Podcasts about state constitutions

Abortion Has Just ChangedADF Attorney Denise Burke on the Show TodayA decision recently from the U.S. Supreme Court allows states to redirect taxpayer dollars away from abortion facilities like Planned Parenthood. In Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represented the director of the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. The high court's ruling means that the state can direct Medicaid funding—funds intended to help low-income individuals obtain necessary medical assistance—to comprehensive health care rather than entities that exist primarily to perform abortions.What that means in Alaska is complicated by the fact that the Supreme Court here, one of the most radical in the country, has consistently manufactured a "right to abortion" in our State Constitution. That being said, there is still a road map to protecting unborn and their mothers. The Medina case provides great leverage for employing strategies to redirect the State portion of Medicaid, which is a Federal/State collaborative program, toward real community health care centers that outnumber Planned Parenthood in Alaska 88 to 2. Don't believe the lies about less access to healthcare. What this really means is less access to abortion.On the Legislative front, the Big Beautiful Bill, that narrowly passed the U.S. Senate with a tie-breaking vote from Vice President J.D. Vance, has, for the first time in history, stripped Planned Parenthood of some $500 million. The BBB still has to go back to the U.S. House for a vote on the changes made by the Senate. The provision, originally proposed as a ten year measure to defund the abortion giant, was modified to just one year but it is a phenomenal first step in redistributing Federal funds to the more than 8,800 federally qualified community health care centers around the nation.Today, I have the pleasure of chatting with Denise Burke at Alliance Defending Freedom on these two critical measures that have changed the pro life landscape. As senior counsel Denise is a member of the Center for Public Policy at ADF. In this role, her efforts are directed toward protecting life from conception to natural death and defending the conscience rights of healthcare professionals.Prior to joining ADF, Burke served as vice president of legal affairs for Americans United for Life, where she routinely advised legislators, policy groups, and state attorneys general on life issues. I hope you can tune in.Support the show

On today's episode, we first discuss Katie Porter's latest campaign email, which contains a not-so-shocking revelation: Steve's lead in the polls. If this proves anything, it's that Californians are sick and tired of Democrat's one-party rule. Then, it seems Gavin Newsom wants to follow Gregg Abbott and redistrict California, even though our State Constitution doesn't allow it. Jen Horn joins the show to discuss Newsom's desire for political gain and how Democrat policies have forced the President of In N Out to flee California.

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for June 27, 2025Is Partisan Gerrymandering Unconstitutional Under South Carolina Law?  A Pro-Voter Challenge Takes the Legislature to Task.The U.S. Supreme Court said in 2019 that partisan gerrymandering was fundamentally a political issue, and left it to legislatures and state courts to decide.  In South Carolina, a state supreme court case heard June 24th challenges the state constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:American Democracy Minute - (2024) U.S. Supreme Court Finds South Carolina Gerrymandering Case ‘Bleaching' Congressional District Not Racially MotivatedAmerican Democracy Minute - (2024) The End of One South Carolina Gerrymandering Lawsuit and the Beginning of Another, as the Fight for Fair Maps ContinuesLeague of Women Voters SC - Partisan Gerrymandering Case Reaches South Carolina Supreme CourtACLU SC - S.C. lawmakers admit they drew Congressional maps for partisan gain. We say that violates the State Constitution.  WCIV - ACLU gerrymandering case headed for oral arguments with SC Supreme Court TuesdayThe State - Republicans admit gerrymandering. SC Supreme Court weighs if that's allowed Groups Taking Action:League of Women Voters SC, ACLU SCPlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #SouthCarolina #LWV #ACLU #FairMaps #EndGerrymandering

June 18, 2025 - The anti-discrimination language added to the state constitution is being tested in the courts, as judges challenge a forced retirement age in New York. We explore this constitutional amendment and its ramifications with attorney Evan Davis, who helped craft the protections.

The Hidden Lightness with Jimmy Hinton – Wisconsin voters make history by amending their Constitution to require photo ID at the polls. With overwhelming support, this marks a major step toward securing election integrity. As public trust in government erodes, voter ID stands as a common-sense safeguard. I break down why this victory matters and what it means for the future of our democracy.

After Dark with Hosts Rob & Andrew – Wisconsin voters approve a constitutional amendment to secure voter ID laws, reinforcing election integrity with strong public backing. This move blocks activist courts and future rollbacks while ensuring accessible, fraud-resistant voting. Backed by Republicans and celebrated by Trump, it marks a strategic victory that strengthens trust in elections and sets a powerful precedent for other states.

After Dark with Hosts Rob & Andrew – Wisconsin voters approve a constitutional amendment to secure voter ID laws, reinforcing election integrity with strong public backing. This move blocks activist courts and future rollbacks while ensuring accessible, fraud-resistant voting. Backed by Republicans and celebrated by Trump, it marks a strategic victory that strengthens trust in elections and sets a powerful precedent for other states.

Host Paul Pacelli opened Tuesday's "Connecticut Today" highlighting a push at the State Capitol to give police officers more power to stop drivers suspected of using marijuana while behind the wheel (00:36). GOP State Sen. Paul Cicarella talked about Monday's public hearing regarding that proposal for extended police powers (15:36). Yankee Institute blogger Meghan Portfolio talked about the legal and monetary risks of attaching a so-called "Green Amendment" to the State Constitution (24:06) Image Credit: iStock / Getty Images Plus

A reading and commentary on Dr. Edwin Vieira's By Tyranny Out of Necessity: The Bastardy of Martial Law, Chapters 5 and 6. Everyday Samurai episode 67 explores the stark contrast between the idealized practice of martial arts and the brutal reality of war. The episode begins with a discussion of dojo traditions and their symbolic meaning of self-renewal and the acceptance of mortality, contrasting this with helmet cam footage of a deadly knife fight between Ukrainian and Russian soldiers. This footage underscores the unpredictable and brutal nature of combat, highlighting the disconnect between training and actual conflict. The discussion then pivots to a critical examination of the modern nation-state's use of war, arguing that it often serves nefarious purposes, benefiting a select few at the expense of the many. The speakers delve into the constitutional implications of war, emphasizing the importance of Congress's power to declare war and the dangers of the military-industrial complex. The latter half of the podcast focuses on Dr. Edwin Vieira's work, "By Tyranny out of Necessity, the Bastardy of Martial Law," examining the illegitimacy of martial law under the Declaration of Independence and the historical context of the American Revolution. Martial law is antithetical to a free society, violating fundamental principles of liberty and self-governance, and that the well-regulated militia, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, is crucial for maintaining domestic order and preventing the tyranny of a standing army. The episode concludes with a call to action, urging listeners to stay informed, vigilant, and committed to the principles of liberty. Chapters: 00:00:00 - Dojo Philosophy & Combat 00:03:42 - War Footage & Humanity 07:04 - War, Liberty, & Martial Law 11:01:50 - Martial Law & Declaration 14:41 - Dangers of a Standing Army 17:49 - Martial Law: Contradiction 21:46 - Colonial Grievances & Oppression 28:43 - Martial Law: Unjust & Unconstitutional 40:05 - State Constitutions & Military 44:01 - Civil vs. Military Power Shop.EverydaySamurai.Life Links: Link.EverydaySamurai.Life

Washington Democrats want to add ‘gender affirming care’ and abortion rights to the state constitution. Donald Trump announced that “America is Back.” // LongForm: GUEST: Klickitat County Sheriff Bob Songer explains why he is going to ignore state law and assist ICE with enforcing federal immigration law. // Quick Hit: Washington D.C. is removing its ‘Black Lives Matter’ mural.

