Podcasts about Supremacy Clause

Sarah Isgur and David French return for a bonus episode on the Minneapolis ICE shooting and explain the concept of Supremacy Clause immunity. The Agenda:—Corrections from Thursday's episode—How to analyze police shootings—Federalism and the Supremacy Clause—Federal officer removal—Broader impacts of police violence—Bowe v. United States—Church autonomy and employment law Advisory Opinions is a production of ⁠⁠The Dispatch⁠⁠, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—⁠⁠click here⁠⁠. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member ⁠⁠by clicking here⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Meet my friends, Clay Travis and Buck Sexton! If you love Verdict, the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show might also be in your audio wheelhouse. Politics, news analysis, and some pop culture and comedy thrown in too. Here’s a sample episode recapping four takeaways. Give the guys a listen and then follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Poor Choices and Chaos the fatal ICE-involved shooting in Minneapolis that has sparked nationwide controversy. Clay and Buck dissect the incident where a 37-year-old woman allegedly used her vehicle to obstruct federal immigration enforcement, resulting in her death. They emphasize video evidence showing the ICE officer acted in self-defense, countering claims from Mayor Jacob Frey and Governor Tim Walz, who labeled the shooting as excessive force and called for protests. The hosts argue this tragedy reflects a deeper problem within the Democratic Party’s anti-law enforcement rhetoric, which encourages dangerous confrontations with federal officers. VP Vance Calls Out the Left Live White House briefing featuring Vice President JD Vance and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who deliver a fiery defense of ICE and condemn the media for spreading “lies” about the incident. Vance asserts that the woman killed was part of a broader left-wing network aimed at obstructing immigration enforcement through doxxing, harassment, and even domestic terrorism tactics. He vows tougher federal action, including a new Assistant Attorney General role to prosecute those inciting violence against law enforcement. The briefing underscores the administration’s stance: enforcing immigration law is non-negotiable, and Democrats must stop rallying mobs against federal officers. Good News for MAHA Moms Guest Katie Zacharia joins to weigh in on the political fallout and broader implications. She highlights how sanctuary city policies and anti-ICE activism have fueled violence and fraud, citing California’s staggering $72 billion fraud scandal under Gavin Newsom and systemic failures in oversight. Katie calls for federal action, including suspending aid to jurisdictions violating the Supremacy Clause. The conversation shifts to California’s ongoing crises: wildfire recovery delays in Malibu and Pacific Palisades, where red tape and environmental regulations have stalled rebuilding efforts, leaving homeowners with plummeting property values. Katie also breaks down the proposed 5% billionaire wealth tax, warning it will accelerate the exodus of tech moguls and entrepreneurs from California while funding Medi-Cal programs strained by free healthcare for illegal immigrants. The hour also touches on RFK Jr.’s food pyramid overhaul and vaccine schedule changes, which have energized “Maha Moms” and even some liberal parents seeking reform in children’s health standards. Katie praises Trump for empowering RFK Jr. to challenge Big Pharma and promote healthier policies. Audience Talkbacks! Clay and Buck then pivot to lighter—but fiery—cultural debates, including regional cuisine hot takes and the “most overrated foods” in America. From Philly cheesesteaks and mint juleps to Puerto Rican Mofongo, the hosts don’t hold back, sparking laughs and listener engagement. They also revisit the nostalgia (and regret) of Jägermeister shots and Jägerbombs, contrasting them with underrated drinks like espresso martinis and sangria. The segment closes with talkbacks from listeners proposing which states or territories to “sell off,” adding humor to an otherwise intense news cycle. Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8 For the latest updates from Clay and Buck: https://www.clayandbuck.com/ Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton on Social Media: X - https://x.com/clayandbuck FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/ IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuckYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureCanada is having problems, they are following the green new scam, since Trump placed tariffs on Canada they are desperately trying to find trading partners.Trump shows how windmills kill birds, where are all the environmentalist. The EU is now pushing the CBDC, Trump’s economy will overshadow the rest of the world. The people of this country and others must see the criminal syndicate. Without seeing it they people would have never believed there was a criminal syndicate. Trump has the leverage, more is coming in 2026 and after the midterms Trump is going to unleash hell on the [DS]. Every crime, scam and violation of the Constitution will be exposed. Justice is coming. Economy Canada Trying to Find Trade Partners   Prime Minister Mark Carney reflects a particular reality of the problem their economy will face in 2026. It appears that Canadian government officials have finally recognized the Trump administration plans to dissolve the USMCA or what Canada calls CUSMA next year.  With that reality they have a big problem. Mexico has been working throughout the year to initiate economic policies in alignment with the United States.  However, structurally and politically this is an alignment that is impossible for Canada to do.  Like many contracting European countries, the economic policies of Canada are centered around their climate change agenda and green energy goals. In order for Canada to position their economy to be in alignment with the rest of North America (USA and Mexico), Carney would have to reverse years of legislated rules and regulations.  That is not going to happen, and Canada will always be at a disadvantage because of it.   With three quarters of their economic production tied to exports into the USA, and with the USMCA likely to be dissolved in favor of a bilateral trade agreement, Canada now has to find other markets for its products or lower all the trade barriers currently in place.  Prime Minister Mark Carney is trying to find alternative markets. Carney has looked toward Europe, but that is a closed trade bloc difficult to engage.  Carney has looked to southeast Asia, but that is an export driven market with limited capabilities to import costly western products.  Carney has looked to Japan and China, but on scale there's little to be gained. The question is, where can Canada send its products if not to the USA.   The brutally honest answer is nowhere.  There just isn't any other market, or combination of markets, who could replace the consumer base of the USA.  Canada is refusing to admit this reality and 2026 is going to be a harsh awakening for the Canadian people. Source: theconservativetreehouse.com  https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/2006140340068291046?s=20  – A 2025 Trump administration initiative aims to enforce $1 million fines per bald eagle death. (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Initial Jobless Claims End 2025 Near Record Lows The number of Americans filing for jobless claims for the first time plummeted last week to 199k – the lowest since the Thanksgiving week plunge and pretty much the lowest since Source: zerohedge.com https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2006392860006846799?s=20   to give them a shot at winning the midterms. https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/2006141249045291038?s=20   went to the liquor store again and tried to buy €100 worth of booze using the government-run digital currency on your iPhone, but your transaction gets rejected. Why? Because some Eurotrash EU bureaucrat decided that it’s unhealthy for you to buy so much liquor in such a short period of time, so you gets nothing. And you have no recourse, because you have become a serf whose life is at the discretion of the government. (As an aside, single-payer, government-funded healthcare will work in synchronicity with this, deciding what is best for you health-wise, because after all it’s not fair that other citizens must pay for your cirrhosis and bad judgment.) You have been warned, Europe. Political/Rights https://twitter.com/SecDuffy/status/2006203195165462545?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2006203195165462545%7Ctwgr%5Ebc322e2414802c704b50bc3c2955bae6d38269c1%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Frusty-weiss%2F2025%2F12%2F31%2Fgavin-newsom-tries-to-keep-illegals-on-the-road-a-little-longer-sean-duffy-immediately-cuts-him-off-n2197630 including cutting nearly $160 million in federal funding. https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2006168699502215508?s=20   The Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General can get involved in any DOJ matter they choose. It'a not a judge's job to get in the middle of those internal deliberations. That's a serious violation of the separation of powers. The American voters want violent illegals out of our country. Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr., a Nashville Obama judge, needs to get back in his lane. https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/2006046386190422054?s=20   on taxpayers, should not exploit welfare systems built by the native population, should speak the language, assimilate into the host society, respect its laws and norms, and should not receive special carve-outs like separate schools, parallel institutions or different rules. If even these minimal basics can no longer gain agreement, then there is no realistic path to fixing the system at all. DOGE Geopolitical https://twitter.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/2005795643126595959?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2005795643126595959%7Ctwgr%5E813dbbc99cf3dee762087820edf11e55af9622ca%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fjenniferoo%2F2025%2F12%2F30%2Fisis-in-texas-fbi-arrests-man-who-helped-fund-global-terrorist-organizations-n2197594   propaganda, sent cryptocurrency believing it would fund terrorist activity, and attempted to deliver materials intended for explosive devices. This is radical Islamic terrorism, and it was identified and stopped. Great work by our FBI teams @FBIDallas and great law enforcement partners. https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/2006157155666182556?s=20 https://twitter.com/AAbsaroka/status/2005723457997484150?s=20 https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2006176939854196897?s=20 https://twitter.com/Osint613/status/2005961263419883887?s=20 https://twitter.com/Osint613/status/2006095673423179995?s=20 https://twitter.com/USABehFarsi/status/2005874044319436965?s=20 Courage if it were a picture…This is a black-and-white aerial photo depicting a scene from protests in Iran (likely Tehran, based on the post’s hashtags). It shows a lone individual standing defiantly in the street, holding a long pole or banner horizontally, facing a group of about a dozen uniformed security forces or riot police on motorcycles. The image symbolizes courage in the context of human rights and anti-regime demonstrations. War/Peace https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/2006367551878844863?s=20 https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/2006295058492882982?s=20 https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/2006107978504524105?s=20 Zelenskyy Urges Trump to Visit Ukraine to Seal Russia Peace Deal Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy suggested that President Donald Trump should visit Ukraine to help