today, wherein they discuss a First Amendment case involving risqué drag shows at a burger joint, hunter harassment laws, and challenges to Donald Trump's ballot access. Spoiler: Sarah was right. Also: -Masked protesters and Anti-Klan laws -Bad facts make bad laws -Lawyers and Non-germaine activities -David's window-dressing ignorance -Boudreaux's Butt Paste -Trump's ballot access in Colorado -Guys: you gotta get married. Show notes: -Hamburger Mary's at SCOTUS -Hunter Harassment laws challenge -Compulsory bar membership -Trump's ballot access challenge in Colorado -The Meaning and Ambiguity of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment -Ilya Somin in Reason Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A Colorado judge has ruled that the evidence presented during the course of a trial proves that Donald Trump engaged in an insurrection against the United States. Judge Sarah Wallace spends 95 pages of her 102-page ruling meticulously detailing the evidence supporting her findings that Trump did indeed engage in an insurrection. But in the last pages of her ruling, she says that while there "are persuasive arguments on both sides" of the disqualification issue, "it appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three (of the 14th Amendment) did not intend to include (for disqualification purposes) a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath." And accordingly, Judge Wallace declined to find that Trump was disqualified from holding office in the future. Glenn discusses the implications of Judge Wallace's factual findings and legal conclusions, and what the appellate court might do with the case on appeal.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can becoming a #TeamJustice patron at:https://www.patreon.com/glennkirschnerFor our Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at glennkirschner.comFollow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The legal war continues over whether former President Trump should be disqualified from the ballot in Colorado. The case is over Section Three of the 14th Amendment, which bars a person from future office if they have taken an oath to the Constitution and later engage in an insurrection. Laura Barrón-López discussed the latest developments with constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

A Colorado judge has ruled that the evidence presented during the course of a trial proves that Donald Trump engaged in an insurrection against the United States. Judge Sarah Wallace spends 95 pages of her 102-page ruling meticulously detailing the evidence supporting her findings that Trump did indeed engage in an insurrection. But in the last pages of her ruling, she says that while there "are persuasive arguments on both sides" of the disqualification issue, "it appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three (of the 14th Amendment) did not intend to include (for disqualification purposes) a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath." And accordingly, Judge Wallace declined to find that Trump was disqualified from holding office in the future. Glenn discusses the implications of Judge Wallace's factual findings and legal conclusions, and what the appellate court might do with the case on appeal.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can becoming a #TeamJustice patron at:https://www.patreon.com/glennkirschnerFor our Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at glennkirschner.comFollow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The legal war continues over whether former President Trump should be disqualified from the ballot in Colorado. The case is over Section Three of the 14th Amendment, which bars a person from future office if they have taken an oath to the Constitution and later engage in an insurrection. Laura Barrón-López discussed the latest developments with constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

In an unprecedented move, the Minnesota Supreme Court recently dismissed a lawsuit that was aimed at preventing former President Donald Trump from participating in the 2024 elections. The lawsuit had made the audacious claim that Trump was 'engaged in insurrection' and was thereby ineligible for any public platform. The state's apex court, however, respectfully declined to enforce the 14th Amendment's Section Three as a preventative measure against anyone aiming for presidency. While a first of its kind, the decision has proved critical in ongoing jurisprudence. Although the decision taken by the court is specific to the state's primary elections, it leaves open the possibilities for plaintiffs to make attempts at removing Trump from the general election ballot due in November, as reported by the Associated Press. This decision has paved the way for a series of related denouements surrounding proceedings initiated by admittedly liberal groups. These groups levy the weight of Section Three in an effort to disqualify the Republican primary front-runner, citing his embroilment in the unfortunate and violent episode at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

  Dive into a thought-provoking discussion on the Marc Cox Morning Show as senior legal fellow, Hans von Spakovsky, from the Heritage Foundation sheds light on the legal intricacies surrounding attempts to remove Donald Trump's name from state ballots for the upcoming elections. Hans elaborates on the misapplication of Section Three of the 14th Amendment, clarifying how it doesn't pertain to Trump's eligibility for office. He provides detailed insights into the historical context, legal precedents, and congressional acts often overlooked in these debates, pointing out the potential chaos and constitutional misunderstandings that could arise if these motions were entertained.