Ed is joined by Susan Sparks-Burns who is campaigning for better conditions inside the prisons in Georgia. Georgia has some of the most punitive prison conditions in the US resulting in a higher mortality and mental illness rate than almost anywhere else in the country.She talks about the They Have No Voice movement, which represents the families and prisoners campaigning for a humane and less brutal system. She details stories from inside the prisons which may alarm.They also focus on the sentencing and punishments dished out inside the prisons, which seem to be, at best, random.This is part one of a two part interview; From the Facebook GroupDue  to the escalating incidents of violence within every prison across the  state of Georgia, we pose this question; Who is held accountable as to  why?Welcome  to Inside Georgia Prisons commentary forum. Our intention is to  enlighten and inform you as to the unreliable and reckless policies of  the Georgia Department of Corrections.  Inside Georgia Prisons invites  your comments on, past experiences and involvement in some of these  volatile incidents of brutality and neglect where the well being of  prisoners and staff alike are at risk.Inside  Georgia Prisons is open to families whose son (or daughter) have  suffered inhumane treatment at the hands of another prisoner or  department of Corrections (DOC) staff.  We welcome comments from former  and current employees and former inmates who can substantiate claims of  unjust and aggressive treatment by the Georgia Department of Corrections  administration.Our  purpose is to address these subject matters that are imposing  additional hardship on every family affected by incarceration  within  the State of Georgia.  Prevalent and related news articles are posted  and awaiting your opinion (viewpoint). Though the DOC is a dominant  organization within the State, most of the information disseminated from  them is one-sided. Inside Georgia Prisons will identify this bias data  and provide an honest platform for counter arguments.We  understand that society has regarded prisoners as offensive, yet they  forever will remain human beings. During their incarceration many  prisoners are focused upon self improvement of their past behavioral  patterns. As prisoners, they still retain indisputable rights under the  U.S. and State Constitution.  As State taxpayers, one should ensure  policy makers address important issues such as prison violence, prison  overcrowding, and prison abuse.Inside Georgia Prisons was created by advocates of those who reside and work behind Georgia prison walls and their families.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

Ed is joined by Susan Sparks-Burns who is campaigning for better conditions inside the prisons in Georgia. Georgia has some of the most punitive prison conditions in the US resulting in a higher mortality and mental illness rate than almost anywhere else in the country.She talks about the They Have No Voice movement, which represents the families and prisoners campaigning for a humane and less brutal system. She details stories from inside the prisons which may alarm.They also focus on the sentencing and punishments dished out inside the prisons, which seem to be, at best, random.This is part one of a two part interview; From the Facebook GroupDue  to the escalating incidents of violence within every prison across the  state of Georgia, we pose this question; Who is held accountable as to  why?Welcome  to Inside Georgia Prisons commentary forum. Our intention is to  enlighten and inform you as to the unreliable and reckless policies of  the Georgia Department of Corrections.  Inside Georgia Prisons invites  your comments on, past experiences and involvement in some of these  volatile incidents of brutality and neglect where the well being of  prisoners and staff alike are at risk.Inside  Georgia Prisons is open to families whose son (or daughter) have  suffered inhumane treatment at the hands of another prisoner or  department of Corrections (DOC) staff.  We welcome comments from former  and current employees and former inmates who can substantiate claims of  unjust and aggressive treatment by the Georgia Department of Corrections  administration.Our  purpose is to address these subject matters that are imposing  additional hardship on every family affected by incarceration  within  the State of Georgia.  Prevalent and related news articles are posted  and awaiting your opinion (viewpoint). Though the DOC is a dominant  organization within the State, most of the information disseminated from  them is one-sided. Inside Georgia Prisons will identify this bias data  and provide an honest platform for counter arguments.We  understand that society has regarded prisoners as offensive, yet they  forever will remain human beings. During their incarceration many  prisoners are focused upon self improvement of their past behavioral  patterns. As prisoners, they still retain indisputable rights under the  U.S. and State Constitution.  As State taxpayers, one should ensure  policy makers address important issues such as prison violence, prison  overcrowding, and prison abuse.Inside Georgia Prisons was created by advocates of those who reside and work behind Georgia prison walls and their families.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hosts: Taylor Morgan and Rusty Cannon  The Utah Constitution says that proposed amendments to the State Constitution must be published in "at least one newspaper in every county of the state ... for two months immediately preceding the next general election." You might remember, this played a role in the courts throwing out Amendments A and D during the November election. Inside Sources digs into a new bill that would eliminate this newspaper publishing requirement. 

Hosts: Taylor Morgan and Rusty Cannon  “War on waste” as DOGE subcommittee meets for the first time  It's a "war on waste” -- that's how Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene described the focus of the first ever DOGE subcommittee meeting this morning. It comes as Elon Musk defends the efforts and actions of DOGE and as Democrats call for Musk to testify under oath about the Department of Government Efficiency. Inside Sources begins with a discussion on the latest DOGE developments.    On the Hill 2025: Legislation on housing affordability  We’re coming up on the halfway point in the 2025 Legislative General Session, but there are still plenty of bills to discuss. State Representative Carol Spackman Moss is working on a bill address affordable housing – HB286: Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund Amendments. This bill would take some revenue from liquor sales and move it into this loan fund. Rep. Moss joins Inside Sources to explain more about what her bill would do.     On the Hill 2025: Reaffirming Utah’s sovereignty  One of the unique aspects of the United States is the prevalence and importance of federalism -- some powers belong to the Federal Government and some power belong to the States. Federalism has led to disagreements between the states and the federal government many times, including here in Utah. State Senator Wayne Harper will introduce a new Senate Joint Resolution that addresses the relationship and joins the show to share the motivation behind it.    On the Hill 2025: Removing newspaper publishing requirement from Utah Constitution  The Utah Constitution says that proposed amendments to the State Constitution must be published in "at least one newspaper in every county of the state ... for two months immediately preceding the next general election." You might remember, this played a role in the courts throwing out Amendments A and D during the November election. Inside Sources digs into a new bill that would eliminate this newspaper publishing requirement.    How is President Trump responding to rising inflation rates?  Inflation continued to rise in January. And even though President Trump was only in office for 11 days in January, many people are thrusting the blame on him. The President isn’t always able to control the price of things, but Trump did promise to bring prices down on Day 1 of his administration. And he hasn’t... So, what’s he doing in response to rising prices? Rusty and Taylor give their thoughts.    Polls on Pres. Trump’s performance give insights into how Americans feeling  How's the president doing in the polls after a few weeks in office? New polling gives us an indication on what voters are pleased with and what they're annoyed with in regards to President Trump's recent decisions. The Inside Sources discuss the latest poll results.    Trump administration working towards peace between Russia and Ukraine  President Trump says he and Russian President Vladimir Putin have agreed to work towards an end of the war between Ukraine and Russia. It comes as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth says Ukraine should lower their expectations of getting land back. We hear a bit of what President Trump told reporters about the phone call.    AP reporters barred from Oval Office because of AP policy on ‘Gulf of America’  Reporters with the Associated Press have been barred from the Oval Office due to the AP’s style guide policy on how to refer to ‘Gulf of America’ -- say ‘Gulf of Mexico’ but reference President Trump’s decision to rename it. Inside Sources finishes the show with the hosts sharing thoughts on the President’s obsession with the new name.   

John Faso: NY State Court of Appeals to decide if 800K non citizens are allowed to vote in NYC which violates the state constitution Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this AJPH podcast episode, recorded live at the 2025 American Public Health Association Annual Meeting in Minneapolis, Vickie Mays and Alfredo Morabia speak with Adrienne R. Ghorashi and Ruqaiijah Yearby about their presentation, "Examining the Role of State Constitutions in Racism, Governance, and Health Equity." They highlight how state constitutions, rather than the federal constitution, play a crucial yet often overlooked role in shaping health inequities. The discussion explores how legal frameworks at the state level contribute to systemic disparities and how constitutional reforms could advance health equity.