close a peace deal with Russia. Zelenskyy specifically urged Trump to travel directly into Ukraine rather than entering through Poland, arguing that such a visit would demonstrate confidence that a ceasefire is within reach. Source: newsmax.com Medical/False Flags [DS] Agenda Biden Housing Scandal EXPLODES: HUD Report Reveals Over $5 Billion in Questionable Rental Aid, Including Payments to Dead People and Non-Citizens  A bombshell federal report has blown the lid off yet another massive Biden-era taxpayer scandal — this time inside the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. According to HUD's own Fiscal Year 2025 Agency Financial Report, more than $5 billion in rental assistance payments during the final year of the Biden regime were flagged as “questionable” or improper, exposing systemic failures, nonexistent oversight, and breathtaking incompetence at the federal level. Among the most jaw-dropping revelations: tens of thousands of payments were made to people who were already DEAD, and thousands more went to recipients who may not have even been eligible to receive taxpayer-funded housing assistance at all, the New York Post first reported. Buried in the HUD report is a stunning admission that federal systems failed to stop payments to 30,054 deceased individuals who were either still listed as active tenants or continued receiving rental assistance after their deaths. HUD officials acknowledged that only after cross-checking Treasury databases did they finally identify the scope of the problem — meaning for years, taxpayers were unknowingly footing the bill for people who no longer exist. “[Over] 30,000 dead people receiving housing isn't an accident — it was systematic fraud by Biden and the left. HUD will hold those who defrauded the American taxpayers accountable,” HUD Secretary Scott Turner wrote on X. According to the report:   “large concentration” of these questionable rental assistance funds flowed to Democrat-run strongholds, including: New York California Washington, D.C. Yet payments to deceased recipients were found in all 50 states, proving the rot was nationwide. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/2006068825272508679?s=20   to U.S. citizens. See 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a). There are no exceptions. Virginia violates it nonetheless. This court should put an end to this and permanently enjoin the enforcement of provisions of the Virginia Education Code that directly conflict with federal immigration law. Virginia Code §§ 23.1-502 and 23.505.1 explicitly classify illegal aliens as Virginia residents based on certain conditions. That classification makes illegal aliens eligible for reduced in-state tuition and state-administered financial assistance for public state colleges and universities while U.S. citizens from other states are ineligible for the reduced tuition and must pay higher out-of-state tuition rates. This is not only wrong but illegal. The challenged act's discriminatory treatment in favor of illegal aliens over U.S. citizens is squarely prohibited and preempted by federal law, which provides that “an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State . . . for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit . . . without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.” 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a) (emphasis added). The challenged act, as applied to illegal aliens, is thus unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. This Court should declare Virginia's law, as applied to illegal aliens, preempted and permanently enjoin its enforcement.” https://twitter.com/jonesville/status/2006273719602475506?s=20 https://twitter.com/thehoffather/status/2006240702213099815?s=20 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/2006327355166589007?s=20 https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/2006031707724546400?s=20 https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/2006038706893836481?s=20 https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/2006393802714439774?s=20 https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2006028437899862286?s=20  Patronage System here in America AND help them successfully assimilate. https://twitter.com/HHS_Jim/status/2006136004294664464?s=20  against the blatant fraud that appears to be rampant in Minnesota and across the country: 1. I have activated our defend the spend system for all ACF payments. Starting today, all ACF payments across America will require a justification and a receipt or photo evidence before we send money to a state. 2. Alex Adams and I have identified the individuals in @nickshirleyy ‘s excellent work. I have demanded from @GovTimWalz a comprehensive audit of these centers. This includes attendance records, licenses, complaints, investigations, and inspections. 3. We have launched a dedicated fraud-reporting hotline and email address at https://childcare.gov Whether you are a parent, provider, or member of the general public, we want to hear from you. We have turned off the money spigot and we are finding the fraud. @ACFHHS @HHSGov https://twitter.com/DOGE_HHS/status/2006145075315929532?s=20 will expand the system to support itemized receipts and photographic evidence, and make all data/receipts, where possible, available to the public. https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/2006120694497857977?s=20   move to another state that is honest. Make sense? https://twitter.com/C__Herridge/status/2006091693259636775?s=20  alleges the probes were “buried” because it potentially implicated Biden Administration allies •Between late May 2025 and December 2025 FBI had 16 open investigations into approximately 32 healthcare and homecare providers accused of fraud •Described as massive, joint investigations including HHS Inspector General, Medicaid Fraud Unit, IRS, Postal Inspectors, MN Attorney General, MN Department of Education,  and others Probes Now Expanding In Minnesota, Investigators Are Exploring Nation-wide Fraud Schemes •FBI Surging forensic accountants and data analytics teams to MN •Identifying fraud, then “following the money” to see the “entire web” •Investigating potential links to elected officials and terrorist financing •Potential criminal violations include public corruption, fraud, cyber fraud, healthcare fraud, homecare fraud, money-laundering Investigations Include Federal Nutrition Programs •These investigations including day care facilities are exploring links to alleged fraud involving federal nutrition programs •The Feeding our Future probe exposed an alleged $250m fraud scheme that obtained federal funding during COVID for nutrition programs but almost NO meals were provided to children •It's alleged the monies were laundered through multiple entities to enrich the participants •78 have been indicted, 57 convicted, two found not guilty among the group. Just a heads up that Patel and Trump's FBI have been all over the Minnesota fraud thing for months, 78 people have already been indicted, and Kash is openly admitting that this was buried by the Biden admin. That’s not how FBI & DOJ work. Criminal investigations take months. Trials take years. No one knows yet if Bondi & Kash will measure up. It’s too early to tell. WATCH: Karoline Leavitt Says Trump “Not Afraid to Use Denaturalization” Against Somali Fraudsters — Search Warrants Being Executed and “People Will be in Handcuffs” Denaturalization, also known as revocation of naturalization, is the legal process by which the U.S. government revokes the citizenship of a naturalized U.S. citizen, effectively stripping them of their citizenship status. This is not a process that private individuals can initiate or “do” themselves; it is exclusively handled by the federal government through judicial proceedings in U.S. district court. It cannot be done administratively by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) alone, following a court ruling in 2000 that limited such authority. Grounds for DenaturalizationUnder the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), denaturalization can only occur based on specific legal grounds. These include: The individual did not meet statutory requirements for naturalization at the time, such as lawful permanent residence, good moral character, required periods of residence or physical presence, or attachment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution (INA 316 and INA 340(a)).  The person hid key information or lied during the naturalization process (e.g., on Form N-400 or in interviews), and this directly led to approval. The fact must be “material,” meaning it could have influenced the decision (INA 340(a); see Supreme Court case Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988)). Within five years after naturalization, the person joins or affiliates with the Communist Party, a totalitarian party, or a terrorist organization, which is seen as evidence of lacking attachment to the U.S. Constitution (INA 313, INA 340(c), and INA 316(a)(3)). For those who naturalized based on U.S. military service, revocation can occur if they receive a discharge under other-than-honorable conditions before completing at least five years of honorable service (INA 328(f) and INA 329(c)). These grounds apply only to naturalized citizens (those who went through the full process, including application, interview, approval, and oath). U.S.-born citizens cannot be denaturalized under these provisions. The process is initiated and pursued by the government, not individuals. Here’s a high-level overview:  USCIS or other agencies (like the Department of Homeland Security) identify potential cases through audits, investigations, or tips about fraud or ineligibility. If there’s sufficient evidence, USCIS refers the case to the Department of Justice (DOJ) via the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Coordination happens through USCIS’s Office of the Chief Counsel. Judicial Proceedings: The DOJ files a complaint in federal district court under INA 340(a). The government must prove its case by “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence” that leaves no doubt. This is a high standard, and the process can take years. Criminal Revocation: If the case involves fraud, the DOJ may pursue criminal charges under 18 U.S.C. 1425 (unlawful procurement of citizenship). A conviction automatically revokes naturalization under INA 340(e), with proof required beyond a reasonable doubt. If the court rules in favor of revocation, it issues an order canceling the Certificate of Naturalization, which the person must surrender. Citizenship is revoked retroactively to the original naturalization date, reverting the individual to their prior immigration status (often lawful permanent resident, but this could lead to deportation proceedings under INA 237). USCIS updates records and notifies the Department of State. Denaturalization is rare—historically, around 22,000 cases occurred in the 20th century, often tied to wartime or political contexts—but it has been used more in recent years for fraud cases. https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2006013185355112758?s=20   fraud in a ginormous scale. Minnesota also lets one person vouch for 8 migrant voters’ eligibility to vote WITHOUT them having to prove it! Minnesota needs to clean house, NOW. https://twitter.com/StephenM/status/2006079447922008292?s=20 President Trump's Plan  https://twitter.com/FBIDDBongino/status/2006087308404314365?s=20   disrupted (210% increase) -2,000+ kilos of Fentanyl seized (up 31%), enough to kill 130 million Americans -Nihilistic Violent Extremism arrests up 490% -Over 6,000 child victims located (up 22%) -Historic drop in U.S. murder rate. Please read the post from Director Patel for more details on the progress that has been made, and is ongoing. https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2006091717074903047?s=20 https://twitter.com/Kimberlyrja8/status/2006193599365423586?s=20 LISTEN  (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