On the version of Hot off the Wire posted Nov. 2 at 6:40 a.m. CT: MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — President Joe Biden says he thinks there should be a humanitarian “pause” in the Israel-Hamas war. Biden was talking to a roomful of supporters gathered in Minneapolis for a reelection fundraiser when he was interrupted by a protester calling for a cease-fire. The call for a pause was a subtle departure for Biden and top White House aides. Throughout the Mideast crisis they have been steadfast in stating they would not dictate how the Israelis carry out their military operations in response to the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas militants. NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump Jr. has testified that he never worked on his father's business financial statements. He was questioned Wednesday in court about the documents that now are at the heart of the civil fraud trial that threatens former President Donald Trump's real estate empire. The lawsuit filed by New York state's attorney general centers on whether the former president and his business misled banks and insurers by inflating his net worth on the financial statements. The Trumps deny wrongdoing. PARIS (AP) — Winds up to 180 kilometers per hour (108 mph) have slammed the French Atlantic coast as Storm Ciaran lashes western Europe. The storm blew out windows overnight and left 1.2 million French households without electricity on Thursday. A truck driver was killed when a tree hit his vehicle in northern France. Strong winds and rain also battered southern England and the Channel Islands, where gusts of more than 160 kph (100 mph) were reported. Hundreds of schools stayed closed in the coastal communities of Cornwall and Devon. Dutch airline KLM scrapped all flights in and out of the Netherlands from the early afternoon until the end of the day, RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) — Brazil President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva says armed forces will boost security at some of the country's most important airports, ports and along its international borders to tackle organized crime. The decision comes days after members of a criminal gang set fire to dozens of buses in Rio de Janeiro, apparently in retaliation for the police killing their leader's nephew. The deployment is part of a broader plan that includes increasing the number of federal police forces in Rio, improving cooperation between law enforcement entities and boosting investment in technology for intelligence gathering. CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — NASA's Lucy spacecraft has encountered the first of 10 asteroids on its long journey out to Jupiter. The spacecraft on Wednesday zoomed past the pint-sized Dinkinesh in the main asteroid belt beyond Mars. Lucy came within 270 miles of the asteroid, testing its instruments in a dry run for the bigger and more alluring asteroids ahead. The asteroid is just a half-mile across, quite possibly the smallest of the space rocks on Lucy's tour. Wednesday's flyby caps what NASA is calling Asteroid Autumn. NASA returned its first asteroid samples in September. Then in October, it launched a spacecraft to a metal-rich asteroid named Psyche. WASHINGTON (AP) — Rep. George Santos has easily survived a vote to expel him from the House as most Republicans opted to withhold punishment as both his criminal trial and a House Ethics Committee investigation proceed. The effort to kick Santos out of the House was led by his fellow New York Republicans, who are anxious to distance themselves from a colleague infamous for fabricating his life story and accused of stealing from donors, lying to Congress and receiving unemployment benefits he did not deserve. But the vast majority of Republicans and more than 30 Democrats have voted against expelling Santos. The final vote was 179 for expulsion and 213 against. The Major League Baseball season comes to an end as the Texas Rangers defeated the Arizona Diamonds in five games. Legendary college basketball coach Bobby Knight died. There was also a lot of NBA action and a couple of rookie quarterbacks will start in the NFL's Week 9. EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. (AP) — The death of American hockey player Adam Johnson from a skate blade to the neck has led officials in the NHL and other leagues to continue discussions about cut-resistant protection. NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman and Players' Association executive director Marty Walsh have already touched base. More talks are planned between the league and union on the topic of skate blade safety. The American Hockey League and ECHL last summer mandated cut-resistant wrist and foot and ankle protection. At least one minor league team is mandating neck guards immediately in response to Johnson's death. On the version of Hot off the Wire posted Nov. 1 at 4 p.m. CT: WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Reserve kept its key short-term interest rate unchanged for a second straight time but left the door open to further rate hikes if inflation pressures should accelerate in the months ahead. The Fed said in a statement after its latest meeting that it would keep its benchmark rate at about 5.4%, its highest level in 22 years. Since launching the most aggressive series of rate hikes in four decades in March 2022 to fight inflation, the Fed has pulled back and has now raised rates only once since May. The statement noted that recent tumult in the financial markets has sent longer-term interest rates up to near 16-year highs and contributed to higher borrowing rates across the economy. RAFAH, Gaza Strip (AP) — After more than three weeks of siege, the first Palestinians were allowed to leave Gaza. They were hundreds of dual passport holders and dozens of seriously injured people. Israeli airstrikes pounded a densely populated area for the second day in a row. And Jordan, a key U.S. ally, recalled its ambassador from Israel. Jordan also told Israel's ambassador to remain out of its country in protest over the “humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza. NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump Jr. has taken the witness stand at the civil fraud trial over whether his father overstated his wealth to banks and insurers. The former president's eldest son began testifying Wednesday. His testimony is kicking off a blockbuster stretch as the trial in New York Attorney General Letitia James' lawsuit enters its second month. She says Donald Trump, his company and top executives, including Donald Trump Jr. and his brother Eric, overstated his wealth to banks and insurers. The Trumps deny wrongdoing and are fighting to keep their Trump Organization intact. WASHINGTON (AP) — The mayors of Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles and New York are pressing to meet with President Joe Biden about the migrants arriving in their cities. The Democratic leader want to discuss getting federal help in managing the surge of migrants they say are arriving with little to no coordination, support or resources from the president's administration. The Democratic leaders say in a letter obtained by The Associated Press on Wednesday that while they appreciate Biden's efforts so far, much more needs to be done to ease the burden on their cities. Biden is increasingly under fire on this issue from members of his own party. And Republicans claim he's soft on border security. Prosecutors have dropped charges against a Louisiana state trooper accused of withholding graphic body-camera footage that shows another officer dragging Black motorist Ronald Greene by his ankle shackles during his deadly 2019 arrest. A district attorney said this week that Lt. John Clary has agreed to take the stand in the trial of Master Trooper Kory York, a former colleague charged with negligent homicide in the case. York is accused of forcing the heavyset Greene to lie facedown and handcuffed for more than nine minutes. Use-of-force experts said that likely restricted Greene's breathing. AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A murder trial in Texas is underway in the fatal shooting of pro cyclist Anna Moriah Wilson. Kaitlin Armstrong faces up to 99 years in prison in the May 2022 slaying. Prosecutors told jurors Wednesday that the last thing Wilson did was “scream in terror.” Armstrong has pleaded not guilty. In a short opening statement, defense attorney Geoffrey Puryear said Armstrong was caught in a “web of circumstantial evidence.” Police have said Wilson previously dated Armstrong's boyfriend, Colin Strickland, and had gone swimming with him that day. Strickland and Wilson were both competitive gravel racers. Wilson was a 25-year-old Vermont native who was also a mountain bike racer. Former President Donald Trump is fighting to stay on the 2024 ballot in Colorado and Michigan. Section Three of the 14th Amendment bars anyone who “engaged in insurrection” against the Constitution from holding higher office. WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has signaled that it would rule against a man who wants to trademark the suggestive phrase “Trump too small.” The dispute is over the government's decision to deny a trademark to Steve Elster, a California man seeking exclusive use of the phrase on T-shirts and potentially other merchandise. It is the latest case relating to former President Donald Trump to reach the Supreme Court, following arguments Tuesday in social media cases with echoes of Trump. The justices repeatedly invoked the phrase Wednesday as they questioned whether the government was justified in denying the trademark. Elster's lawyers argue that the decision violated his free speech rights, and a federal appeals court agreed. WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden's administration is privately developing a national strategy to combat Islamophobia. That word comes from three people familiar with the matter. But the effort is being met with skepticism from many Muslim Americans because of the administration's staunch support of Israel's military assault in Gaza. The White House originally was expected to announce its plans to develop the strategy when Biden met last week with Muslim leaders. The people familiar with the matter said the delay was due partly to concerns from Muslim Americans that the administration lacked credibility on the issue given its robust backing of Israel's military. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to publicly discuss the White House plans. NEW YORK (AP) — An 80-foot-tall (24-meter) Norway spruce from the Binghamton area has been selected as this year's Rockefeller Center Christmas tree and will be cut down and trucked to New York City next week. Rockefeller Center officials say the tree will be cut on Nov. 9 in Vestal, New York, and will arrive at Rockefeller Center in midtown Manhattan on Nov. 11. After it's wrapped in more than 50,000 lights and crowned with a star, the tree will be lighted during a live television broadcast on Nov. 29. It will be on display until Jan. 13, 2024.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this Episode, Andrew and Liz outline the issues underlying the recent law review article by Professors Will Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen suggesting that Trump can be disqualified from the Presidency by virtue of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. After that, the two return to the linkroll to discuss the many, many developments in and around Trumpworld, including whatever happened to that guy Ray Epps that Tucker Carlson insists is a federal agent plant? (Hint: he's not.) In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew describe more of the sad legal trevails of David Shafer, cosplay elector. Notes OA 35 https://openargs.com/oa35-emoluments-clause-wseth-barrett-tillman-part-1/ OA 36 https://openargs.com/oa36-emoluments-clause-wseth-barrett-tillman-part-2/ Baude & Paulsen, “The Sweep and Force of Section Three”, 172 U. Pa. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2024) https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=995103073068092081092071118086002065023073053045056031120084030066073022088005028078011036036121038023044082013118012025083101019006033017032126091082092002112010046001043008098085115025107069005116107119092023024116117112126020097081101012025127123&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE In re Griffin (Griffin's Case), 11 F. Cas. 7 (1869) https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/0011.f.cas/0011.f.cas.0007.html US v. Ray Epps docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67807327/united-states-v-epps/ Anna Bower, On Clerks and Caimans: Jeffrey Clark's Removal Hearing  https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/on-clerks-and-caimans-jeffrey-clark-s-removal-hearing -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Welcome to Saturday Morning Coffee for Saturday, September 9, 2023!Welcome to Saturday Morning Coffee for September 9, 2023!  It's a special 9/11 Remembrance Edition of Saturday Morning Coffee as we remember and honor those who gave their lives and paid the ultimate price for freedom on that horrific day 22 years ago this September 11th.  We're joined on the show this week by Charlie Nash, a very special guest who was a first responder in Manhattan who was one of the first ambulances to respond to the WTC on 9/11.In addition to remembering the victims of 9/11 and honoring those who served, Reese and Glenn discuss an idea that Reese had this week about suing to get Joe Biden off the ballot under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment!  (What's good for the goose!)We also draw a winner on this week's episode for the "grand prize" drawing that we've been talking about for the last few weeks, so be sure to listen to the end!If you have comments, suggestions, show topic requests or questions, please drop us a line at the SMC Mailbag:          reeseboydSMC@gmail.comAlso, if you're looking for some great coffee to go with the Saturday Morning Coffee podcast, please be sure to check our coffee sponsor for the show:          www.onenationcoffee.comwhere each purchase benefits the One Nation Foundation (onenationfoundation.org), which benefits military veterans and first responders!  And if you use the "Saturday Morning Coffee" promo code, you'll get a 10% discount on your purchase!  So please support One Nation Coffee and the great work being done by the One Nation Foundation!Have a great week and thanks for listening to Saturday Morning Coffee!The Saturday Morning Coffee TeamProverbs 3:5-6

In this Podcast Episode, I quote from “The Sweep and Force of Section Three," written by two law professors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen. The "Section Three" that is in the title is from the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Professors are Constitutional experts and members of the Conservative Federalist Society. They conclude that "Donal Trump is not eligible to hold the office of the Presidency.  This quote is located at the end of their article.  "At all events, if a President or former President of the United States; a current or former officer of the federal executive branch; a Member or former Member of Congress; a current or former state legislator or state executive official; or a current or former federal or state court judge, planned, supported, assisted, encouraged, endorsed, or aided in a material way those who engaged in the insurrection of January 6, or otherwise knowingly and willfully participated in a broader rebellion against the constitutional system, such persons are constitutionally disqualified from office. In such situations, Section Three's constitutional disqualifications can, should, and must be carried out." Please Subscribe. 