In Ep. 354 Ken and Dave discuss charging Moore, the State of The State, the Speaker's priorities, Biden's goodbye, die DEI, the drunk SouthWest pilot, Florida gets a new senator, another Georgian headed to the SBA, and Trump's cabinet hearings.

9:05 – 9:22 (15mins) Weekly: Karen Kataline @KarenKataline More info on Karen: www.karenkataline.com9:41 – 9:56 (15mins) Justin Sparks In-StudioThe Laws of The House of RepresentativesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Have you heard of the up coming vote on Amendment 2? (Preserve the Right to Fish & Hunt in Florida). Then if not this is your chance to make a difference! Amendment two "RIGHT TO FISH AND HUNT. — Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to preserve forever fishing and hunting, including by the use of traditional methods, as a public right and preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife. Specifies that the amendment does not limit the authority granted to the Fish and WildlifeConservation Commission under Section 9 of Article IV of the State Constitution." MORE INFORMATION VoteYesOn2 - https://voteyeson2florida.com/

OPINIONS, MORALITY, AND MEDICAL REALITY: WHY I'M A VOTING “YES” ON MISSOURI AMENDMENT 3Reader warning: This piece includes language regarding abortion, and sexual assault.As a man I am uniquely unqualified to talk about Women's reproductive health. Along with being a man, I am not a doctor and have very little formal education regarding human reproduction. In fact, in high school I was able to choose between biology and physical science (physics light) and I took physical science. Instead of human anatomy I took an astronomy class. You want to know about planetary movement via ellipse? I've got you covered. But when it comes to the science behind female reproductive matters, I am - to quote Missouri Congressman Jason Smith “not an expert” on the topic. Being not an expert on the topic, however, doesn't stop plenty of folks, men and women alike, from taking strong stances on the topic of abortion. In Missouri, where I live with my wife (who is not a medical professional either but is a mother of 3 and seems to know a bit more about her own health needs than I do) we have Amendment 3 on the November ballot. Amendment 3 (MO3) asks voters in Missouri whether or not we should amend our State Constitution to allow for reproductive care to be legal, with regulation, in the State. You can read the actual text on the Secretary of State's website. THE BASIC ARGUMENTS AGAINSTFolks arguing against MO3 have taken two main paths. First, the most common and predictable, is the purely moral argument. That abortion is wrong, period. This is typically through a religious stance. Second, is that the language of the proposed amendment allows for various other medical procedures including gender affirming care, and that somehow children will be given secret transition surgery without parental consent. Most far-fetched is that somehow these secret surgeries will be happening at school. The second argument, the one about the broad language and secret surgeries, is flat out ridiculous. It is, at best, ill-informed and at worst an intentionally misleading lie. It's so clearly incorrect that I have nothing more to say on it other than to say this: Anyone making that argument is verifiably and demonstrably wrong. The first, the moral argument, reveals an issue that is glossed over. It is not an actual argument about abortion, what it is, what it means, or when it occurs, but rather a desire to have state law mirror religious belief. The most obvious and simple retort here is that our system is intentionally designed to avoid just that. Passing laws to enact religious doctrine is inherently unconstitutional, and it has been. More importantly, the moral argument is often centered around the concept that “abortion” means killing - and ignores the reality of what “abortion” actually includes. PERSONAL EDUCATION POST DOBBS DECISION Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in the Dobb's case, overturning the Roe case and returning the question of abortion's legality to the States, I would have told you that while I supported a woman's right to choose, I thought all abortion was a tragedy. I was a fairly standard “pro-choice, but” kind of voter in that way, and it is a position that a lot of folks shared. After Dobbs, however, I learned. I educated myself on the medical procedures that fall into “abortion” and I listened to the folks who could best educate me on the topic. I listened to doctors. I listened to WOMEN. Before Dobbs I couldn't have told what a “D&C” or “D&E” procedure was, or why they were used, or when they were needed. Now, I know. You can read the actual stats on abortion in the United States including the data from the CDC which shows when in the gestational stage most abortive procedures take place.  What I learned left me with two conclusions: I knew even less than I thought about abortion. I shouldn't be making the decision about these medical issues.I mentioned above I'm a father to three, yet even after experiencing the births of my own children I was still woefully out of touch with reality. CHOICE ALLOWS HEALTH CAREWhat I know, now, is that “abortion” is a single word with a broad medical meaning. What I know  now, is that “abortion” is not what I was led to believe through my church or moral instruction on the topic. Pew Research provides the following information: “The CDC broadly divides abortions into two categories: surgical abortions and medication abortions, which involve pills. Since the Food and Drug Administration first approved abortion pills in 2000, their use has increased over time as a share of abortions nationally, according to both the CDC and Guttmacher.The majority of abortions in the U.S. now involve pills, according to both the CDC and Guttmacher. The CDC says 56% of U.S. abortions in 2021 involved pills, up from 53% in 2020 and 44% in 2019. Its figures for 2021 include the District of Columbia and 44 states that provided this data; its figures for 2020 include D.C. and 44 states (though not all of the same states as in 2021), and its figures for 2019 include D.C. and 45 states.”That same research reveals that roughly 99% of all abortion procedures, of any kind, occur prior to the third trimester. In fact, there are only a handful of states where such a procedure could even be obtained and most places where abortion is legal (which for now does NOT include MIssouri) have specific viability language. In addition, the allegations of “post birth” abortion is, to put it politely, utter nonsense.It is a fiction that is sensationalized and sold because there is simply no one in favor of murdering an infant. It's an abhorrent lie meant to inflame the passions of the person hearing it and as a result the word “abortion” is used to mean something that it simply isn't. It's a rhetorical trick, an illusion, designed to mislead you.MISSOURI'S LANGUAGEThe actual language proposed in Missouri specifically allows for regulation after “Fetal Viability” as well, so claims that MO3 will create some wild scenario where women who are 9 months pregnant are going to suddenly be lining up to have “late term” abortions is not only ridiculous and statistically false, it's a flat out lie based on the actual language, seen here directly from the ballot language itself: WORST CASES ARE HARD TO DISCUSSI will close with this unfortunate reality. There are women, girls, mothers and sisters and daughters, who are or will be in residential care. There are real stories of rape of women in care facilities. I am the father of a daughter who cannot speak without assistance, who cannot fight off a would-be attacker, but who could be a victim of just such an attack. Is it likely? No, it isn't. But it is far more real in terms of risk than the dark fantasy of infanticide peddled by anti- abortion groups. I'm voting YES on MO3 for basic freedom, for the protection of my own daughters, for my wife's access to her healthcare, and for every other person in MIssouri who might need a medical procedure that I'm not qualified to fully understand. I'm voting YES on MO3 because when it comes to medical decisions and reproductive care the only people with input should be those in the exam room. I'm voting YES on MO3 because legality and morality are not the same things and because it's not my place to decide what is right or wrong for another person's life. I'm voting YES on MO3 because I trust women to make their own decisions. I'm voting YES on MO3 because the arguments being made are false. Finally, I'm voting YES on MO3 because I'm choosing to mind my own damn business. You can too, and it's so easy to do. All you do is use the marker to fill in the bubble next to “Yes” on the ballot.”  @TheHeartlandPOD on Twitter and ThreadsCo-HostsAdam Sommer @Adam_Sommer85 (Twitter) @adam_sommer85 (Threads)Rachel Parker @msraitchetp (Threads) Sean Diller (no social)The Heartland Collective - Sign Up Today!JOIN PATREON FOR MORE - AND JOIN OUR SOCIAL NETWORK!“Change The Conversation”Outro Song: “The World Is On Fire” by American Aquarium http://www.americanaquarium.com/