You're listening to American Ground Radio with Louis R. Avallone and Stephen Parr. This is the full show for December 30, 2025. 0:30 We kick off today’s show with a major legal showdown as the U.S. Department of Justice takes aim at the state of Virginia over immigration and college tuition policy. We break down how Virginia law allows students without legal immigration status to qualify for discounted tuition if they attended Virginia schools, even as law-abiding U.S. citizens from states like West Virginia or North Carolina are forced to pay more. These benefits directly violate federal law, which prohibits states from offering post-secondary education benefits to illegal immigrants unless those same benefits are provided to all U.S. citizens on identical terms. It's a test of the Supremacy Clause and federal authority over immigration, and these policies normalize lawlessness one benefit at a time. 10:00 Plus, we cover the Top 3 Things You Need to Know. US Attorney General Pam Bondi said this week that the DOJ has already indicted 98 people with fraud in Minnesota this year. A federal judge has ruled that the Trump Administration does not have the authority to block funding to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. President Trump will become the first non-Israeli to be awarded the Israel Prize. 12:30 Get Prodovite Plus from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 13:00 We dig into the unraveling scandal surrounding fraudulent daycare operations in Minnesota. As scrutiny intensifies, the focus turns to empty daycare centers—previously exposed by independent reporting— that are now suddenly filled with children, raising serious questions about timing and credibility. 16:00 The American Mamas Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burleson don’t hold back on this one. They take on the question of why it suddenly feels like everyone has a disability—and whether it’s about real need or working the system. While acknowledging legitimate conditions that truly require accommodations, they zero in on what they see as a disturbing trend: elite college students claiming disability status for special treatment, extra time, exemptions, and advantages. This isn’t about compassion anymore—it’s about entitlement. A culture that rewards victimhood, hands out loopholes, and teaches young people that being “broken” is a badge of honor. Comparing today’s mindset to the grit and pride of earlier generations, the Mamas warn that intelligence without ethics is dangerous, and a society that incentivizes weakness shouldn’t be surprised when responsibility, character, and resilience disappear. If you'd like to ask our American Mamas a question, go to our website, AmericanGroundRadio.com/mamas and click on the Ask the Mamas button. 23:00 Protests are breaking out across multiple cities in Iran as the country's economy spirals. The national currency has collapsed to record lows against the U.S. dollar, inflation has surged past 40 percent, and everyday life is becoming increasingly unlivable for ordinary Iranians. 24:30 Plus, we give director and actor Steven Grayhm a call. His film Sheepdog, is set to release nationwide on January 16, centered on the unseen battles of PTSD and the long-term cost of military service. Grayhm spent years traveling the country, listening to veterans, Gold Star families, and mental-health professionals, determined to tell their stories without political spin or Hollywood gloss. The result, he says, is a “love letter” to those who wore the uniform and the families who carried the burden alongside them. 32:00 Get TrimROX from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 32:30 According to newly revealed information, more than $5 billion in HUD rental assistance payments during the final year of the Biden administration were flagged as questionable or improper—an eye-popping figure that immediately raises red flags. According to newly revealed information, more than $5 billion in HUD rental assistance payments during the final year of the Biden administration were flagged as questionable or improper—an eye-popping figure that immediately raises red flags. The most jaw-dropping detail: over 30,000 of those payments allegedly went to people who were already deceased. 35:30 New data shows Bible sales in the United States are booming, with double-digit growth two years in a row, and that's a Bright Spot. The resurgence isn’t limited to Bible sales alone. Church attendance is rising, especially among young people, with Catholic parishes seeing growth even in major cities like New York—places long declared spiritually dead by the secular elite. Add in the historic election of the first American pope, and the signs of a broader faith revival are hard to miss. 39:30 Here’s something that stopped us in our tracks: Charlie Kirk was the most searched name in the world in 2025. Not just in the United States—globally. More than any other news story, more than any other headline, Charlie Kirk topped Google search inquiries worldwide. 41:00 And we finish off today's episode with the most popular New Year's resolutions. Follow us: americangroundradio.com Facebook: facebook.com / AmericanGroundRadio Instagram: instagram.com/americangroundradio See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If courtroom showdowns, legal strategy, and headline-making trials are your thing, you won't want to miss this episode!Welcome back to Lawyer Talk! In this episode, Steve Palmer and Troy Henricksen talk about a hot legal issue that's making big headlines: the trial of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan.This isn't your everyday courtroom drama—judge Dugan's actions set off a wave of political controversy and questions about judicial authority, federal versus state power, and the real-life consequences of policies clashing in America's courthouses.Steve Palmer and Troy Henricksen break down the facts like a law school case study, dissecting the judge's decision to confront federal immigration agents and help an undocumented defendant avoid ICE agents in the courthouse.The conversation covers everything from the tangled web of federal and state jurisdictions, the constitutional Supremacy Clause, and judicial immunity, to the practical strategies used in jury selection—like seeking jurors who might lean a certain way politically.Throughout the episode, you'll hear spirited debate, memorable courthouse anecdotes, and sharp legal analysis as Steve Palmer and Troy Henricksen put themselves in the shoes of both the prosecution and the defense. They predict outcomes, debate gray areas in the law, and even place a friendly wager on how this real-world legal drama will unfold.Moments00:00 "Judge Defies ICE in Courtroom"03:29 "Out the Back Door"09:13 "Supremacy Clause and Federal Law"12:45 "Mens Rea: Intent Explained"15:44 "Politics and Fair Trial Debate"17:11 Jury Nullification and Political Context20:30 "Verdict Predictions and Recap"Mentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show, most of the media are criticizing U.S. attacks on Venezuelan drug boats as illegal with cherry picked experts who don't specify what law was violated or rely on vague arguments. It's an act of war when Venezuela sends in toxic drugs to America. It's odd that the Democrats and some RINO's first instinct is to attack Pete Hegseth and not the enemy. The more they hate you the more effective you are. Later, Rep Chip Roy calls in with an update on his race for Texas Attorney General. He also argues that the President of the United States has the constitutional authority under Article II powers to preemptively strike a boat carrying drugs operated by narco-terrorists from Venezuela. Afterward, Qatar is ramping up a charm offensive amid scrutiny over its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood following the October 7 attacks, hosting House Republicans and influencers. Also, Dinesh D'Souza calls in and reveals that Qataris view themselves as the true chosen people due to their effortless oil wealth, freeing the nation from labor. Instead, they pursue financial jihad by deploying resources to purchase influence. For decades, they've targeted American universities, funding entire departments like political science rather than isolated events. Recently, they've shifted to infiltrating the conservative movement to foster divisions within the right, achieving some success with substantial funding that many are yielding to, and people should recognize this as a paid influence operation. Finally,  there's a new Democrat Party confederacy, where sanctuary cities and states unconstitutionally nullify federal immigration laws under the Supremacy Clause, akin to secession since the Civil War. Democrats disregard the law and Constitution, destroying the country by supporting communities pushing Sharia law and Islamist enclaves to influence states like Texas, with figures like Zohran Mamdani embodying their power-driven ideology. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Notes: https://thelawschoolofamerica.com/ConstitutionLaw2025.htmlUnderstanding Federalism: Navigating the Complexities of State and Federal PowerThis conversation delves into the complexities of constitutional law, focusing on federalism and state power. The discussion covers key doctrines such as the anti-commandeering doctrine, preemption under the Supremacy Clause, sovereign immunity, and the dormant commerce clause. Each topic is explored in depth, providing insights into how these legal principles interact and affect the balance of power between state and federal governments. The conversation aims to equip law students with a framework for analyzing federalism issues, particularly in preparation for exams and the bar.Federalism is a cornerstone of the United States' constitutional framework, embodying the delicate balance between state sovereignty and federal authority. This intricate dance of power is not just a historical artifact but a living, breathing aspect of American governance that continues to evolve. In this post, we delve into the nuances of federalism, exploring key doctrines and landmark cases that define the boundaries of state and federal power.The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: At the heart of federalism lies the anti-commandeering doctrine, a principle that prevents the federal government from commandeering state governments to enforce federal laws. This doctrine was solidified in cases like New York v. United States and Printz v. United States, where the Supreme Court underscored the importance of state autonomy and accountability. The doctrine ensures that states remain independent entities, not mere administrative arms of the federal government.Preemption and the Supremacy Clause: The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law. However, the application of this principle is not always straightforward. Preemption can be express, where federal law explicitly overrides state law, or implied, where federal regulation is so pervasive that it leaves no room for state action. Understanding the nuances of preemption is crucial for navigating the legal landscape of federalism.The Dormant Commerce Clause: The Dormant Commerce Clause is an implicit aspect of the Commerce Clause, preventing states from enacting legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. This doctrine aims to maintain a national economic union, free from protectionist state policies. However, its application often involves complex judicial balancing, as seen in cases like Pike v. Bruce Church and Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines.Federalism is a dynamic and complex system that requires constant negotiation and interpretation. As we continue to grapple with the balance of power between state and federal governments, understanding these foundational doctrines and their implications is essential. Whether you're a law student preparing for exams or a citizen interested in the workings of government, federalism remains a vital and fascinating area of study. Subscribe now to stay informed on the latest developments in constitutional law.TakeawaysLaw students often struggle with applying the correct test in complex fact patterns.The anti-commandeering doctrine preserves state sovereignty by preventing Congress from forcing states to enact federal laws.Preemption ensures federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws, based on congressional intent.Sovereign immunity protects states from being sued without their consent, emphasizing state dignity.The dormant commerce clause prevents states from enacting laws that discriminate against interstate commerce.Understanding the distinction between express and implied preemption is crucial for legal analysis.constitutional law, federalism, state power, anti-commandeering, preemption, sovereign immunity, dormant commerce clause, legal analysis, bar exam, law school