In a special episode, the two distinguished authors of a recent major article, which dives deep into Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and finds that Donald Trump is disqualified from the Presidency, join us for a thoughtful and rigorous examination of the tough questions about their conclusions.  These are leading conservative scholars who have gone where their methodologies, and the law, has taken them.  Reaction has been swift and impassioned around the country, and in this episode they respond for the first time to some of the critiques, explore the implications of their work, and in doing so, they bring an integrity to our civic conversation.  This is an important discussion of important issues, by real experts.

The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for Aug. 29, 2023State of New Hampshire Seeks 14th Amendment Legal Advice on Whether Candidate Donald Trump Can Appear on the First in the Nation 2024 PrimaryA  New Hampshire 2020 U.S. Senate candidate endorsed by former President Trump is questioning Trump's qualification for the Presidency under the 14th Amendment, Section 3, designed to keep former Confederate leaders from holding office.Our podcasting host recently made changes which stops us from including our entire script as part of the podcast content.  To view the whole script, please go to our website and find today's report.Today's LinksArticles & Resources:National Constitution Center - 14th Amendment, Section 3WGIR's NH Today - 8-22 Corky Messner on Trump's eligibility to run for President NH Public Radio - Stories about Corky MessnerUniv. of Pennsylvania Law Review - The Sweep and Force of Section Three  (download of PDF for full paper)  NH Journal - Will ‘Insurrection' Keep Trump Off NH Ballot?Politico - N.H. Republicans feud over bid to knock Trump off 2024 ballotThe Atlantic - (Paywall) The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President AgainNBC News - Trump supporters flood New Hampshire election office with calls after false claims about ballot accessDemocracy Docket - How the 14th Amendment Could Disqualify Trump and His AlliesGroups Taking Action:Free Speech for People, Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington (CREW), ===Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter and SHARE!  Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #ProtectElections #ProtectPollWorkers

Husband and Wife discuss the first Republican primary debate of the 2023 presidential primary cycle, which was aired by those bastards at Fox News last Wednesday night, August 23, in Milwaukee, Wis. Topics included abortion; the missing elephant; Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment; the war in Ukraine; and an unchecked suggestion for the American military to murder migrants at the Mexican border— in this bonus episode for Patreon subscribers only.SIGN UP FOR PATREON BELOW!https://www.patreon.com/sacrilegiousdiscourse Join Acast+ to enjoy our podcast adfree! https://plus.acast.com/s/sacrilegiousiscourse. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's a grab bag of insanity on Michael Moore's podcast this week as he declares the Republican Party DOA (although he detects it's still barely breathing and there's no death certificate yet). Sooo…  Also, a big thank you to Fani Willis, the District Attorney in Atlanta for filing the indictment of indictments, a masterpiece of Justice. Her father was a criminal defense lawyer and a member of the Black Panther Party — she is the fighter we've needed. She's gonna shut the whole Trump mob operation down.  All that and more on Episode #299 of Rumble with Michael Moore. Enjoy! For more of Michael's work, subscribe to his Substack at MichaelMoore.com. ******************** Check out this great list of resources by the Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action to help the people in Maui : https://www.hapahi.org/blog/supportmaui Read the NYT coverage of the paper written by two Conservative, Federalist Society law professors making the argument that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment renders Trump ineligible to run again for president: "Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6" ...or read the full paper: "The Sweep and Force of Section Three" by William Maude & Michael Stokes Paulsen ******************** This episode is brought to you by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/RUMBLE and get on your way to being your best self. ******************** Music in today's episode: "If I Had a Hammer" — Peter, Paul and Mary "BABYMETAL - メタり！！ (feat. Tom Morello)" — BABYMETAL ******************** Write to Mike: mike@michaelmoore.com --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/rumble-with-michael-moore/message

Good Morning and Happy Friday #LALiens! Thank you for being here. If you're new, welcome. Don't be shy. Join the chat, bang that thumbs-up button, and make sure you're subscribed. . Today, Norm and Mike discuss: . › An emerging sentiment from the political right that Vivek's message is too on-the-nose . › Video footage of the FBI's killing of Utah man, Craig Robertson, emerged on X yesterday. The contents of the arrest warrant on more important now than ever. . › New law review article from William Baude and Michael Paulsen, "The Sweep and Force of Section Three, from the University Pennsylvania Law Review was published on August 9, 2023. . Join us. . For the rest of the year, creators will receive 100 percent of the revenue from the purchase of monthly subscription badges, which Rumble recently launched for the price of $5 per month. Please consider purchasing a subscription badge to LAL and be assured that LAL will receive every penny of that subscription through the end of the year. Your consideration and patronage is most sincerely appreciated! . Daily livestreams beginning at 8:00 am EST on: › Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/LawandLegitimacy › Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@lawandlegitimacy › X: https://twitter.com/LawPodDaily . Subscribe and turn on notifications! . Support Law and Legitimacy: . - Locals: https://lawandlegitimacy.locals.com/ - X: @LawPodDaily, @PattisNorm, and @MichaelBoyer_ - Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Audible, Spotify, or wherever you receive podcasts and rate LAL 5 stars. - Subscribe here on our Rumble and Youtube channels, give us a Rumble, and join our active community of free-thinkers, contrarians, and the unafraid on Locals!

Good Morning and Happy Friday #LALiens! Thank you for being here. If you're new, welcome. Don't be shy. Join the chat, bang that thumbs-up button, and make sure you're subscribed. . Today, Norm and Mike discuss: . › An emerging sentiment from the political right that Vivek's message is too on-the-nose . › Video footage of the FBI's killing of Utah man, Craig Robertson, emerged on X yesterday. The contents of the arrest warrant on more important now than ever. . › New law review article from William Baude and Michael Paulsen, "The Sweep and Force of Section Three, from the University Pennsylvania Law Review was published on August 9, 2023. . Join us. . For the rest of the year, creators will receive 100 percent of the revenue from the purchase of monthly subscription badges, which Rumble recently launched for the price of $5 per month. Please consider purchasing a subscription badge to LAL and be assured that LAL will receive every penny of that subscription through the end of the year. Your consideration and patronage is most sincerely appreciated! . Daily livestreams beginning at 8:00 am EST on: › Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/LawandLegitimacy › Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@lawandlegitimacy › X: https://twitter.com/LawPodDaily . Subscribe and turn on notifications! . Support Law and Legitimacy: . - Locals: https://lawandlegitimacy.locals.com/ - X: @LawPodDaily, @PattisNorm, and @MichaelBoyer_ - Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Audible, Spotify, or wherever you receive podcasts and rate LAL 5 stars. - Subscribe here on our Rumble and Youtube channels, give us a Rumble, and join our active community of free-thinkers, contrarians, and the unafraid on Locals!