OPINIONS, MORALITY, AND MEDICAL REALITY: WHY I'M A VOTING “YES” ON MISSOURI AMENDMENT 3Reader warning: This piece includes language regarding abortion, and sexual assault.As a man I am uniquely unqualified to talk about Women's reproductive health. Along with being a man, I am not a doctor and have very little formal education regarding human reproduction. In fact, in high school I was able to choose between biology and physical science (physics light) and I took physical science. Instead of human anatomy I took an astronomy class. You want to know about planetary movement via ellipse? I've got you covered. But when it comes to the science behind female reproductive matters, I am - to quote Missouri Congressman Jason Smith “not an expert” on the topic. Being not an expert on the topic, however, doesn't stop plenty of folks, men and women alike, from taking strong stances on the topic of abortion. In Missouri, where I live with my wife (who is not a medical professional either but is a mother of 3 and seems to know a bit more about her own health needs than I do) we have Amendment 3 on the November ballot. Amendment 3 (MO3) asks voters in Missouri whether or not we should amend our State Constitution to allow for reproductive care to be legal, with regulation, in the State. You can read the actual text on the Secretary of State's website. THE BASIC ARGUMENTS AGAINSTFolks arguing against MO3 have taken two main paths. First, the most common and predictable, is the purely moral argument. That abortion is wrong, period. This is typically through a religious stance. Second, is that the language of the proposed amendment allows for various other medical procedures including gender affirming care, and that somehow children will be given secret transition surgery without parental consent. Most far-fetched is that somehow these secret surgeries will be happening at school. The second argument, the one about the broad language and secret surgeries, is flat out ridiculous. It is, at best, ill-informed and at worst an intentionally misleading lie. It's so clearly incorrect that I have nothing more to say on it other than to say this: Anyone making that argument is verifiably and demonstrably wrong. The first, the moral argument, reveals an issue that is glossed over. It is not an actual argument about abortion, what it is, what it means, or when it occurs, but rather a desire to have state law mirror religious belief. The most obvious and simple retort here is that our system is intentionally designed to avoid just that. Passing laws to enact religious doctrine is inherently unconstitutional, and it has been. More importantly, the moral argument is often centered around the concept that “abortion” means killing - and ignores the reality of what “abortion” actually includes. PERSONAL EDUCATION POST DOBBS DECISION Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in the Dobb's case, overturning the Roe case and returning the question of abortion's legality to the States, I would have told you that while I supported a woman's right to choose, I thought all abortion was a tragedy. I was a fairly standard “pro-choice, but” kind of voter in that way, and it is a position that a lot of folks shared. After Dobbs, however, I learned. I educated myself on the medical procedures that fall into “abortion” and I listened to the folks who could best educate me on the topic. I listened to doctors. I listened to WOMEN. Before Dobbs I couldn't have told what a “D&C” or “D&E” procedure was, or why they were used, or when they were needed. Now, I know. You can read the actual stats on abortion in the United States including the data from the CDC which shows when in the gestational stage most abortive procedures take place.  What I learned left me with two conclusions: I knew even less than I thought about abortion. I shouldn't be making the decision about these medical issues.I mentioned above I'm a father to three, yet even after experiencing the births of my own children I was still woefully out of touch with reality. CHOICE ALLOWS HEALTH CAREWhat I know, now, is that “abortion” is a single word with a broad medical meaning. What I know  now, is that “abortion” is not what I was led to believe through my church or moral instruction on the topic. Pew Research provides the following information: “The CDC broadly divides abortions into two categories: surgical abortions and medication abortions, which involve pills. Since the Food and Drug Administration first approved abortion pills in 2000, their use has increased over time as a share of abortions nationally, according to both the CDC and Guttmacher.The majority of abortions in the U.S. now involve pills, according to both the CDC and Guttmacher. The CDC says 56% of U.S. abortions in 2021 involved pills, up from 53% in 2020 and 44% in 2019. Its figures for 2021 include the District of Columbia and 44 states that provided this data; its figures for 2020 include D.C. and 44 states (though not all of the same states as in 2021), and its figures for 2019 include D.C. and 45 states.”That same research reveals that roughly 99% of all abortion procedures, of any kind, occur prior to the third trimester. In fact, there are only a handful of states where such a procedure could even be obtained and most places where abortion is legal (which for now does NOT include MIssouri) have specific viability language. In addition, the allegations of “post birth” abortion is, to put it politely, utter nonsense.It is a fiction that is sensationalized and sold because there is simply no one in favor of murdering an infant. It's an abhorrent lie meant to inflame the passions of the person hearing it and as a result the word “abortion” is used to mean something that it simply isn't. It's a rhetorical trick, an illusion, designed to mislead you.MISSOURI'S LANGUAGEThe actual language proposed in Missouri specifically allows for regulation after “Fetal Viability” as well, so claims that MO3 will create some wild scenario where women who are 9 months pregnant are going to suddenly be lining up to have “late term” abortions is not only ridiculous and statistically false, it's a flat out lie based on the actual language, seen here directly from the ballot language itself: WORST CASES ARE HARD TO DISCUSSI will close with this unfortunate reality. There are women, girls, mothers and sisters and daughters, who are or will be in residential care. There are real stories of rape of women in care facilities. I am the father of a daughter who cannot speak without assistance, who cannot fight off a would-be attacker, but who could be a victim of just such an attack. Is it likely? No, it isn't. But it is far more real in terms of risk than the dark fantasy of infanticide peddled by anti- abortion groups. I'm voting YES on MO3 for basic freedom, for the protection of my own daughters, for my wife's access to her healthcare, and for every other person in MIssouri who might need a medical procedure that I'm not qualified to fully understand. I'm voting YES on MO3 because when it comes to medical decisions and reproductive care the only people with input should be those in the exam room. I'm voting YES on MO3 because legality and morality are not the same things and because it's not my place to decide what is right or wrong for another person's life. I'm voting YES on MO3 because I trust women to make their own decisions. I'm voting YES on MO3 because the arguments being made are false. Finally, I'm voting YES on MO3 because I'm choosing to mind my own damn business. You can too, and it's so easy to do. All you do is use the marker to fill in the bubble next to “Yes” on the ballot.”  @TheHeartlandPOD on Twitter and ThreadsCo-HostsAdam Sommer @Adam_Sommer85 (Twitter) @adam_sommer85 (Threads)Rachel Parker @msraitchetp (Threads) Sean Diller (no social)The Heartland Collective - Sign Up Today!JOIN PATREON FOR MORE - AND JOIN OUR SOCIAL NETWORK!“Change The Conversation”Outro Song: “The World Is On Fire” by American Aquarium http://www.americanaquarium.com/

Proposition One - Will New Yorkers add new rights to the State Constitution? - 10/08/24 Empire State legislators have asked New York's voters to amend the State Constitution. With a title of the "Equal Rights Amendment" it is getting broad support as a means to lock in abortion as a protected activity. However many pro-family advocates across the political spectrum are now expressing concern about how Proposal One's wording could open the door to transgender procedures with no parental notification, endangers women's sports, and could add voting rights for non-citizens. Western New York State Senator George Borrello also tells us that, if this is approved by a majority this fall, it will create big business for attorneys who will file many more lawsuits related to the new Constitutional protections. Borrello is among the organizers for a public information forum on Prop One. That public meeting was Tuesday (October 8) in Corning, New York. He spoke Wednesday morning about the issues with Bob Price of Family Life News.   For further information: The official text of this proposed Constitutional Amendment: NY Board of Elections website The New York Times article to which the senator refers Other analysis of the implications of this "Equal Rights Amendment":  Olean Times Herald,  WSJ,  NYCLU,  NYFA         #newsmaker interview

On today's show, we hear about the Arkansas Constitution's road trip, which includes a stop at the Shiloh Museum of Ozark History. We learn more about the physical copy of the Constitution as it prepares for its 150 anniversary. Plus, training librarians to facilitate telehealth appointments. Also, writer Padma Viswanathan talks her new novel.