You're listening to American Ground Radio with Stephen Parr and Louis R. Avallone. This is the full show for November 26, 2025. 0:30 We break down the situation unfolding in Portland, Oregon. The state’s attorney general is threatening to prosecute federal agents for enforcing federal law on federal property, even as Antifa-aligned mobs wreak havoc in Portland. It’s a political standoff turning into a constitutional showdown, raising big questions about the Supremacy Clause, federal authority, and what happens when states decide they can overrule Washington. This one’s not just messy—it’s dangerous. 9:30 Plus, we cover the Top 3 Things You Need to Know. Two National Guardsmen were shot while deployed in Washington D.C. today. The last election interference case filed against President Trump has now been dismissed. Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser announced she will not be seeking a 4th term in office next year. 12:30 Get Performlyte from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 13:00 Two National Guardsmen—American heroes—were shot and critically injured while serving their country in Washington, D.C. Vice President JD Vance says we pray they’re home with their families by Thanksgiving. And while it shouldn’t be political to support our Guard, our military, our first responders… something about this shooting feels different. Feels intentional. Feels targeted. Maybe we’re wrong—God willing, we are—but every instinct says this wasn’t random. What we do know is simple: America doesn’t turn its back on its heroes. We lift them up. We stand with them. And right now, we pray for these guardsmen and the families waiting for them to come home. 16:00 Is having a boyfriend embarrassing now? Believe it or not, that’s the latest trend on social media—young influencers claiming relationships feel “too Republican.” American Mamas Terry Netterville and Kimberly Burleson jump in with both feet, asking why Gen Z is suddenly acting like commitment is cringe, joy is optional, and loneliness is some kind of virtue signal. From the data showing married women and men are far happier, to the cultural push telling young people they “don’t need anyone,” the Mamas break down what’s real, what’s nonsense, and why purpose—and yes, love—still matter. If you'd like to ask our American Mamas a question, go to our website, AmericanGroundRadio.com/mamas and click on the Ask the Mamas button. 23:00 We’re talking about something Washington forgot a long time ago: the American spirit isn’t passive—it doesn’t retreat, it doesn’t flinch, and it sure doesn’t surrender a single inch of our cities to chaos.After two National Guardsmen were shot in D.C., President Trump didn’t wring his hands or hide behind caution tape—he immediately ordered Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to deploy 500 more Guardsmen to the capital. But while Trump stands firm, America’s big-city Democrats have gotten used to surrender—accepting crime, excusing violence, normalizing failure. And now they’re furious that someone is finally saying “No more.” 26:30 Trust in the media just hit rock bottom—Gallup shows only 28% of Americans believe the news is fair, and among Republicans? A jaw-dropping 8%. And this week, the media proved exactly why. MSNOW ran a sensational “scoop” claiming President Trump was preparing to fire FBI Director Kash Patel. Anonymous sources, dramatic language—classic beltway gossip. Only one problem: it was completely fake. But this isn’t AI gone rogue. This is the media and deep-state leakers pumping out story after story, knowing the algorithms will blast it to millions before the truth catches up. 32:00 Get Prodovite Plus from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 32:30 We dig into new poll showing a majority of voters under 40 backing a democratic socialist for president — and the wild part? Many say the biggest influence wasn’t TikTok… it was their parents and grandparents. We get into how we drifted this far, why Reagan warned us this would happen, and how a generation got talked into believing socialism is just “sharing.” 36:00 We’re talking planes, pajamas, and personal standards — all sparked by Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s call for Americans to step it up when they fly. From the viral chaos in airplane aisles to the growing trend of slippers-in-the-supermarket, we dig into what happened to basic manners, why dressing well changes how we act, and whether a little self-respect could make travel (and everything else) a whole lot better. 39:30 If you’re listening on podcast — Salem Podcast Network, Apple, Spotify, anywhere you get your shows — head over to AmericanGroundRadio.com because we’ve got a brand-new content up for Thanksgiving, and it hits at the heart of what we talk about all the time. This isn’t just turkey, travel, and family gatherings.This is about identity — who we are as Americans, what our Founders intended Thanksgiving to remind us of, and why gratitude is a force that holds nations together. 41:30 And we finish off with a bus driver who will make you say, "Whoa." See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Trump strikes back! In this explosive Bonus Episode 226 of The Alan Sanders Show, dive into President Trump's executive order nullifying Biden's controversial autopen-signed directives. Ukraine corruption exposed: Zelensky's inner circle raided amid massive Energoatom scandal. Tesla's game-changing 4680 battery patent breakthrough promises cheaper EVs. Plus, Supremacy Clause showdown as Oregon's governor clashes with federal authority. And it is perfectly legal, both from US law and International Law to destroy Narco-terrorist threats. Unpack the headlines shaking America! Please take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, X, Instagram, GETTR,  TRUTH Social and YouTube by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. And, consider becoming a sponsor of the show by visiting my Patreon page!

Send me feedback!I review Chicago Mayor Johnson's Executive Order and address commentary I'm seeing online. Does it violate the Supremacy Clause? What about Art I Sec 8 Clause 4 of the Constitution? And is it libertarian?SUPPORT THE SHOWGet a 10% discount by using the code LibertyDad at Black Guns Matter shop.OR, use the referral linkFIND ME ELSEWHERELinktreeSHOW NOTESWGN NewsMayor Johnson's Executive Order (PDF link)

What's been landing in Alaska? SNAP chaos, shortened public comment periods, and ICE enforcement. Rachel and John also discuss the Constitution's Supremacy Clause and play public policy pursuit.

     Slam The Gavel Podcast welcomes Edyta (Edie) Hanna Basista. Edie is a civil rights advocate, trauma survivor, and pro se federal plaintiff in Basista & Palacios v. Batch, et al., a landmark constitutional lawsuit filed under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.     The case names 25 defendants, including judges, elected officials, attorneys, police officers, former spouses, licensed therapists, and state-contracted service providers, for their roles in a coordinated pattern of constitutional violations. Edyta's parental access was severed without a finding of unfitness, without an evidentiary hearing, and without lawful adjudication. Sealed trauma records were unlawfully disclosed. Court access was obstructed through procedural manipulation. Judicial actors refused to recuse despite personal and political conflicts, and retaliation was used to silence her legal efforts.     This is not a custody matter, it is a federal civil rights case grounded in binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent and asserting violations of the First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Supremacy Clause, the ADA, and VAWA. The lawsuit exposes how courts and state-aligned professionals weaponized trauma, disability status, and indigency to deny her access to justice — and how that abuse was not accidental, but institutional.     Edyta Basista stands not only for herself, but for every parent, survivor, and disabled litigant who has been denied a fair hearing under law. Her case demands federal enforcement of constitutional rights where state systems have failed, and forces the question: Who protects the rights of the vulnerable when the courts become the violators?To Reach Edie Basista:  ehbasista@gmail.com and on Facebook: Edie Basista.Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)Maryann Petri: dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comhttps://www.tiktok.com/@maryannpetriFacebook:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guitarpeace/Pinterest: Slam The Gavel Podcast/@guitarpeaceLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryann-petri-62a46b1ab/  YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536  Twitter https://x.com/PetriMaryannEzlegalsuit.com   https://ko-fi.com/maryannpetrihttps://www.zazzle.com/store/slam_the_gavel/about*DISCLAIMER* The use of this information is at the viewer/user's own risk. Not financial, medical nor legal advice as the content on this podcast does not constitute legal, financial, medical or any other professional advice. Viewer/user's should consult with the relevant professionals. Reproduction, distribution, performing, publicly displaying and making a derivative of the work is explicitly prohibited without permission from content creator. Podcast is protected by owner. The content creator maintains the exclusive right and any unauthorized copyrightSupport the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