EPISODE 247: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:42) SPECIAL COMMENT: Why did Trump imply he was quote “being charged under the Insurrection Act?” Why did Trump put that out THOSE words – “Insurrection Act” on his social media propaganda site and then delete the post within half an hour and replace “Insurrection Act” with “Espionage Act”? Is there a chance somebody has told him that he may actually BE charged under the Insurrection Act? Could Jack Smith be prosecuting him under the Disqualification Clause of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment? Could the Special Counsel try to get Donald Trump DISQUALIFIED from ever again holding office in this country? The very thought of it is breathtaking. “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States… to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." Any person will make tens of thousands of mistakes with words in his life and Trump, more than that, but almost all substitution mistakes – you MEAN one word but SAY or WRITE another – have one minimum threshold: the person who substitutes the one for the other – the person who writes “Insurrection Act” when he INTENDED to write “Espionage Act” – has been thinking about The Insurrection Act. The word “insurrection” did not fall off a shelf and hit Trump in the head and he suddenly wrote it when he MEANT to write “Espionage.” If I haven't been clear let me state this explicitly: I don't have a source in the Special Counsel's office. I don't have a cousin whose meter maid's twin brother's spiritual advisor's uncle's nephew types up the daily notes. Nor have any of the people I actually DO know who MIGHT have those kinds of sources said anything. Nor is there anything – ANYTHING – from any of the solid dozen or so reporters covering the coming Trials of Trump that suggests… anything. Nobody has said Smith is think about prosecuting him on Insurrection. And yet I am still sitting here wondering why he wrote what he wrote and I am absolutely convinced Trump has been thinking about the Insurrection Act. So setting aside the one thing you and I most WANT to be true – that even some of Trump's idiot legal advisers including the non-lawyer ones have told him they may charge him with it… what else could it be? B-Block (20:50) POSTSCRIPTS TO THE NEWS: Tucker Carlson goes off the deep end and as he attacks six presidential contenders to their face it finally dawns on me whose career his has always reminded me of: it was the top American political commentator of 1938. He too was fired while at the pinnacle. He never returned - and he was dead six years later. (27:33) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: The Michigan GOP bank account is down to five figures, Eric Adams is still rhetorically beating up the 84-year old holocaust survivor, and Steve Bannon makes me an offer I cannot refuse. C-Block (33:00) IN SPORTS: A brilliant idea! Bring in an aging ex-GOAT from another country to finally make MLS a big deal. Sure it didn't work the first 50 times but Messi's different. Isn't he? And the Buck may not stop here as the Mets near a purge (36:30) Meaning I have to tell the story of the day 30 years ago next month Buck Showalter locked all his players in the trainers' room at Yankee Stadium to teach me a lesson and blame it on them. And I LIKE Buck!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Power of Now - A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment with Gilda and Barbara In this episode, we cover Chapter Ten, Section Three: The Meaning of Surrender - Surrender In Personal Relationships Gilda Simonet and Barbara Wainwright have been studying Eckhart Tolle's work for ages. For the podcast purposes, we plan to go through the book from start to finish, reading only one section at a time. There are 78 sections of the book! Join our Facebook Group "The Power of Now - A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment with Gilda and Barbara" Contribute to our show here: https://anchor.fm/barbara-wainwright/support Learn more about Barbara Wainwright and our Coaching Courses here: http://www.LifeCoachTrainingOnline.com 800-711-4346 --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barbara-wainwright/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barbara-wainwright/support

The Power of Now - A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment with Gilda and Barbara In this episode, we cover Chapter Nine, Section Three: Beyond Happiness and Unhappiness There Is Peace - Impermanence And The Cycles Of Life Gilda Simonet and Barbara Wainwright have been studying Eckhart Tolle's work for ages. For the podcast purposes, we plan to go through the book from start to finish, reading only one section at a time. There are 78 sections of the book! Join our Facebook Group "The Power of Now - A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment with Gilda and Barbara" Contribute to our show here: https://anchor.fm/barbara-wainwright/support Learn more about Barbara Wainwright and our Coaching Courses here: http://www.LifeCoachTrainingOnline.com 800-711-4346 --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barbara-wainwright/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barbara-wainwright/support

The 14th Amendment It has been used to justify everything from banning VCR's to sanctioning the murder of babies in this country.  How many of you actually know what the 14th Amendment states? The Northerners were plotting and scheming to permanently subjugate the South. Read the actual text and you will see the viciousness in it. The 14th Amendment was never ratified. PERIOD. OVERVIEW from Cornell Law School - The Fourteenth Amendment contains a number of important concepts, most famously state action, privileges & immunities, citizenship, due process, and equal protection—all of which are contained in Section One. However, the Fourteenth Amendment contains four other sections. Section Two deals with the apportionment of representatives to Congress. Section Three forbids anyone who participates in “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States from holding federal office. Section Four addresses federal debt and repudiates debts accrued by the Confederacy. Section Five expressly authorizes Congress to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment “by appropriate legislation.” The states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War, along with the other Reconstruction Amendments—the Thirteenth and Fifteenth. How did the 14th Amendment become the Miracle Amendment? AUDIO/VIDEO: Joe Biden on using the 14th Amendment - I have been considering the 14th Amendment, I am looking at months down the road to see if the courts would say about whether or not it works.

The Power of Now - A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment with Gilda and Barbara In this episode, we cover Chapter Eight, Section Three: Enlightened Relationships - Addiction and the Search for Wholeness Gilda Simonet and Barbara Wainwright have been studying Eckhart Tolle's work for ages. For the podcast purposes, we plan to go through the book from start to finish, reading only one section at a time. There are 78 sections of the book! Join our Facebook Group "The Power of Now - A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment with Gilda and Barbara" Contribute to our show here: https://anchor.fm/barbara-wainwright/support Learn more about Barbara Wainwright and our Group Coaching Sessions here: http://www.LifeCoachTrainingOnline.com 800-711-4346 --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barbara-wainwright/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barbara-wainwright/support

The Power of Now - A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment with Gilda and Barbara In this episode, we cover Chapter Seven, Section Three: Portals into the Unmanifested - Dreamless Sleep Gilda Simonet and Barbara Wainwright have been studying Eckhart Tolle's work for ages. For the podcast purposes, we plan to go through the book from start to finish, reading only one section at a time. There are 78 sections of the book! Join our Facebook Group "The Power of Now - A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment with Gilda and Barbara" Contribute to our show here: https://anchor.fm/barbara-wainwright/support Learn more about Barbara Wainwright and our Group Coaching Sessions here: http://www.LifeCoachTrainingOnline.com 800-711-4346 --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/barbara-wainwright/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/barbara-wainwright/support

The Power of Now - A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment with Gilda and Barbara In this episode, we cover Chapter Six, Section Three: The Inner Body - Finding Your Invisible And Indestructible Reality Gilda Simonet and Barbara Wainwright have been studying Eckhart Tolle's work for ages. For the podcast purposes, we plan to go through the book from start to finish, reading only one section at a time. There are 78 sections of the book! Thank you for joining us! Contribute to our show here: https://anchor.fm/barbara-wainwright/support Learn more about Barbara Wainwright and our Group Coaching Sessions here: http://www.LifeCoachTrainingOnline.com 800-711-4346 --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/barbara-wainwright/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/barbara-wainwright/support