Is the president above the law? Is the Electoral College democratic? In this episode, historian Jonathan Gienapp critiques the mainstream use of originalism, arguing that it often neglects crucial historical context, overlooking the complexities of original public understanding. The conversation dives into recent court cases, highlighting tensions between historical interpretation and contemporary judicial practices. This is clearly illustrated in Gienapp's discussion of the Electoral College—a uniquely American invention. He explains the historical roots of the Electoral College, the Framers' intentions, and the criticisms it faces today. He also sheds light on how the Electoral College emerged as a compromise among less desirable options and the historical context surrounding its establishment, including issues of accountability and regional interests. The conversation also touches on ongoing debates about potential reforms, public sentiment toward a national popular vote, and the challenges of amending the Constitution in today's contentious political landscape. Join us for an enlightening discussion that bridges history with contemporary constitutional debates.Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:Jonathan Gienapp >>> Stanford Law School Page(00:00:00) Chapter 1: Introduction and the Flaws of OriginalismHosts Pam Karlan and Rich Ford discuss the key issues with modern originalism, focusing on how originalists often overlook the historical context necessary to truly capture the Constitution's original meaning with historian Jonathan Gienapp. Gienapp critiques the flexibility of originalist interpretations, especially when applied to complex constitutional concepts like freedom of speech and executive power.(00:04:33) Chapter 2: Public Meaning vs. Original IntentRich Ford explores the tension between public meaning and original intent in originalist theory. Gienapp explains how, despite attempts to distinguish them, the two often overlap in practice. The discussion highlights the inconsistency in how originalists pick and choose historical evidence to support their interpretations.(00:07:47) Chapter 3: Judicial Interpretation in Practice: Rahimi and Trump CasesPam Karlan brings up recent court cases, including United States v. Rahimi and Trump v. United States, where originalist judges either struggled with historical evidence or avoided it altogether. Gienapp notes the irony of originalists relying on minimal historical analysis when it contradicts their desired outcomes.(00:12:04) Chapter 4: The Framers' Vision of the PresidencyJonathan Gienapp discusses the historical foundations of the American presidency, emphasizing the founding generation's rejection of monarchy and the importance of presidential accountability. He highlights the debate at the Constitutional Convention regarding the balance between a strong executive and ensuring that executive power remains accountable to the people.(00:17:06) Chapter 5: Originalism and Constitutional InterpretationJonathan Gienapp delves into the complexities of originalism as a judicial philosophy. He explains the tension between the rhetoric of originalism and its inconsistent application in Supreme Court decisions. He argues for either a more serious commitment to originalism or a recognition of constitutional pluralism, where history is used alongside other interpretative methods.(00:21:39) Chapter 6: The Origins and Challenges of the Electoral CollegeExploration of the creation of the Electoral College, discussing how it emerged not as a perfect solution but as a compromise to address competing concerns about legislative selection, popular votes, and regional interests. Gienapp examines past and present efforts to reform the Electoral College and explains why it persists despite criticism.

Send us a textWhat can early American state constitutions teach us about the intricate relationship between faith and governance? Join me, Jesse Cope, on the American Soul Podcast as we uncover the profound Christian references within the Constitution of New York from 1777, and how the founding generation's beliefs in natural laws and divine principles influenced the nation's framework. We begin our journey with heartfelt gratitude to our listeners, an update on the homestead, and a timeless lesson from my mother about seizing opportunities when they arise. With a prayer for educators and families, we emphasize the importance of daily Bible reading, prayer, and expressing love to our spouses, setting the stage for our deep dive into early American state constitutions.Explore the historical context of religious requirements for public office in North Carolina's 1776 constitution, where we discuss the critical role of faith-based qualifications in governance and the intent behind prohibiting dual office-holding to avoid conflicts of interest. Discover the common misconception about the separation of church and state, and how North Carolina mandated that officeholders acknowledge God and the Protestant religion to ensure the state's freedom and safety. We also examine the Constitution of New Hampshire from 1776, noting its unique lack of religious emphasis and reflecting on the significant autonomy originally granted to the states. As we conclude, I extend my blessings to you and your families, eagerly looking forward to our future discussions on the foundational principles that shaped our nation.Support the Show.The American Soul Podcasthttps://www.buzzsprout.com/1791934/subscribe

High school French teacher Peter Vlaming was fired from his job in West Point, Virginia, for declining to refer to a female student using male pronouns. Vlaming filed suit in state court, alleging that the school board had violated his rights to the free exercise of religion and free speech under the Virginia Constitution. Late last year, the Virginia Supreme Court held that the Virginia Constitution provides more robust protections for religious freedom than the federal Free Exercise Clause as interpreted in Employment Division v. Smith. As the Court wrote, “the federal Smith doctrine is not and never has been the law in Virginia, and its shelf life in the federal courts remains uncertain.” In its place, the Virginia Supreme Court adopted a history-and-tradition approach that asks whether the religious claimant has committed or is seeking to commit “overt acts against peace and good order,” and whether the government’s interest in negating that threat could be satisfied by “less restrictive means” than denying a religious exemption. This opinion raises a host of interesting questions: Will the U.S. Supreme Court’s history-and-tradition test for Second Amendment challenges be expanded to apply to other constitutional rights? Will other state courts follow the Virginia Supreme Court’s lead in applying it to their own state constitutions? Did the Virginia Supreme Court get its history right? Could its historical analysis serve as the basis for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit Smith? What rights should public schoolteachers have in the classroom? Should courts resolve conflicts between the alleged free-exercise and free-speech rights of teachers and the alleged rights of students to engage in their own forms of self-expression? Finally, what role, if any, does Title IX play in the analysis? This panel will address these and other questions raised by this important decision.Featuring:Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Kate Carté, Professor of History, Southern Methodist UniversityChris Schandevel, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom's Appellate Advocacy TeamAdam Unikowsky, Partner, Jenner & Block LLC(Moderator) Eric Treene, Senior Counsel, Storzer and Associates; Adjunct Professor at the Catholic University of America Law School

In Lindenberg v. Jackson National Life Ins. Co., 912 F.3d 348 (2018), the Sixth Circuit declared unconstitutional Tennessee’s law capping punitive damages based on the Tennessee constitution. But in the wake of Lindenberg, Tennessee state courts continue to reduce punitive damage awards in reliance on the statutory cap because the Tennessee Supreme Court has not directly addressed the law’s constitutionality. And in a case on a different statutory damages cap, the Tennessee Supreme Court indicated it likely would have disagreed with the Sixth Circuit. McClay v. Airport Mgmt Svcs, 596 S.W.3d 686, 693 n.6 (Tenn. 2020)Federal court certification of state law questions to state high courts is a thorny issue with competing concerns. All states but North Carolina permit certification, but the federal courts control which questions presented in the case it certifies for resolution. State courts are free to decline to answer the questions certified and to do so after a period of months, as happened in Lindenberg. Some experts point out that even when the state court chooses to answer the questions certified, the process can be time consuming and inefficient.Our panel will explore the issues of federalism, efficiency, and prudence presented when considering the question certification process between federal and state courts.Featuring:Hon. Rachel Wainer Apter, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of New JerseyHon. Benjamin Beaton, United States District Court for the Western District of KentuckyHon. Sarah Keeton Campbell, Justice, Supreme Court of TennesseeModerator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One---To register, click the link above.