In this week’s episode, I’m diving into one of the most important and contentious topics facing Boston today: the city’s sanctuary policies, the upcoming mayoral race, and what it all means for public safety and local governance. With my experience in politics and advocacy, I break down the direct conflict between Boston’s Mayor Michelle Wu and federal authorities, examining how sanctuary city measures like the 2014 Trust Act challenge national laws and the expectations placed on local leaders. I dissect Attorney General Pam Bondi’s letter demanding Boston’s compliance with ICE, the broader implications of refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, and how these policies can put public safety at risk. I lay out my concerns about how city and state officials handle alleged criminal non-citizens, the results of releasing individuals with criminal records, and the strain this brings to Massachusetts’ justice system. Throughout, I call out blue state leaders for what I see as prioritizing political ideology over real community safety, arguing that the Supremacy Clause firmly puts federal authority above local policy. This episode takes a hard look at the humanitarian and public safety issues at play, with an eye on the political consequences for leaders and communities alike. “No one wants a criminal living amongst them. It's a public safety issue. No one wants that.”~Jennifer Nassour This week on Political Contessa: Boston’s sanctuary city status facing federal pushback● The impact of the 2014 Trust Act on police cooperation with ICE● Attorney General Pam Bondi’s call for compliance with federal law● Concerns about releasing alleged criminal non-citizens into the community● Strain on criminal justice resources in Massachusetts● The implications of the Supremacy Clause in immigration enforcement● Critique of blue state leadership and public safety priorities● Political consequences for Democrats and Republicans in upcoming elections Awaken Your Inner Political Contessa Thanks for tuning into this week’s episode of Political Contessa. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. Spotify I Stitcher I Apple Podcasts I iHeart Radio I TuneIn I Google Podcasts Be sure to share your favorite episodes on social media. And if you’ve ever considered running for office – or know a woman who should – head over to politicalcontessa.com to grab my quick guide, Secrets from the Campaign Trail. It will show you five signs to tell you you’re ready to enter the political arena. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Dean's List with Host Dean Bowen – Parents face growing concerns as schools defy federal law on Title IX, pushing policies that allow boys in girls' sports and facilities. Despite the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, states and districts resist compliance, sparking lawsuits and national debate. Families must remain vigilant to ensure education systems respect law, protect children, and uphold fairness in schools...

Steve Palmer here - I'm joined by our resident law student, Troy Hendrickson, who's here to bring a fresh perspective and some real-life questions from the trenches.Today, Troy brings up a hot topic that's been making waves among his fellow clerks and across legal social media: Can courts stop ICE agents from making arrests inside the courtroom? We look into real cases—including one where a judge faced criminal charges for attempting to help a defendant evade ICE—and discuss candidly the legal and ethical limits for lawyers and judges when it comes to federal agents and immigration enforcement.We'll cover important concepts like the supremacy of federal law, what attorneys can and can't do when it comes to clients facing arrest, and where the line is between standing up for your beliefs and risking your career. Whether you're a law student, a practicing attorney, or just curious about the realities behind courtroom doors, you'll find plenty to chew on in this episode.Key Moments00:00 Judge Aids Defendant's Escape05:19 "Unpleasant Ethical Duties in Law"08:27 Legal Ethics: No Crime Assistance12:20 Arguing Both Sides Skillfully13:06 Mastering Argument: Embrace All SidesHere are my top 3 takeaways:Ethics over Emotion: As attorneys, our personal views can't trump ethical and legal obligations. Even if you disagree with the government's actions, taking active measures to help clients evade arrest (like sneaking them out the back) can cross into obstruction of justice—and carry real consequences.Know Where the Line Is: There's a critical difference between informing a client of a warrant and helping them hide or avoid law enforcement. Advising is part of the job; aiding in evasion is not.Federal vs. State Authority: The courtroom is a public forum, and ICE—as federal agents—cannot easily be banned from the space by local judges. The Supremacy Clause puts federal law above state, meaning local attempts to keep ICE out could backfire.Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law Mentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences...

This Day in Legal History: First SCOTUS DecisionOn August 11, 1792, the United States Supreme Court issued its first reported decision in Georgia v. Brailsford. The case arose from the complex aftermath of the Revolutionary War, when questions about debts owed to British creditors came before the new federal judiciary. The State of Georgia had enacted laws seizing debts owed to British subjects, while the 1783 Treaty of Paris required those debts to be honored. The dispute involved a British creditor, Samuel Brailsford, seeking repayment from a Georgia resident. Georgia argued that its confiscation laws extinguished the debt, but the Court was faced with balancing state statutes against treaty obligations. In its decision, the Court reaffirmed that treaties made under the authority of the United States were binding on the states, even when they conflicted with local laws. This early opinion helped cement the principle of federal supremacy in foreign affairs and treaty enforcement. It also demonstrated the Court's willingness to decide politically sensitive disputes involving state sovereignty. The ruling, authored before the modern opinion-writing style developed, was short and straightforward, focusing narrowly on the facts and legal issue. It set an early precedent for judicial interpretation of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Georgia v. Brailsford thus marked the Court's entry into shaping the balance between state power and federal authority. The case also foreshadowed the judiciary's role in resolving conflicts between domestic law and international agreements. While not as well-known as later landmark cases, its legacy lies in establishing the Court as a neutral arbiter in disputes implicating both constitutional structure and international commitments.President Donald Trump is expected to nominate David Rosner, a Democrat currently serving on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), as its next chair. The agency oversees decisions on natural gas export facilities and major power infrastructure, making it central to Trump's energy agenda. Rosner, appointed to FERC by President Joe Biden, previously worked for former Senator Joe Manchin, who was known for supporting coal and gas interests. White House officials say Rosner aligns with Trump's priorities, despite his party affiliation. FERC was a flashpoint during Trump's first term, when his appointees attempted—but failed—to push policies favoring fossil fuel power generation. Today, surging energy demand from data centers has renewed attention on expanding cheap power sources. In July, the country's largest electric grid saw record power auction revenues of $16.1 billion, highlighting the strain on supply. Rosner's promotion would follow the departure of Republican Mark Christie as chair, signaling a bipartisan leadership shift at the influential regulator.Trump to Tap Democrat to Lead US Agency Overseeing Gas, PowerA closely watched trial began today in San Francisco over President Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to assist immigration raids and manage protests in Los Angeles. California argues the move violates the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which limits the use of the military in civilian law enforcement. The dispute centers on Trump's June order sending 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard members to the city after mass immigration raids sparked unrest. State officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom, claim about 2,000 Guard members are still aiding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in raids and restricting civilian movement. The administration denies the troops engaged in law enforcement, saying they were protecting federal property and ICE personnel. The three-day, non-jury trial before U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer could set limits on Trump's authority to deploy the military in U.S. cities. California is also seeking to regain control of its National Guard from federal command. A ruling against the administration could have lasting implications for the president's power to use military forces domestically.Landmark trial kicks off over Trump's use of US military in policing role | ReutersU.S. law firms saw stronger-than-expected business in the second quarter of 2025, with overall demand rising 1.6% from the same period last year and billing rates climbing 7.4%, according to the Thomson Reuters Institute. Clients sought legal guidance on shifting tariffs, regulatory changes, and an unsteady economy, partly fueled by President Trump's trade policies. The growth was uneven—top 100 firms experienced a 0.6% drop in demand, while the next-largest 100 grew 2.6% and midsized firms rose 3.5%, suggesting clients may be opting for lower-cost or more specialized services. Practice area results also varied: litigation demand rose 2%, corporate work 1.3%, mergers and acquisitions 0.3%, while intellectual property fell 1.4%. The industry's Financial Index score hit 55, up four points from Q1, but the report warned of risks ahead as overhead costs climb, collections dip, and productivity lags 1.3% year-over-year. Unpaid bills and write-downs could create further financial pressure if trends persist. Law firms stayed busy in second quarter but uncertainty looms - report | ReutersThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has moved to terminate its labor contract with the union representing 8,000 of its employees, according to the union's president. The action is part of President Trump's broader push to limit collective bargaining rights across federal agencies. Trump's March executive order seeks to remove such rights at more than 30 agencies, including the EPA, and is being challenged in court by unions that argue it violates free speech and bargaining obligations. The EPA says it is acting in compliance with the order, which would make it easier for agencies to discipline or dismiss workers. The move comes as the EPA plans to reduce its workforce by at least 23% and close its scientific research office as part of broader federal downsizing. Unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees, are suing to stop the effort, but a recent federal appeals court decision allowed the administration to proceed with exempting some agencies from negotiating with unions. The union representing EPA employees has pledged a legal response.Trump's environment agency terminates contract with unionized employees | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Send us a textDr. Robert Jackson welcomes constitutional attorney and scholar Joe Wolverton to the More Than Medicine studio for a revealing conversation about American liberty and our constitutional foundations. Wolverton, who serves as the constitutional law scholar for the John Birch Society, shares the story of his journey from Fourth Amendment defender to full-time liberty advocate.The centerpiece of their discussion revolves around Wolverton's groundbreaking new educational series, "Blueprint for Liberty." This comprehensive program addresses a troubling reality: even among patriots and conservatives, fundamental constitutional knowledge is severely lacking. Wolverton explains how the series takes viewers back to basics—examining what powers were granted to the federal government, who granted those powers, and where those enumerated powers are found in the Constitution.Particularly enlightening is Wolverton's clarification of commonly misunderstood constitutional principles. He dismantles the widespread misinterpretation of the Supremacy Clause, explaining that it establishes the Constitution—not the federal government—as supreme. Federal laws are only supreme when made "in pursuance of the Constitution," not in violation of it. The conversation also touches on constitutional requirements for sound money, the three branches' specific powers, and how citizens can actively participate in restoring constitutional governance. As Wolverton notes, "Once you've been warned, you should warn your neighbor"—but many well-intentioned Americans simply don't know how to effectively engage.Ready to deepen your constitutional understanding? The "Blueprint for Liberty" series debuts this September at a leadership conference near Valley Forge featuring General Flynn as keynote speaker, after which it will be available online and on DVD. Visit jbs.org for more information about this initiative designed not to make money, but to "make patriots" equipped to defend their God-given rights.Support the showhttps://www.jacksonfamilyministry.comhttps://bobslone.com/home/podcast-production/