Learn about emergency plans for your children's school or daycare center. School is in session across the country. Now is the time to determine what your children's School or Day Care center has planned if they need to evacuate your children in case of an emergency. Download and print the Parent Emergency Evacuation Information sheet. https://www.emergencyactionplanning.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/PARENT-EMERGENCY-EVACUATION-INFORMATION.pdf The intent of this form is to identify what the school or the daycare facility will do if they need to evacuate your child from the property. Remember that one of three things will happen during a disaster or emergency. Number one: you will stay in place until the emergency is over. Number two: you will evacuate because staying in places is not safe. Number three: you will stay in place until it is determined that you need to leave because your safety is in jeopardy. If you have children in multiple schools of facilities, create a page for each one of them. The parent emergency evacuation information form has Location and contact information, and four sections relating to where your children will be taken in the event of injury or evacuation. Section One identifies where your children will go if they need to leave the facility on foot. Section Two identifies where the children will be transported by vehicle if necessary. Section Three identifies the hospital or health care facility your child will be transported to if need be. And section four identifies where your children will be transported by vehicle if there is a major environmental non-confined emergency. Based on my experience with multiple school boards you can get three different answers. Number one: Whoever you are talking to will have no idea what you are talking about. Number two: You will be told this is propriety information and you are not authorized to have it. Number three: You will receive the information you're asking for. Not all-inclusive This Parent Evacuation Information form does not cover everything in the school, and daycare center emergency plan. Feel free to ask the school, school board, or daycare director to outline all necessary emergency procedures that they have in place to protect your children. This should be a public document and you should have access to it. Additional Information: https://www.emergencyactionplanning.com/2019/09/15/children-and-disasters-npm-week-3/ Till next time “Be Safe” P.S. Remember to take advantage of the free Disaster and Emergency Planning Assessment. Identify the strengths of your family's disaster plan and what you can do to improve on it. https://www.eapworkshop.com/f/dep-assessment

The Power of Now - A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment with Gilda and Barbara In this episode, we cover Chapter Five, Section Three: The State of Presence - Beauty Arises in the Stillness of Your Presence Gilda Simonet and Barbara Wainwright have been studying Eckhart Tolle's work for ages. For the podcast purposes, we plan to go through the book from start to finish, reading only one section at a time. There are 78 sections of the book! Thank you for joining us! Learn more about Barbara Wainwright and our Group Coaching Sessions here: http://www.LifeCoachTrainingOnline.com 800-711-4346 --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/barbara-wainwright/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/barbara-wainwright/support