Thursday, July 4th, 2024Today, Arizona Dems turn in a record number of signatures to put abortion access on the ballot in November; the leader of the RNC platform committee entertained the idea of prosecuting women who seek abortion care; the man behind project 2025 calls for blood unless we let them take over, and President Biden says he's staying in the race; plus AG and Dana deliver your good news.Promo Codes:For up to 30% off all mattress orders AND two free pillows for our listeners! Go to https://www.helixsleep.com/dailybeans.Netroots Nation is in Baltimore, July 11-13. Go to netrootsnation.org and type NN24Partner in the promo box for 10% off your ticket.Our Guest: Hudson Munozhttps://www.gunsdownamerica.org/guns-down-america-appoints-new-executive-directorGuns Down Americahttps://www.gunsdownamerica.orgTickets and LIVE show dates https://allisongill.comSubscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.com AFL-CIO Stands in Strong Solidarity With Biden-Harris Ticket (aficionado.org)Abortion measures could be on Arizona and Nebraska ballots after organizers submit signatures (AP News)Top leader of RNC Platform Committee entertained idea of imprisoning women who get abortions, opposes exceptions (CNN)Biden vows to keep running as signs point to rapidly eroding support for him on Capitol Hill (AP News)Man Behind Project 2025 Just Said the Quiet Part Out Loud (The Daily Beast) Subscribe to Lawyers, Guns, And MoneyAd-free premium feed: https://lawyersgunsandmoney.supercast.comSubscribe for free everywhere else:https://lawyersgunsandmoney.simplecast.com/episodes/1-miami-1985Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://post.news/@/MuellerSheWrote?utm_source=TwitterAG&utm_medium=creator_organic&utm_campaign=muellershewrote&utm_content=FollowMehttps://muellershewrote.substack.comhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://www.threads.net/@muellershewrotehttps://www.tiktok.com/@muellershewrotehttps://instagram.com/muellershewroteDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyhttps://www.instagram.com/dgcomedyhttps://www.facebook.com/dgcomedyhttps://danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/From The Good NewsHeads up – The Seattle show is sold out. If you are in a position of having tickets to empty seats please send us a message at hello@muellershewrote.com – put “Seattle Tickets” in the subject line – and we'll see if we can connect you with people who would like to go, but were unable to get tickets.The Biden-Harris Administration's Student Debt Relief Plan Explained (studentaid.gov)Houston students to brave dark, cold, and unpredictable waters while swimming the Catalina Channel (click2houston.com)Indivisible Bucks County (Twitter) Live Show Ticket Links:https://allisongill.com (for all tickets and show dates)Wednesday July 10th – Portland OR – Polaris Hall(with Dana!) - SOLD OUTThursday July 11th – Seattle WA – The Triple Door(with Dana!) - SOLD OUTThursday July 25th Milwaukee, WI https://tinyurl.com/Beans-MKESunday July 28th Nashville, TN - with Phil Williams https://tinyurl.com/Beans-TennWednesday July 31st St. Louis, MO https://tinyurl.com/Beans-STLFriday August 16th Washington, DC - with Andy McCabe, Pete Strzok, Glenn Kirschner https://tinyurl.com/Beans-in-DCSaturday August 24 San Francisco, CA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-SF Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

Dr. Michael New of the Charlotte Lozier Institute Michael New's Articles at National Review The Charlotte Lozier Institute The post 1652. Recent Surveys on Abortion Amendments to State Constitutions – Dr. Michael New, 6/13/24 first appeared on Issues, Etc..

The Israel lobby AIPAC is spending millions to defeat Representative Jamaal Bowman in the New York state Democratic primary. That's because he called for a permanent ceasefire back in October, and describes what's happening in Gaza now as “an ongoing genocide.” Alan Minsky has our analysis fo the campaign--he's Executive Director of Progressive Democrats of America.Also: at a time when Republicans have a lock on the Supreme Court, state constitutions can provide a basis not only for protecting abortion rights, but for criminal justice reform,voting rights protection, the right to public education and even, in some states, the right to breathe clean air. Eyal Press reports.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

The Israel lobby AIPAC is spending millions to defeat Representative Jamaal Bowman in the New York state Democratic primary. That's because he called for a permanent ceasefire back in October, and describes what's happening in Gaza now as “an ongoing genocide.” Alan Minsky has our analysis fo the campaign--he's Executive Director of Progressive Democrats of America.Also: at a time when Republicans have a lock on the Supreme Court, state constitutions can provide a basis not only for protecting abortion rights, but for criminal justice reform,voting rights protection, the right to public education and even, in some states, the right to breathe clean air. Eyal Press reports.

As we approach our 200th episode we talk with Gordon Wood on his first book, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776 - 1787 which ranks among the most important books ever written about the American Revolutionary period and the formation of the American Republic.  Join us as to hear about what the founders got right, what they got wrong, and how it continues to influence and evolve in America today.Tell us what you think! Send us a text message!

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Just in time to break down two egregious Ohio lawsuits that are exposing Planned Parenthood and the ACLU's hand against women and children, CCV President Aaron Baer, Policy Director David Mahan, and Communications Director Mike Andrews are back together for Volume 10 of The Narrative podcast! Tune in to learn about the anti-woman lawsuit that would encourage coercion, reduce informed consent, and increase health risks; and the anti-child lawsuit that is making far-fetched claims in the effort to sterilize children. The men also publicly reveal for the first time ever some of the data from Center for Christian Virtue's exit polling following the November 2023 election that saw Ohioans enshrine abortion up to birth in the State Constitution. Find out what CCV's new report "Vital Signs" reveals about the health of the Body of Christ! Want more? Listen to Bill Maher's comments on abortion: https://youtu.be/Hp4WqEadu3M Check out The Narrative podcast episode on the WPATH Files: https://www.ccv.org/news/the-narrative-podcast-wpaths-gender-medicine-scandal-with-dr-carrie-mendoza Read the Free Press article by Uri Berliner: https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust Learn about the Idaho Supreme Court case: https://adfmedia.org/case/labrador-v-poe Read Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost's recent brief in the HB68 lawsuit: https://fcdcfcjs.co.franklin.oh.us/CaseInformationOnline/imageLinkProcessor.pdf?coords=ERz62lkX5B9MVeOtDwuNK7GnRyxXLFQTI0FNY2nWYvffkAd%2BnvI1lXL3fKbgYEtcs3zMQcZA%2Bh4QJL5m6Gg18%2F%2F5c9qN6xlU%2FjiJ0it7Jn%2BWbZcLB6rF36U74vxGSDwNHSxhkdC%2Ffe6lZOIpMsRpvI8TJ6bjcdlH2elXOzj%2BWCA%3D Join Riley Gaines and Chloe Cole at CCV's Cincinnati Gala on Tuesday, May 7: CCV.org/CincinnatiGala

In the early republic, debates over constitutional rights were centered on state bills of rights. But, over time the state charters were gradually co-opted by federal judges and courts.Original Article: Federal Judges Co-Opted America's State Constitutions

In the early republic, debates over constitutional rights were centered on state bills of rights. But, over time the state charters were gradually co-opted by federal judges and courts. Narrated by Millian Quinteros.