Jill Wine-Banks hosts #SistersInLaw to explain the state of the cases against Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, emphasizing their past convictions and how the current perceptions of their crimes are affecting our politics.  Then, the #Sisters explore the relationship between U.S. Attorneys and the DOJ, focusing on the tension between the executive and judicial branches, and the factors that influence the confirmation process.  They also look at a recent legal challenge to sanctuary cities, discuss its relation to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, and game out the next steps in the Trump Administration's war on immigration. Get the brand new ReSIStance T-Shirt & Mini Tote at politicon.com/merch #SistersInLaw Spin-off Shows Are Here! Check out Jill's New Politicon YouTube Show: Just The Facts Check out Kim's New Politicon Podcast: Justice By Design Add the #Sisters & your other favorite Politicon podcast hosts on Bluesky Get Barb's book, Attack From Within, coming out in paperback! Joyce's new book, Giving Up Is Unforgivable, is now available for pre-order!  Get your #SistersInLaw MERCH at politicon.com/merch WEBSITE & TRANSCRIPT Email: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcast Get text updates from #SistersInLaw and Politicon.  Support This Week's Sponsors Wild Grain:  Get $30 off and free croissants in every box when you start your subscription to delicious quick-bake artisanal pastries, pasta, and bread at wildgrain.com/sisters with promo code: SISTERS Quince: Get 365-day returns and free shipping on high-quality, stylish, and affordable clothing you'll wear for years to come when you go to quince.com/sisters Helix: Get 27% off sitewide on Helix mattresses! Go to helixsleep.com/sisters  DeleteMe: Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you text SISTERS to 64000. Message and data rates apply. Get More From The #SistersInLaw Joyce Vance: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Alabama Law | MSNBC | Civil Discourse Substack | Author of “Giving Up Is Unforgiveable” Jill Wine-Banks: Bluesky | Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President | Just The Facts YouTube Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Bluesky | Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | The Gavel Newsletter | Justice By Design Podcast Barb McQuade: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC | Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America

The provided sources discuss the legal doctrine of preemption, particularly focusing on federal preemption of state laws in the United States. They explain that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes federal law as paramount when conflicts arise. The texts outline two main types of preemption: express preemption, where federal law explicitly states its intent to supersede state law, and implied preemption, which occurs when federal intent to preempt is not explicit. Implied preemption is further divided into field preemption, where federal regulation is so pervasive it leaves no room for state law, and conflict preemption, where state law either makes compliance with federal law impossible or obstructs federal objectives. The sources also highlight the ongoing debate between state and federal powers, with different stakeholders advocating for broader or narrower applications of preemption depending on their interests.The primary function of the Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Clause 2, is to establish federal law as the "supreme Law of the Land." It ensures that validly enacted federal laws override conflicting state laws and constitutions, providing legal hierarchy and national uniformity.Federal preemption is the doctrine that invalidates conflicting state laws when Congress exercises its legislative power to displace or override state authority. Its core constitutional basis is the Supremacy Clause, which mandates that federal law prevails over inconsistent state enactments.Express preemption occurs when a federal statute explicitly states its intent to override state law, often through a specific clause. Implied preemption, in contrast, arises when courts infer Congress's intent to preempt state law from the federal law's structure, purpose, or comprehensiveness, even without explicit language.Field preemption occurs when federal regulation is so comprehensive or the federal interest is so dominant that courts conclude Congress intended to occupy an entire regulatory field. A common characteristic courts look for is a "pervasive scheme of federal regulation" that leaves no room for state supplementation, as seen in areas like alien registration.Conflict preemption applies in two main situations: first, when compliance with both federal and state law is physically impossible (impossibility preemption); and second, when state law "stands as an obstacle" to the accomplishment of federal objectives (obstacle preemption).The "presumption against preemption" instructs that federal law should not be interpreted as superseding states' historic police powers (e.g., public health, safety) unless Congress's intent to preempt is "clear and manifest." It reflects the constitutional principle of federalism, preserving a meaningful role for state autonomy.State common law, particularly tort law, can be affected by obstacle preemption. For instance, in Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., a state tort law requiring airbags was preempted because it stood as an obstacle to a federal regulation that gave manufacturers a range of options, including not installing airbags, reflecting a federal objective of flexibility.The Supremacy Clause directly binds state courts by requiring judges in every state to apply federal law, even if it contradicts state law or state precedent. This means state judges cannot refuse to hear federal claims or decline to enforce federal statutes due to local disagreement.Yes, federal agency regulations issued under valid statutory authority have the same preemptive force as federal statutes if properly promulgated. Similarly, executive agreements, when entered into pursuant to constitutional authority (especially regarding foreign affairs), can also preempt conflicting state laws.A "savings clause" in a federal statute is a provision that explicitly limits its preemptive effect, stating that certain categories of state law are not preempted. Its general purpose is to preserve state author

Donate (no account necessary) | Subscribe (account required) Join Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA Operations Officer, as he breaks down today's biggest stories shaping America and the world. Trump Visits “Alligator Alcatraz” Amid Immigration Firestorm President Trump visits a new detention facility for illegal immigrants deep in Florida's Everglades. Nicknamed “Alligator Alcatraz,” the site was built in secrecy using Biden-era hotel funds, sparking lawsuits from environmentalists and migrant groups. Meanwhile, the Senate fails to pass a Medicaid ban for illegal immigrants, and House Republicans move forward with a bill to deport those arrested for DUIs. LA Sued for Sanctuary Policies, Activists Launch ICE-Tracking App The Trump administration sues Los Angeles for violating the Constitution's Supremacy Clause with its sanctuary city policies. At the same time, a Democrat activist and Antifa supporter launches an app to help migrants avoid ICE agents. Critics warn the app could incite violence against law enforcement, especially as pride in America drops sharply among Democrats, according to new Gallup polling. Hamas Crumbles in Gaza as Netanyahu Eyes Peace Israel's operation in Gaza has killed top Hamas leaders and brought 75% of the territory under Israeli control. Internal resistance to Hamas is growing among Palestinian clans, even as militants continue sporadic attacks. The U.S. now faces a strategic dilemma after depleting 20% of its anti-missile stockpiles during the conflict. Russia's Offensive Stalls, Ukraine Sends Grandfathers to the Front Russia's summer offensive falters due to poor morale, corruption, and untrained soldiers. Ukraine, running low on manpower, is deploying men in their 50s and 60s to the front lines, while corruption plagues the country's funeral industry amid surging war casualties. Mexican Cartels Use AI to Track and Kill FBI Informants A DOJ report reveals that the Sinaloa Cartel used cellphone metadata and Mexico City surveillance to track U.S. officials and murder FBI informants. The breach highlights growing dangers of digital surveillance and "digital exhaust," with Bryan urging listeners to reduce their own digital footprint. "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." – John 8:32

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – Exploring recent Supreme Court decisions on Maryland and Rhode Island gun regulations, this piece examines dissenting opinions by Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas that challenge lower court reasoning and question adherence to the Supremacy Clause. It also delves into federal clashes with sanctuary cities over illegal immigrant policies, highlighting constitutional tensions shaping...