In honor of our upcoming IO2022 Innovation Accelerated Summit, which is happening September 19th and 20th in Lincoln Nebraska, thought it'd be nice to pull some of the best interviews and sessions from our IO2020 Virtual Event. So, over the next few weeks, check out some of our amazing speakers and grab a ticket for the upcoming event. We'd love to see you there. Tickets and more information can be found IO2022.com. And now back to the show. Inside Outside Innovation is a podcast to help new innovators navigate what's next. Each week, we'll give you a front row seat into what it takes to learn, grow, and thrive in today's world of accelerating change and uncertainty. Join us as we explore, engage and experiment with the best and the brightest innovators, entrepreneurs, and pioneering businesses. It's time to get started.Interview Transcript with Karen Holst, Author of Start WithinBrian Ardinger: Karen Holst is the Author of Start Within. Karen and I met a couple months ago. Probably in mid pandemic. She had me on her show. She has a LinkedIn show that she hosts and you're always bringing on some amazing guests. I had a great opportunity to talk to her and talk about what's going on in innovation and entrepreneurship, and this intersection between corporate and startups and such. I'll turn it over to Karen to talk a little bit more. Karen Holst: Great. Thank you. I am coming in from New Zealand. I originally was in San Francisco and then moved to Montreal for a couple years and still had San Francisco based work. So, I never really changed my profile in LinkedIn. It was very confusing. I had these, this double life going on, where I was spending half my year in California and half in Montreal. And then had the opportunity to come to Auckland and, and it's been an adventure, especially given the, the time that we're in right now.So, thank you for joining and I appreciate everyone sharing why they're joining here today. And I, I will tell you what I get excited about when it comes to innovation. It is unlocking people and doing this work and oftentimes that can be myself when I feel blocked up or maybe a little over my head in what I'm trying to do. Or it might be the team members and the people I'm consulting and bringing along and doing this work. So that's what I'm here to talk about today. Quick introduction on myself. My background, I had started a company after acquisition. I joined the California Department of Education and had this moment of what does it mean to innovate in a large organization, a state agency, no matter. And that being very different and that leading to writing the book. I joined IDEO and I also teach through LinkedIn learning. So that's the quick and dirty on me. I want to share a quick story on the importance of being bold and what it means to innovate and be the person that's igniting that in others. And this goes back to my ed tech startup. I was a co-founder in my early twenties and definitely feeling a little over my head.We were going after another round of funding. And I really needed to catalyze teams to think differently and start solving new challenges. And I had reached out to a woman that I, I didn't know, but she was someone I really respected in the corporate world and had grown businesses. She was gracious enough to give me 15 minutes of her time.And I sat down with her in a video call and said, explain where I was coming from and wanting to, you know, ignite passion and innovation in others. And what advice did she have for me in leading those teams? And she shared out of the gate, she said, don't bake goods and bring them into the office. You'll be seen as the mother caretaker, you know, the baker instead of the leader. And I was floored by that response. One, I'm not a baker. I would not put anyone into the, the task of trying to eat something that I make. I, I can do maybe a simple cake with a mix and cookies. But that is not something I would pride and force on my colleagues.But what I took out of that comment was, you know, assimilate. Fit in. And I looked around and I had, you know, an all-male board from our investment. And we were still looking to diversify our team and hadn't quite landed on how to do that. And so, I did slip a bit in my, what I think was my superpowers and being myself.And that is one of the takeaways is, you know, being yourself and acknowledging your strengths is a big part of this work and innovating. And also doing that with others when you're leading others. So, to be yourself with the caveat of, but better. And I think what all of this leads to is whether you're the optimistic yaysayer and that's me, or the kind of cross your arm, realistic, you know, pointing and poking holes at problems. All of those are great perspectives to have. It's trying to find that balance. And it's in yourself, it's in the teams that you lead. It's how your organization culture is built. All very important. And what it boils down to is being hard on the ideas and soft on people. So not focusing in on, you know, the person that's sharing the idea or talking about it, but really about the, the thing that's being said.And I really want to go deeper in that today. We have such a short amount of time. I'm going to go quickly. Please feel free to ask questions throughout. I can't see them. So, Brian, if you can let me know of any come in, I can slow down. I'll just kick off with, Start Within framework. And that's the book that I co-authored.And then we'll talk about the assumptions and mindsets about, around this work and go into two exercises that come from the book that you can use in your own work. Or you can take the teams. And then finish up with questions, of course. Where the book came from was again, when I had gone from my startup, I was hired within the California Department of Education to be entrepreneurial, but what that means within a larger state agency is very different. We obviously had lots of government funds and policies to work through and to be responsible around. But also needed to move quickly. It was all about bringing technology into the classroom. So that has to move quickly, but also responsibly.And it's also bringing in different ways of thinking. I was looking around for tools to do that. And there's so much amazing work out there on the culture of innovation and what leaders can do. But when you're a doer and you're tactically doing this work, I felt that there was an opportunity for Start Within in writing something about how to launch ideas within a big organization.So that's where it was born. It was focusing in on these doers. And I, I think so much about innovation is around this word that can feel very exclusive. But the people that are doing this work they're innovators. They're close to the problems that are plaguing the company, the customers, the employees. They see the problems and want to fix them.So, they're not just sitting back and saying, that's a problem for someone else. They're ready to take, you know, action. And they want to make things happen. In addition to that, the challenges, the tension is between getting them from that idea to actually seeing it through. That the organization that they work within there's often bias towards doing things the same. Even when we say we want to do, you know, innovate and do things differently, we just have this inclination to go back to, you know, status quo.There's also this amount of work outside of, you know, this idea. It's our day job, but we are hired to do our real responsibilities. And so that can feel overwhelming to try to juggle all of that. And then finally the tools and resources, the tactical support in making this happen. So again, this is where the framework for Start With and kind of was born from. The book is written around having models to identify the viable opportunities, the exercises to unlock creative problem solving. So, each chapter has an exercise that you can do solo, or you can take back to a team and do together. Thinking about the process and, you know, launching an idea with an organization and what that means. And then the strategies to come, overcome the, the obstacles and the roadblocks that come along the way.So, the three phases of Start Within starts with getting ready, then goes into getting set, and go. Briefly covering that, getting ready is all about identifying if your idea is ready to pursue. The assumptions and mindsets and the biases that we have around our idea that might get in the way. And then getting yourself and your idea organized so that when you're moving forward, you have the right things in place.The second section has the chapters around evaluating your organizational's readiness. Building your idea around the processes in place and finding opportunities for, for new ways of thinking. And then aligning to the organizational strategies and finding the people, you know, the stakeholder buy-in along the way.Finally, we finish up with go, and that is building your prototypes. Experimenting your way forward. How to turn a no into a yes, which we're going to cover one exercise today. And then forming and supporting, support as you go and launching your idea. Today, we're going to cover something from Chapter Two, Section One, Assumptions and Mindsets. And then something from Section Three, Turning a No into a Yes.I quickly want to talk about an example of the importance of getting past assumptions and biases. So, in 1997, crash test dummy was kind of the official way that in the United States, we were testing the airbags and effectiveness of, you know, safety belts. And these dummies were built in the seventies by an all-male engineering team.And what we are finding today is that crashes are, are more likely to impact women, children, people of different sizes than these dummies that were built. And they were really reflective of the all-male American engineering team that built them. You know, they didn't take into account all the different sizes and body parts that we have as humans.The data today from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, females wearing a seatbelt are 17% more likely to be killed when in a frontal car crash than a male. And then there's also a 2019 study from the University of Virginia that the odds of a female occupant being injured in a frontal car crash is 73% greater than the odds of a male occupant.So, all of this was, you know, the crash test dummies were really built to prevent injuries and make the safest cars on the market. But there were assumptions and biases built in them as, you know, humans and making them reflect what they look like versus what, you know, the variety we have in riding and driving cars.In the book, we talk about the layers of assumptions. I'm not going to go deep in them here, but it does start with ourselves, our background, and then goes out into the world that we are surrounded by. And all of this is part of when you recognize these layers and start to peel them back, you get closer to understanding what's blocking great ideas from becoming truly innovative and just being more of the same and incremental changes.The first exercise we're going to go through is debunk the truth. And again, this is something you can do yourself. So, if you have an idea, a, you know, problem you want to solve, you can do this solo. But I think it's far better when you can find a partner and think about it out loud or better when you're leading teams through this work as well.So, the Debunk the Truth exercise is really about you have an idea you're ready to go forward, or you have a problem that you think you've landed on, and before you move on, just pause and say, is what my assumptions and biases that are built into this idea this problem that I'm trying to solve. Actually, taking an account everything. The steps that you go through, there's five steps and it's deceptively simple. You start by listing out the self-evidence statements. Then you're taking out anything that is irrefutable fact. By the way, we're going to go through an example of this. Next to that you're putting the opposition statements. So, this must be true. Then you're giving the statement an opposition. From that point, you reflect on what activities you can do to test and then you're prioritizing them. So, this will all make sense as we walk through it. To think about this, I just challenge you to think about what problems, what ideas are you trying to solve for right now. And that can be in building your business. That can be in specific to a product or service. But if you think about a specific idea or problem, it could be across the spectrum in this phase that you're trying to solve for. Then as I go through these steps, you can think about the steps and how it relates to your work. Now we're going to go through the Debunk the Truth. So, the first step is listing out self-evidence statements about your idea. And this is really easy to do as a consultant or someone outside of the problem, because you can really poke holes. When you're in it, and you're stuck and saying it the same way over and over. But, you know, on a post-it note, you would capture self-evidence statements. About your idea. And each post-it note would be its own statement. For the purpose of this exercise. The idea that I'm going to focus in on was one that I had done with a, a large software company and it was around automation. You know that they're going to move forward on some innovation that would help automate and change their way of thinking. And way of working within the, the company. That would be the idea. The problem that they're trying to solve for. And thinking about the self-evidence statements, some of the ones that we captured were automation will save time. You