In a landmark ruling out of the state of Washington, a judge decided that the prohibition on magazines capable of holding in excess of 10 rounds contradicts the constitution. However, while the decision was a significant victory for defenders of the Second Amendment, the celebration was short-lived. The Washington Supreme Court promptly responded with an emergency appeal that temporarily halted the judge's decision, ensuring the controversial ban remains in place for now. The unfolding drama began on a seemingly ordinary Monday when Cowlitz County Superior Court Judge, Gary Bashor, made an announcement that sent ripples through the national conversation on gun control. The legal challenge had been brought by a local gun shop within the state. They had taken the bold step to sue the governing body of their state after an arguably contentious law was passed in 2022 prohibiting possession of magazines that carry more than a designated 10 rounds. During the hearing, Judge Bashor swept aside the arguments put forth by the state. These arguments maintained that these high-capacity magazines were not a requisite for self-defense, and that the legislative changes were grounded in logic and safety. Bashor's 55-page decision thoroughly refuted these claims. Deep within his comprehensive written judgment, Bashor elucidated on a key finding. The larger capacity magazines, referred to as LCMS in legal and political circles, came under the category of 'arms' according to the State Constitution. This fact was crucial since it meant these items were indeed used and owned by the general public for lawful motives. Judge Gary Bashor, who took up the mantle of judge in this rural belt back in 2011, did not restrict his rationale to the current state constitution. In his landmark ruling, Bashor delved deeper and analysed the intent of the Founding Fathers themselves when it came to firearms. Bashor keenly stated, 'The Founding Fathers demonstrated no desire to restrict gun rights. While they couldn't possibly know about the specific weaponry available in today's world, they implicitly acknowledged and anticipated technological progress in armament.' His words echoed the sentiments of those who ardently uphold the Second Amendment. However, things took a distinct turn after Bashor's ruling. Supreme Court Commissioner Michael Johnston of Washington State made a decisive move. Aligning with Ferguson, he chose to uphold the controversial law while the appeal proceedings continued. This clampdown on magazine size is just one piece of a larger puzzle. Over the past several years, other stringent gun control measures have been enacted by Washington's Democratic-controlled legislature in alignment with the state's Democratic Governor Jay Inslee. These measures encompass prohibitions with far-reaching effects, including a ban on the sale of AR-15s along with rifles bearing similar technological specifications. Those supportive of such sweeping changes argue that these rules are necessary for public safety, while detractors feel they infringe upon the Second Amendment rights. Through all this, the debate around gun control in Washington State and across America writ large shines a light on the intricate yet vitally important nature of balancing constitutional rights and personal safety. What emerges is a substantial challenge to reconcile these two deeply ingrained values in today's increasingly concerned society. It's evident that the recent ruling from Judge Bashor, despite drawing ire from some sections and applause from others, represents a critical moment in this broader discussion. Naturally, the court's decisions have the potential to serve as a precedent and significantly sway the ongoing narrative around gun control. At present, all eyes remain on the Washington State Supreme Court as it deliberates the appeal. Their decision will likely have a far-reaching impact, coloring the nation's discourse and legislation on gun control for years to come. Yet, through it all, we are reminded of the value and meaning of our Constitution and the continuous task of understanding and adapting it to our evolving society. This case represents yet another critical juncture in the American narrative as we grapple with the difficult task of maintaining a balance between personal freedoms and social responsibilities in the modern age. In conclusion, irrespective of one's viewpoint on the matter, it's essential to recognize that issues such as the magazine restriction debate form the fiber of our democratic process. They challenge us, they confront us, and they ultimately help us shape the future contours of our nation, contributing towards an evolving definition of 'We the People' in the 21st century. Real News Now Website Connect with Real News Now on Social Media Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RealNewsNowApp/ X Twitter: https://twitter.com/realnewsapp Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/realnews/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@realnewsnowapp Threads: https://www.threads.net/@realnews/ Tumblr: https://www.tumblr.com/realnewsnow Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@RealNews YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/@realnewsnowapp End Wokeness: https://endthewokeness.com #realnewsnow   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In a bold quest to extend the democratic process, the New York City Council is seeking the support of New York's supreme judicial institution to overturn two recent judgments. If successful, this could potentially pave the way for non-citizens to participate in local elections. The proposed legislation is considered contentious by some, as it could potentially enable up to 800,000 legal non-citizens who possess green cards to take part in the electoral process. The stance of the City Council is a strong belief in inclusivity, stating that enabling non-citizens to vote could lead to a higher degree of civic involvement. This, in their view, will only fortify the City of New York by kindling increased political participation. Given the significance of this case, the council has recently appealed against a decision from the Second Department, asking for a reevaluation from the state's utmost legal authority on the law's harmony with the State Constitution, Election Law, and the Municipal Home Rule Law. The progressive initiative has been threading its way through the court's hands ever since it was adopted by the City Council in 2021. This daring legislation was signed into law by then-mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat. However, in a twist of legal events, an appeals court declared the law unconstitutional just last month. Also solidifying the challenging legal terrain for this legislation, a decision from 2022 by a lower court has been upheld, which had initially deemed the law unconstitutional. This ruling was fought against by the incumbent mayor, Eric Adams, also a Democrat, and the City Council. At the outset of 2022, Adams expressed his initial reservations about the potential implications of the bill. However, he stated that subsequent discussions with his colleagues allayed his concerns. The ruling from the appeals court last month shed light on how the ability to vote for non-citizens could potentially mean allowing them to run for mayoral offices. Michael Tannousis, an Assemblyman from the Republican Party who represents Staten Island, was one of the individuals who challenged the law in court. Despite the seemingly democratic intentions, there are voices of concern and skepticism not all of which are unfounded. Arguably, the Pandora's box that this legislation could open up does not include illegal immigrants gaining voting rights. However, the skyrocketing arrivals of migrants remains a major hurdle that the city continues to stumble upon. Across spring of 2022, reports indicate an influx of more than 183,000 migrants into the heart of the city. This overwhelming surge of migrants has been testing the limits of the city's shelter infrastructure, leading to budgetary restrictions and adjustments. There is an understanding among some that addressing the needs of these newcomers involves walking a tightrope where resources must be balanced to ensure support for all residents, including taxpaying non-citizens. Amidst these challenging circumstances, the City Council fervently defends the notion that legal non-citizens, such as green card holders, should have the right to voice their political choices since they are contributing through tax payments. They argue that their status as taxpayers gives them a stake in the political decision-making that affects their day-to-day lives. The City Council believes that since these legal non-citizens contribute to the economy through taxes, they should be engaged in the democratic avenues of decision-making. After all, these decisions potentially affect these taxpayers directly and in significant ways. However, there are those who hold different opinions on the legal boundaries of the council's authority. Their argument is that the council has overstepped its jurisdiction in making such a decision. This perspective rests on the traditional understanding of the limitations and rights of civic bodies. Despite the council's declaration of the proposal's consistency with state laws and the constitution, the opposition suggests a careful reading of established legal frameworks. Some perceive the legislative push as a drift from the traditional interpretation of the law. While these debates continue to stir up discussions on the floors of institutional halls and courtrooms, the city at large waits on the ruling of New York's highest court. It's a test of the legal system and the city council's understanding of their jurisdiction, authority, and the constitution. This saga represents a significant moment in the city's history, where the essence of democratic engagement is being put to the test. On the one hand, there is a call for inclusivity and extension of democratic participation to taxpaying legal non-citizens. On the other hand, some perceive it as a potential overreach of authority that may have unforeseeable consequences. This unfolding legal drama reinforces the continually dynamic nature of democracy and governance. As arguments are made for and against the proposed law, they underline the checks and balances in place to ensure legal statutes best reflect the needs, rights, and responsibilities of the residents they govern. As the city navigates these complexities, citizens, legal immigrants, and civic leaders keenly await a decision from the state's highest court, marking a pivotal moment in New York's legislative history. The impacts of which will not only reshape local governance but may also send a powerful message to municipalities far beyond the city's borders. Real News Now Website Connect with Real News Now on Social Media Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RealNewsNowApp/ X Twitter: https://twitter.com/realnewsapp Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/realnews/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@realnewsnowapp Threads: https://www.threads.net/@realnews/ Tumblr: https://www.tumblr.com/realnewsnow Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@RealNews YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/@realnewsnowapp End Wokeness: https://endthewokeness.com #realnewsnow See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The amendment's sponsors want to fool the voters to completely deregulate abortion, including doing away with health and safety standards, parental and informed consent. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org. 