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – Exploring recent Supreme Court decisions on Maryland and Rhode Island gun regulations, this piece examines dissenting opinions by Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas that challenge lower court reasoning and question adherence to the Supremacy Clause. It also delves into federal clashes with sanctuary cities over illegal immigrant policies, highlighting constitutional tensions shaping...

Contact me! Send me a text message here!Join me this week as I talk about Jordan Peterson, the supremacy clause, pride month and more!Support the showIf you love the show, share it with friends and family!

This lecture outlines the foundational principles of federalism in the United States, explaining the division of power between the federal government and individual states. It defines federalism by contrasting it with unitary and confederate systems, then details how the U.S. Constitution establishes this structure through enumerated powers for the federal government and reserved powers for the states via the Tenth Amendment. The lecture also highlights crucial constitutional clauses like the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and the Commerce Clause, discussing their impact on the balance of power and examining their interpretation through landmark Supreme Court cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland, Gibbons v. Ogden, and United States v. Lopez, showcasing the evolving nature of federal authority.Federalism as a Core Principle: The lecture emphasizes that federalism is not merely a theoretical concept but is "at the very core of the United States constitutional system." It represents a "sophisticated division of powers" between the national government and the individual states, designed to achieve a "balance between national unity and the preservation of state autonomy." This system contrasts with unitary systems (centralized power) and confederations (states retaining dominant sovereignty).Constitutional Basis for Federalism: The document outlines the specific constitutional provisions that establish and delineate federalism:Enumerated Powers (Article One, Section Eight): The Constitution lists specific powers granted to the federal government, such as regulating interstate commerce, coining money, declaring war, and raising armies. These are presented as a "carefully selected set of responsibilities deemed essential for the national government to effectively function."Implied Powers (Necessary and Proper Clause, Article One, Section Eight): This clause grants Congress the power to enact laws "necessary and proper" for carrying out its enumerated powers. It is described as a "vital source of flexibility," allowing the federal government to adapt and effectively exercise its responsibilities.Reserved Powers (Tenth Amendment): This amendment states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This reinforces the principle of limited federal power and affirms the states' broad authority over matters not specifically assigned to the national government, including "health, safety, welfare, and morals" (police powers).Supremacy Clause (Article Six, Clause Two): This clause establishes the hierarchy of law, declaring the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties as the "supreme Law of the Land." It ensures that "federal law will prevail" in cases of direct conflict with state law and prevents states from undermining valid federal laws.The Significance of the Commerce Clause: The Commerce Clause (Article One, Section Eight, Clause Three), granting Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes," is highlighted as a "most significant and frequently litigated sources of federal authority." Its interpretation has "profoundly influenced the balance of power between the federal government and the states," reflecting "evolving societal needs and philosophical perspectives."Landmark Supreme Court Cases and their Impact: The lecture reviews key cases illustrating the evolution of federalism and the interpretation of federal power:Federalism, Division of Powers, Constitutional Law, Supreme Court, State Sovereignty, Commerce Clause, Judicial Review, Implied Powers, Sovereign Immunity, Civil Rights

This lecture explores the concept of federalism and the division of powers between the federal government and the states, highlighting constitutional provisions, landmark Supreme Court cases, and ongoing debates surrounding the balance of power. It emphasizes the practical applications of federalism in areas such as civil rights and environmental regulation, while also addressing criticisms and proposals for reform.TakeawaysFederalism is a system where power is divided between national and state governments.The Constitution enumerates specific powers for the federal government.The Necessary and Proper Clause allows for implied powers.The Supremacy Clause establishes federal law as the highest authority.The Commerce Clause has been interpreted in various ways by the Supreme Court.Landmark cases like McCulloch v. Maryland shaped federalism.Debates continue over the balance of power between state and national governments.Sovereign immunity limits individuals' ability to sue states.Federalism can promote local solutions but may also entrench inequality.Reform proposals include re-examining sovereign immunity and federal power limits.Federalism, Division of Powers, Constitutional Law, Supreme Court, State Sovereignty, Commerce Clause, Judicial Review, Implied Powers, Sovereign Immunity, Civil Rights

I never want to waste an opportunity to use a current event to teach the Constitution. The recent arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge, Hannah Dugan, offers the opportunity to discuss two important constitutional doctrines: anti-commandeering and the Supremacy Clause. Additionally, it provides us with the opportunity to examine what the Constitution says about federal involvement in immigration. You may be surprised! Show Notes Twitter | Apple | Rumble | BitChute | Substack -------------------------------- Judge Napolitano Napolitano: Arresting a Judge The Aniti-Commandeering Doctrine: An Introduction Milwaukee Judge Suspended: Hannah Dugan Truth Quest Podcast Episodes Episode 171 – The Truth About the Supremacy Clause -------------------------------- Please support the podcast by shopping at the Truth Quest Shirt Factory. With each shirt design there will be an explanation of what to expect from those inquisitive or brave enough to ask you about it. In most cases there are links to podcast episodes that will deepen your understanding of the importance of each phrase. We hope you take the challenge of wearing these shirts in public. Rest assured that you will be well-equipped with the rhetorical tools to engage in conversation and/or debate.  Good luck! And thanks for supporting the Truth Quest Podcast!

A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether the Supremacy Clause prevents individuals from suing the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act when federal employees' actions, even if negligent or wrongful, are related to carrying out federal policy and can be interpreted as following federal laws; and (2) whether the discretionary-function exception, which usually protects the government from being sued for certain decisions made by its employees, is always inapplicable when dealing with claims related to law enforcement officers' actions that fall under the intentional torts category?

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Kennedy v. Braidwood Management (April 21) - Appointments Clause; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision.Parrish v. United States (April 21) - Federal Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the ordinary appeal period under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b) expires must file a second, duplicative notice after the appeal period is reopened under subsection (c) of the statute and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch (April 22) - Taxes; Issue(s): Whether a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.Mahmoud v. Taylor (April 22) - Religious Liberties, Education Law, Parental Rights; Issue(s): Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA (April 23) - Standing, Redressibility; Issue(s): (1) Whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.Soto v. United States (April 28) - Financial Procedure; Issue(s): Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim “involving … retired pay” under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(1)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 (April 28) - ADA; Issue(s): Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.Martin v. U.S. (April 29) - Supremacy Clause, Torts; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Constitution’s supremacy clause bars claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law; and 2) whether the discretionary-function exception is categorically inapplicable to claims arising under the law enforcement proviso to the intentional torts exception.Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis (April 29) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond (April 30) Establishment Clause, Education Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires. Featuring: Thomas A. Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato InstituteProf. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolSarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending EducationTim Rosenberger, Fellow, Manhattan InstituteProf. Gregory Sisk, Pio Cardinal Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law, Professor and Co-director of the Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of LawFrancesca Ugolini, Former Chief, DOJ Tax Division, Appellate Section(Moderator) Elle Rogers, General Counsel, United States Senator Jim Banks

Join me as we discard the low-IQ panic over Trump's tariff moves, and apply common sense to understand exactly what's going on and why these are the right moves for America--especially as just a single facet of a much broader plan to save America's economy from implosion. We'll also take a look at how a Boston judge has so lost her legal mind that she mistakenly believes her court wields authority over the federal government that the US Constitution makes supreme over every state--naturally, the case involves the judge's reflexive instinct to value the interests of violent illegal migrants over those of her own state's residents. 

Federal law is NOT always supreme - far from it. That's a myth ripped straight from the British system that sparked the American Revolution. This episode exposes the Supremacy Clause Hoax - one of the worst distortions of the Constitution, pushing the idea that the federal government holds virtually unlimited power. The Founders fought a long, bloody war to escape that very system - yet today, it's being embraced once again. The post The Supremacy Clause Hoax: How We Became What the Founders Fought first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

The U.S. Constitution establishes the framework of the federal government and divides power among three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review, empowering the judiciary to strike down unconstitutional laws. Federalism divides power between the federal government and the states. The federal government has enumerated powers, while states retain reserved powers. The Supremacy Clause resolves conflicts between state and federal law, with federal law being supreme. The Separation of Powers doctrine outlines the powers and responsibilities of each branch of government, with checks and balances to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. Key cases illustrate the evolution and interpretation of these powers over time. Individual rights, including First Amendment freedoms, Due Process, and Equal Protection, are protected by the Constitution. Landmark Supreme Court cases have shaped the interpretation and application of these rights, balancing individual liberties with government interests. The lectures emphasize the importance of understanding these constitutional concepts for success on the bar exam and in legal practice.