know, that's an obvious one. Automation will save money. In other words, automation will improve employee morale. You know, there was a lot of work that was being redundant, and these employees could be better using their time elsewhere. And that cost reduction is a business priority.So, we captured lots and lots and lots. I mean, these are just for examples. We didn't just spend a couple minutes thinking about it. We really started to go deeper. And when people would talk generically, you know, trying to get more specific or if they got very specific, trying to get more generic, we're just pulling at this in different directions so we can get as much self-evident statements about that idea of improving automation.This step that is Remove Irrefutable Facts. Most of what you say will not be removed. I mean, we're trying to debunk the truth. So, if you believe everything to be true, it'd be, it's an urge to say, well, these are all irrefutable. But one that we did, you know, cross off in this example was cost reduction is a business priority.The CEO had clearly articulated that it was within all the KPIs and OKRs, and that is not something that we needed to debunk. It is a business priority. So, cost reduction is a business priority, we can take that off. And the rest of these, we kept up there as things to, you know, statements of opposition. That's the second step. The third step is for each of these truths, creating a statement and opposition. So, the thing that makes the opposite, the self-evidence statement here on the left automation will save time. The opposition statement is automation requires time. Self-evidence statement automation will save money. Opposition statement, it will cost money again. To create is one and to maintain is another. Or automation will improve employee morale. Automation may create fear for employees, job loss. So, we went through each one of these statements in opposition and created truth. And created the opposition statement. And when you present this with the team and explain that we're going to do the Statements of Opposition, as humans we immediately want to jump to this step. So we'll say, well, automation saves time, and then we'll immediately want to say, well, that could be, you know, actually the hope is that you could stay in the positive moment and capture as many of those, and then go to the statements of opposition. Rather than doing them concurrently.There's something about the brain that when you focus on the positive truths and then flip it, you get more creative and more insights. The next step is taking these statements of opposition and saying, okay, this is a new insight. Maybe there's more to learn here. And once you're identifying them, putting the activities that you could do to go after.So again, on the left, you have the opposition statements and on the right, you're seeing what were some of the activities that came from that, that we can find more learning to either prove the truth or disprove it. So, on the left automation requires time to create and maintain. Well, maybe we need to investigate frameworks that make automation more simple. Or automation will cost money to create and maintain. What's the breakeven analysis that we need to do? You know, one of the things that came out of that and the opportunities for learning was the team stepping back and saying, actually, you know, we know we want to save money, but we also know that it's going to be a big overhaul if we want to do it right. How much are we allowed to move forward in automation? And how much is this going to have to be over a period of time? It started to ask other questions. And some of the opportunities for learning was going back to leadership and saying, you know, here are the different scenarios. How do we want to break this down? And then the final one was automation may create fear for employees. The activity was, can we interview employees about how they view the future? About how automation might affect their day to day? And they actually had some, HR had done some surveys already. So, in talking about this out loud, HR was like, oh yeah, we have some of this data. I can share that with you. And so, they were able to then go fine tune and go deeper in doing these interviews.But again, you're going to potentially have multiple activities to one opposition statement. You're going to have a whole board of all of this. And you have to step back and say, all right, if we're going to debunk the truth and start uncovering assumptions and biases, we can't do all of these things. So, the final step is actually identifying what has priority. What has the highest risk if it's not disproven or proven. And the highest impact to the efforts that we're taking on.So, in this example, as we rated it with this company, three of them that came up the, you know, higher impact was conducting the break-even analysis and interviewing employees, and then lower impact, lower risk was investigating frameworks that make automation more simple. They had spent a few years doing some of that research.And so, they had some strong findings that they could rely on for that. But again, it was, this is how they would value, rank the activities. If you're in a different company, doing the exact same exercise on the exact same idea, how you prioritize it might look very different. So that is a very, very quick version of this.If you're using this, I say you could do this in 15 minutes and get some people thinking differently. Spending more time going deeper is where you have the aha moments. The having 15 to 30 minutes per step, at the very least you could extend this over days and have it up there and kind of, you have the opportunity for it to ruminate and think about, but really the big opportunity in an exercise like this is also assigning someone to be the yaysayer and someone to be the naysayer.And you might find people that are typically the optimistic person to say, hey, I want you to poke holes in this idea. Or the person that simply got has their arms crossed and can point out all the problems, asking them to be embracing the yaysayer and being the yes, and. And by putting that on people and the team you're making them use their brain differently. And that is all what, you know, innovation is about, is unlocking people and being bolder and expanding their spectrum of how they think about problems and how they identify ideas. So, the second exercise won't take as long to go through. It's also deceptively simple. I love this one for myself when I do it. I try not to do it by myself. I love to do it over wine with my husband, or I'll find a colleague and do it over coffee. Or when I'm doing it, mentoring companies or executives and people within teams, this is a great tool to use. So, it's called the One Maybe at a Time. And then we'll go into the steps, which is the next slide.Three very simple steps. You're finding out why there's a, about, you know, a barrier to the problem. You're exploring the opportunities and then you're finding the tactical solutions for how to move forward. So again, pausing here. What challenge are you currently, or might you be facing soon? An example that I hear often is cut back in resources. Whether that's funding, the number of people that can work toward a project, these are all great barriers to consider.But what challenge are you seeing right now? Or are you predicting and building for, into the future? If you think about that as we go through these steps, I'll give you an example again, but you can use your challenge, your idea, as you know, we go through the steps as well. When I do this in Mural, you have the three sections, you can do it on a whiteboard. You can do it on a wall. Each thing that you're capturing is going to be on its own post-it note. But the first, very first part of the, the problem that you're thinking about is the, the why behind there's a barrier, the roadblock. The, the no, because, and I'm going to give an example from a different software company. So, I was hired to think about, you know, creating the, the 10 vision and working with the leadership to make their innovation roadmap happen. As I was there and looking around recognized that they had a very big problem in diversity. Something that they recognize as well. There were no women in leadership. The diversity of the people that worked there, they had a lot of work to do.And so, towards the end of my project, raising that to the executive that had brought me on as an issue that I'd like to try to address. I got a big fact, no. Because we just hired someone to lead D and I efforts and they're, they're getting onboarded. They're going to take this on. Other, no, because that I would, you know, captured in doing this exercise was, well, no, you weren't hired to do this at all. This is completely out of the scope. No, we don't have the money to, to help, you know, pay for you to do this work. No, you're not an expert in this besides, you know, just being an experienced human in, in the corporate world. So, there were lots of No Becauses and some of them, I heard. Some of them, I believed to be there. Some of them, I predicted if I tried to take this work on. Capturing each of them on a post-it note, and then I paused and said, where's their room for me to do something like what's the, maybe if what's the reframed approach. And again, when you're thinking about innovation, people can get blocked up and wanting to go towards the big prize.But if you can find these incremental tears and thinking differently. And exercising the muscle of finding new ways forward, this will only lead later on down the line to the radical, big thinking. So, I, I love this example for very tactical specific needs. But it is a sprint towards the innovation marathon.It's just one of the things that's going to continue to tweak you and make you better at doing this work and leading this work. So, the maybe if in this example, recapturing the, you know, reframing the opportunities. Maybe if I talked to hiring managers, actively recruiting, we could evaluate effectiveness of currently posted job openings.This was something I could do without big lift. This is something that could make an immediate impact. And teaching and learning from it. Wasn't going to step on any toes. There were some other ideas that we came up with too. I, I sat down with a team of women that were very passionate about this. And thinking about what we could do that was not going to go against what we're there hired to be doing.Final step is the Then What. Like, what is the action plan? What are you going to actually do to move forward and start testing how to move beyond this moment. And that was creating the volunteer led task force that would review the current job postings. And when we did that, there were ideas of putting the job postings in front of women groups, programmers, engineers, product leaders, and getting their feedback.And the feedback immediately was so helpful. It. It allowed us to rethink how we wrote those job descriptions and what requirements we had. In all of this, again, doesn't necessarily feel like a truly innovative new approach. But just the exercise of doing something where you don't accept, no. You find a new way forward. That kind of re pulled back some of the scar tissue of like, oh, you know how things are around here?No, you know, can't make change without it being slow. People started to see that if they move forward, even if it's slowly, incrementally. That they can make a big impact. So, I really love this exercise for that reason because it's super simple. It's easy to do and can make an impact in the long run. Again, this is a, an overview of how you might want to use this either with yourself or by leading teams, but you can do it in very quickly. Spending more time and reflecting, I think, to get true new, you know, ways of approaching it's coming back to it and continuing to say, where are their new opportunities to experiment our way forward?So that is the very, very fast version. If you want to reach out. Just to highlight what we covered, two exercises, this is a way to reach me. I teach an innovation product innovation course on LinkedIn. That's the Bitly. You can find the book on the Link, or you can email me directly. And of course, I'm on LinkedIn. So, you can find me there as well.Brian Ardinger: I love that very much, Karen. You know, the book is great because it's, it's so tactical. You know, it forces you to, you know, here's the questions I need to ask myself or my team. And it gives you that kind of playbook in a variety of different circumstances. So, I encourage people to check that out for sure.Thank you for coming out and being part of this. I know you've got a whole day ahead of you. It's early morning there in, in New Zealand. So, I appreciate you coming out for IO2020 and being a part of it. I want to thank all the attendees for jumping in here. Thanks again.That's it for another episode of Inside Outside Innovation. If you want to learn more about our team, our content, our services, check out InsideOutside.io or follow us on Twitter @theIOpodcast or @Ardinger. Until next time, go out and innovate.FREE INNOVATION NEWSLETTER & TOOLSGet the latest episodes of the Inside Outside Innovation podcast, in addition to thought leadership in the form of blogs, innovation resources, videos, and invitations to exclusive events. SUBSCRIBE HEREYou can also search every Inside Outside Innovation Podcast by Topic and Company.  For more innovations resources, check out IO's Innovation Article Database, Innovation Tools Database, Innovation Book Database, and Innovation Video Database.  Also don't miss IO2022 - Innovation Accelerated in Sept, 2022.