The hundred-year-old proposed Equal Rights Amendment has never been adopted on a Federal level, but New Yorkers have an opportunity this fall to amend the State Constitution with an expanded version of the ERA. Three members of the Women in the Law Section of the New York State Bar Association – Frettra DeSilva, Laura Sulem and Morghan Richardson, join host Rich Schoenstein to discuss why these fundamental rights still need to be codified. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Georgia State Secretary Brad Raffensperger breaks down new efforts in Georgia to codify in the State Constitution to only allow U.S. citizens to vote in state elections after 1600 non-citizens were found to have voted in the last election. Raffensperger calls for a constitutional amendment to the U.S. Constitution to guarantee voting rights to only U.S. citizens after recent push by Democrats. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Yesterday, a Harney County Circuit Court judge ruled that Measure 114 violates Oregon's state constitution. The law, which voters passed last year to regulate firearms, has yet to go into effect due to multiple court challenges. Measure 114 bans future purchases of magazines that can carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition. It also requires those wishing to buy a firearm to get a permit first. Permits will require applicants to complete a safety class and a federal background check. Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut ruled the law is legal under the U.S. Constitution. That decision has been appealed to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. OPB reporter Jonathan Levinson joins us with details about the latest ruling and what it means for the future of Measure 114.

Live coverage of election night returns, some of which may be out of date by the time you listen to this episode, but by this hour of the night voters had made some major decisions.

Many state constitutional provisions are worded similarly to provisions of the federal Constitution. At times, this has led some to simply assume as binding or highly persuasive the interpretations of the latter on the former. But to what degree should interpretations of the United States Constitution inform a particular state's interpretation of its own foundational […]

Dr. Michael New of the Charlotte Lozier Institute Mainstream media misleads over Ohio abortion polls New poll shows Issue 1 ballot proposition has slight lead in Ohio Michael New's Articles at National Review The Charlotte Lozier Institute The post 2192. Abortion and an Ohio Referendum Requiring a 60% Majority to Amend the State Constitution – Dr. Michael New, 8/7/23 first appeared on Issues, Etc..

It's Hump Day! Sam speaks with attorney Matthew Butterick about a lawsuit he's involved with representing artists against OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT. Then, he's joined by political reporter Cameron Joseph to discuss the upcoming referendum in Ohio, entitled Issue 1, regarding ballot measures in the state. First, Sam runs through updates on Donald Trump's various legal woes, WGA-Studio talks, Flint's new natal care plan, the Fed's continuing war on labor, SCOTUS record low public approval, and Russian bombing of Ukrainian grain stores, before parsing through the recent, massive indictment of Donald Trump of multiple charges of conspiracy and obstruction. Matthew Butterick then joins, diving right into his work with various acclaimed authors taking on the unauthorized use of their work across various AI engines, which, in fact, entirely rely on pre-existing and often-copyrighted works for their primary inputs, not to mention producing infringing derivative works with its outputs. After diving a little deeper into how this case centers on copyright infringement, and how it applies to other forms of AI (e.g. art and music), they wrap up by tackling the shape of the case as a class-action suit, and what the next steps are in this battle. Cameron Joseph then walks Sam through Ohio's various upcoming referendums, first looking to the referendum to enshrine abortion rights in the State Constitutions that is scheduled for November, and tackling the long organizing process that took it to get there, before touching on the legislature-expedited response by Gov DeWine's Secretary of State to launch an earlier referendum (scheduled for August) that makes it vastly more difficult to pass a constitutional referendum. After tackling the state of Ohio politics that led to these respective referenda, and why, the anti-referendum referendum seems poised to fail, they wrap up by looking to the ongoing political debacles in Wisconsin as liberals begin to take power and abuse the tools set up by the previous conservatives in their place. And in the Fun Half: Sam is joined by Sean Fitzgerald AKA Actual Justice Warrior as they debate all things crime, walking through the impact of the George Floyd protests and the COVID-19 Pandemic on retirement rates, police funding, and overall crime rates. Plus, your calls and IMs! Check out more details on the OpenAI lawsuit here: https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/9/23788741/sarah-silverman-openai-meta-chatgpt-llama-copyright-infringement-chatbots-artificial-intelligence-ai Check out Cameron's reporting on Issue 1 here: https://boltsmag.org/ohio-gop-sets-up-vote-to-weaken-direct-democracy/ Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: HoldOn Bags: To shop plant based bags and replace single use plastics all over your home, visit https://holdonbags.com/MAJORITY or enter MAJORITY at checkout to save 20% off your order. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattBinder @MattLech @BF1nn @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.com/ Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Thursday, May 18th, 2023    Today, in the Hot Notes: the National Archives responds to a Special Counsel subpoena in the Trump Mar-a-Lago documents case; another Trump lawyer abandons ship; North Carolina Republicans override the Democratic Governor's veto of its abortion ban; big wins for Democrats in mayoral elections; SCOTUS will NOT block Illinois' assault weapons ban; Rudy Giuliani is hit with another lawsuit; Ohio Republicans want to make it harder to amend the State Constitution; Senate Democrats urge Biden to invoke the 14th Amendment to bypass the Republican manufactured debt ceiling crisis; plus AG and Dana deliver your Good News.Our GuestBrandon Deroche: Founder and CEO of Propellerhttps://propeller.lahttps://www.instagram.com/propeller.lahttps://twitter.com/ProplrWant some sweet Daily Beans Merchhttps://shop.dailybeanspod.com/Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AG and Dana on Twitter:Dr. Allison Gill https://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedy Google Doc of current legislation threatening trans people and their families:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fTxHLjBa86GA7WCT-V6AbEMGRFPMJndnaVGoZZX4PMw/edit?usp=sharingHave some good news; a confession; or a correction?https://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:https://apple.co/3XNx7ckWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3UKzKt0

Something truly inspiring happened on Tuesday. 2 red states and 2 blues states voted to remove "slavery as punishment for a crime" from their state constitutions - something that should've happened over 100 years ago. Progress can be very slow sometimes. It's a credit to the amazing grassroots organizers on the ground that these things passed - and it's a sign that bi-partisan support exists for at least a few issues. However, something troubling was revealed in all of this. In those 4 states - millions of people voted to KEEP SLAVERY as punishment for a crime. They were out-voted, yes, but in Oregon alone, nearly 50% of all voters, over half a million of them, voted to keep slavery. Like....WTF? I am a student of history - and even I have to admit that I would not have guessed that so many Americans would choose to keep such an abhorrent thing enshrined in the law, but they damn sure did. Let's talk about how truly insightful this is. To listen to today's FULL EPISODE of The Breakdown go now to Apple Podcasts or Spotify and search for "The Breakdown with Shaun King." Subscribe there for FREE and listen to the whole podcast. If you are already on Apple Podcasts or Spotify, please subscribe, listen, share, leave reviews, and listen daily to the entire episode. The more of it you listen to, the better it is for us. Love and appreciate you all. Shaun