The Power of Now - A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment with Gilda and Barbara In this episode, we cover Chapter Four, Section Three: Mind Strategies for Avoiding the Now - What Are They Seeking? Gilda Simonet and Barbara Wainwright have been studying Eckhart Tolle's work for ages. For the podcast purposes, we plan to go through the book from start to finish, reading only one section at a time. There are 78 sections of the book! Thank you for joining us! Learn more about Barbara Wainwright and our Group Coaching Sessions here: http://www.LifeCoachTrainingOnline.com 800-711-4346 --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/barbara-wainwright/message

The Power of Now - A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment with Gilda and Barbara In this episode, we cover Chapter Three, Section Three: Moving Deeply Into The Now - Nothing Exists Outside of the Now Gilda Simonet and Barbara Wainwright have been studying Eckhart Tolle's work for ages. For the podcast purposes, we plan to go through the book from start to finish, reading only one section at a time. There are 78 sections of the book! Thank you for joining us! Learn more about Barbara Wainwright and our Group Coaching Sessions here: http://www.LifeCoachTrainingOnline.com 800-711-4346 --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/barbara-wainwright/message

The Power of Now - A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment with Gilda and Barbara In this episode, we cover Chapter Two, Section Three: Consciousness: The Way Out Of Pain - Ego Identification With The Pain-Body Gilda Simonet and Barbara Wainwright have been studying Eckhart Tolle's work for ages. For the podcast purposes, we plan to go through the book from start to finish, reading only one section at a time. There are 78 sections of the book! Thank you for joining us! Learn more about Barbara Wainwright and our Group Coaching Sessions here: http://www.LifeCoachTrainingOnline.com 800-711-4346 --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/barbara-wainwright/message

The Power of Now - A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment with Gilda and Barbara In this episode, we cover Chapter One, Section Three - You Are Not Your Mind - Enlightenment: Rising Above Thought Gilda Simonet and Barbara Wainwright have been studying Eckhart Tolle's work for ages. For the podcast purposes, we plan to go through the book from start to finish, reading only one section at a time. There are 78 sections of the book! Thank you for joining us! Learn more about Barbara Wainwright and our Group Coaching Sessions here: http://www.LifeCoachTrainingOnline.com 800-711-4346 --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/barbara-wainwright/message

Check out this one WEIRD trick to.... *record scratch* wait a minute... it's not a weird trick? Wow! Well, check out this one legitimate way in which Madison Cawthorn could be kept off the ballot! It turns out, the Constitution actually isn't a super big fan of insurrections. Also, some additional info on anti-trust law, and a Wild Card (wooooooooo!) on a new bill written by a Democrat AND a Republican that actually has a chance of passing! Links: Cawthorn Complaint, Next day order staying proceedings, Gerard Magliocca, Amnesty and Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, Article 11B. Challenge to Candidacy, GOP Power Lawyer: Congress Said Insurrection Is Cool In 1872, 1872 Amnesty Act, Klobuchar Cotton Bill

More great books at LoyalBooks.com

Section 3: New states and federal property. Clause 1: Admission of new states. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. The First Clause of Section Three, also known as the Admissions Clause, grants to Congress the authority to admit new states into the Union. Since the establishment of the United States in 1776, the number of states has expanded from the original 13 to 50. It also forbids the creation of new states from parts of existing states without the consent of the affected states and Congress. This latter provision was designed to give Eastern states that still had claims to Western lands (for example, Virginia and North Carolina) to have a veto over whether their western counties (which eventually became Kentucky and Tennessee) could become states. It would later be applied with regard to the formation of Maine (from Massachusetts) and West Virginia (from Virginia). At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal to include the phrase, "new States shall be admitted on the same terms with the original States", was defeated. It was feared that the political power of future new western states would eventually overwhelm that of the established eastern states. Once the new Constitution went into effect, however, Congress admitted Vermont and Kentucky on equal terms and thereafter formalized the condition in its acts of admission for subsequent states, declaring that the new state enters "on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever." Thus the Congress, utilizing the discretion allowed by the framers, adopted a policy of equal status for all newly admitted states. With the growth of states' rights advocacy during the antebellum period, the Supreme Court asserted, in Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845), that the Constitution mandated admission of new states on the basis of equality. Congressional restrictions on the equality of states, even when those limitations have been found in the acts of admission, have been held void by the Supreme Court. For instance the Supreme Court struck down a provision which limited the jurisdiction of the state of Alabama over navigable waters within the state. The Court held, Alabama is, therefore, entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits ... to maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states ... to Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them. The doctrine, however, can also be applied to the detriment of states, as occurred with Texas. Before admission to the Union, Texas, as an independent nation, controlled water within three miles of the coast, the normal limit for nations. Under the equal footing doctrine, however, Texas was found not to have control over the three-mile belt after admission into the Union, because the original states did not at the time of joining the union control such waters. Instead, by entering the Union, Texas was found to have surrendered control over the water and the soil under it to Congress. Under the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, Congress returned maritime territory to some states, but not to others; the Act was sustained by the Supreme Court. The constitution is silent on the question of whether or not a state may unilaterally leave, or secede from, the Union. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

The Power of Now - A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment with Gilda and Barbara In this episode, we cover Chapter Eight, Section Three: Enlightened Relationships - Addiction and the Search for Wholeness Gilda Simonet and Barbara Wainwright have been studying Eckhart Tolle's work for ages. For the podcast purposes, we plan to go through the book from start to finish, reading only one section at a time. There are 77 sections of the book! Thank you for joining us! Learn more about Barbara Wainwright and our Life Coach Courses here: http://www.LifeCoachTrainingOnline.com 800-711-4346

The Power of Now - A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment with Gilda and Barbara In this episode, we cover Chapter Seven, Section Three: Portals into the Unmanifested - Dreamless Sleep Gilda Simonet and Barbara Wainwright have been studying Eckhart Tolle's work for ages. For the podcast purposes, we plan to go through the book from start to finish, reading only one section at a time. There are 77 sections of the book! Thank you for joining us! Learn more about Barbara Wainwright and our Life Coach Courses here: http://www.LifeCoachTrainingOnline.com 800-711-4346

Romans 8:11 (NKJV) But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

Romans 8:11 (NKJV) But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

Romans 8:11 (NKJV) But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

Romans 8:11 (NKJV) But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

Romans 8:11 (NKJV) But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

Romans 8:11 (NKJV) But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

Romans 8:11 (NKJV) But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy is Now Open! 8am-9am PT/ 11am-Noon ET for our especially special Daily Specials; Blue Moon Spirits Fridays!Starting off in the Bistro Cafe, Trump thinks he can pardon himself because he hasn't gotten to Section Three of Article II in the Constitution that stipulates the President shall take care to obey and uphold the laws of the United States.Then, on the rest of the menu, a Trump aide is banned from the Justice Department after she was caught trying to collect insider information about ongoing cases; Trump is rushing to auction off the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drillers before Biden takes office; and, the Supreme Court sided with a California church that it has the constitutional religious right to ignore science and kill people with COVID-19.After the break, we move to the Chef's Table where Egyptian authorities released three members of a leading human rights organization following widespread international criticism; and, an Italian judge ordered the mass trial of four hundred forty-four gangsters of the powerful Calabrian Mafia.All that and more, on West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy with Chef de Cuisine Justice Putnam.Bon Appétit!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~“Structural linguistics is a bitterly divided and unhappy profession, and a large number of its practitioners spend many nights drowning their sorrows in Ouisghian Zodahs.” ― Douglas Adams "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Show Notes & Links: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/12/4/1999858/-West-Coast-Cookbook-amp-Speakeasy-Daily-Special-Blue-Moon-Spirits-Fridays

To Live Life to the Full: Mental health in Australia today is the Social Justice Sunday Statement of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference for 2020. You can access a print version here. The Statement encourages faith communities, governments and each one of us, to make mental health a priority. It is a timely message in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic is affecting many members of our parishes, schools and communities. Understanding mental health will help us to be aware of those who need our support. The Statement encourages us all to reject stigmatisation, to work for the transformation of social determinants of mental ill-health, and to call for policies and service provision that meets the needs of the poorest and most marginalised members of our community. In this episode, David Brennan reads the third and final section of the Statement. Section Three: We are All in this Together, points to the action needed by faith communities, governments, and all of us to make mental health a priority. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/office-for-social-justice/message

In this installment of the From the Bleachers podcast, Nick and Mick talk Section 3 football schedules and teams! They then discuss sports bucket lists and regrets! --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

In the very first episode of From the Bleachers, Nick and Mickey breakdown local sports teams and their respective brackets in Section Three. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

A new MP3 sermon from Grace Bible Church is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: A Parable of Wisdom: Section Three Subtitle: Proverbs Speaker: Mark Webb Broadcaster: Grace Bible Church Event: Bible Study Date: 6/10/2015 Bible: Proverbs 3:1-10 Length: 35 min.