This is a lecture outline on US Constitutional Law focusing on federalism—the balance of power between the federal government and individual states. The lecture details the constitutional framework governing this relationship, emphasizing key clauses like the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause. It explores landmark Supreme Court cases illustrating the evolution and application of these clauses, particularly concerning preemption (federal law overriding state law) and the limits of congressional power. Further, the lecture examines the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments, concerning state sovereignty and immunity from lawsuits, respectively, and the Dormant Commerce Clause, which restricts states from unduly burdening interstate commerce. Finally, the State Action Doctrine is introduced, clarifying when private actions are subject to constitutional review. The overall purpose is to provide a comprehensive understanding of federalism's complexities and its practical application in contemporary legal issues. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Federalism is the division of power between the federal government and the states. The Constitution establishes this framework by outlining enumerated powers for the federal government, reserved powers for the states, and the Supremacy Clause to resolve conflicts between federal and state laws. The Supremacy Clause and preemption ensure federal law overrides conflicting state law. Express preemption occurs when a federal statute explicitly states its supremacy, while implied preemption occurs when federal and state laws conflict or federal regulation occupies an entire field. The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Its interpretation has evolved, from expansive interpretations in cases like Gibbons v. Ogden and Wickard v. Filburn to modern limitations in United States v. Lopez and NFIB v. Sebelius. Key doctrines include the substantial effects test, channels and instrumentalities of commerce, and the aggregation principle. The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government for the states, emphasizing state sovereignty. Printz v. United States established that the federal government cannot compel states to implement federal programs. The Eleventh Amendment protects states from being sued in federal court without their consent, codifying the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Seminole Tribe v. Florida reinforced states' immunity from private lawsuits. The Dormant Commerce Clause prohibits state laws that unduly burden or discriminate against interstate commerce. The discrimination test and Pike balancing test are used to evaluate state laws. Granholm v. Heald struck down state laws favoring in-state wineries over out-of-state competitors. The State Action Doctrine distinguishes private conduct from government action for purposes of constitutional analysis. Shelley v. Kraemer and Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority are key cases in this area. Understanding federalism and the powers of the states is crucial for analyzing constitutional issues and understanding the balance between national and state authority. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Join Jay Scott as he uncovers the Anti-Federalist group that stood against George Washington, the Federalist, and the Constitution in the 1780's!  Natural Freedom, Equal Treatment, Right to Bear Arms, Accountability, and Limits to Power were some of the key points the Anti-Federalist group rallied for. They saw similarities of an Aristocracy rule in the first Constitution. VERY DANGEROUS!  Also important, no clear declarations of individual human rights were written. (Thank these guys for The Bill of Rights we have now.) Learn how these Hero's put their neck on the line for true freedom at a delicate moment in the beginning stages of the USA. You will never think of our origins the same again! Disclaimer: For legal reasons... !!! This show is for entertainment purposes only !!! ~ ENJOY! ____________________________________________________ ❤️Help -keeping it REAL- by being a supporter of the podcast! Support is as simple as giving whatever you feel the show is worth to you. I will always be dedicated to bringing you value. Please consider returning some value in return! Even a like, comment, or share helps. You have my gratitude.

Constitutional Law Lecture 1 – Structure of Government and Separation of Powers Source: Excerpts from "Constitutional Law Lecture 1: The Structure of Government and Separation of Powers" I. Foundational Overview I begin by noting that the U.S. Constitution creates a structure of government designed to prevent tyranny. The three branches—Congress (legislative), the President (executive), and the courts (judicial)—operate under a system of separation of powers. This arrangement is complemented by checks and balances, whereby each branch can restrain the others. Federalism further divides power between the federal government and the states. Key Themes: Separation of Powers: This doctrine ensures that no single branch amasses unchecked authority. “Separation of powers is … the bedrock of the American constitutional system.” Checks and Balances: Each branch has devices (like vetoes or judicial review) to limit the other branches. “These interlocking mechanisms create a dynamic tension that fosters a balance of power.” Federalism: The Constitution specifies certain powers (enumerated) for the federal government and reserves others for the states. Judicial Review: Established in Marbury v. Madison, it empowers courts to strike down unconstitutional laws or actions. “Without Marbury, the checks and balances system would lack a critical enforcement mechanism.” Supremacy Clause: Federal law preempts conflicting state law, unifying legal standards throughout the nation. II. Constitutional Foundations Articles I, II, III, and VI Article I defines Congress's powers, including the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Article II vests executive power in the President, granting authority as Commander-in-Chief and in foreign affairs. Article III establishes the judiciary, anchored by the Supreme Court. Article VI contains the Supremacy Clause, ensuring federal law supremacy. Federalism and Division of Power Enumerated Powers: Taxation, regulation of interstate commerce, defense. Reserved Powers: Those retained by states (e.g., police powers, education). Key Cases: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) upheld implied federal powers. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) expanded Congress's reach over interstate commerce. III. Separation of Powers Doctrine Legislative Powers (Congress) Commerce Clause: Broad authority over interstate activities, yet subject to judicial limits (United States v. Lopez). Taxing and Spending: Congress can attach conditions to federal funds (South Dakota v. Dole). Necessary and Proper Clause: Permits laws essential to carrying out enumerated powers. Nondelegation Doctrine: Congress must not transfer its core legislative function to another branch (INS v. Chadha). Executive Powers (President) Commander-in-Chief: Authority over military decisions. Appointment: Nominates judges and officials (with Senate approval). Veto: Power to reject legislation. Foreign Affairs: Treaties, diplomacy; recognized as broad in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. Key Cases: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) – limited executive power over private property without legislative authorization. United States v. Nixon (1974) – limited executive privilege in criminal investigations. Judicial Powers Judicial Review: Power to invalidate unconstitutional statutes (Marbury v. Madison). Justiciability: Requires standing, ripeness, and mootness for a federal court to hear a case (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife). Federal Question Jurisdiction: Authority over federal issues; example: Brown v. Board of Education (1954) advanced civil rights jurisprudence. IV. Checks and Balances in Practice Interbranch Conflicts Congress → Executive: Impeachment, budgetary control. Executive → Congress: Veto power, executive orders. Judiciary → Both: Judicial review of legislative acts and executive actions (Cooper v. Aaron). Balancing National Security and Civil Liberties Key examples include Korematsu v. United States (1944) and Ha --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Constitutional Law Lecture 1 - Structure of Government and Separation of Powers Introduction This lecture provides an overview of the structure of the U.S. government, emphasizing the doctrines of separation of powers and checks and balances, alongside foundational constitutional principles like federalism, judicial review, and constitutional supremacy. Key themes include: Separation of Powers: Division of authority among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to prevent tyranny. Checks and Balances: Mechanisms for interbranch accountability. Federalism: Division of powers between the federal government and states. Judicial Review: Courts' power to declare laws unconstitutional. Constitutional Supremacy: Federal law and the Constitution take precedence over state law. Part 1: Constitutional Foundations Overview of the Constitution: Articles I, II, and III establish legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Article VI's Supremacy Clause ensures federal law overrides state laws. Marbury v. Madison (1803) established judicial review, making courts coequal enforcers of the Constitution. Federalism: Balances federal and state authority: Federal powers: Taxation, interstate commerce, national defense (e.g., Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)). State powers: Police powers, education, intrastate commerce (reserved via the 10th Amendment). Key cases: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Established federal supremacy and implied powers. Arizona v. United States (2012): Reinforced federal preemption over conflicting state laws. Printz v. United States (1997): Limited federal overreach on states' autonomy. Part 2: The Separation of Powers Doctrine Legislative Powers (Article I): Bicameral Congress enacts laws using powers such as: Commerce Clause (e.g., Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) expanded federal power; United States v. Lopez (1995) limited it). Taxing and Spending Power (e.g., South Dakota v. Dole (1987) upheld conditional federal funding). Necessary and Proper Clause: Authorizes laws to execute enumerated powers. Limits: Nondelegation Doctrine: Congress must set clear guidelines when delegating authority. Presentment Clause: Bills must pass both chambers and be presented to the President (INS v. Chadha (1983) invalidated legislative vetoes). Executive Powers (Article II): Includes: Commander-in-Chief authority. Appointment power (subject to Senate confirmation; limited by NLRB v. Noel Canning (2014)). Veto power and foreign affairs authority (United States v. Curtiss-Wright (1936)). Limits: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952): Prohibited unauthorized presidential seizure of private property. United States v. Nixon (1974): Limited executive privilege, affirming no one is above the law. Judicial Powers (Article III): Supreme Court exercises judicial review (Marbury v. Madison) and hears cases involving federal law or constitutional issues. Justiciability doctrines: Standing: E.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992). Ripeness, mootness, and political questions limit courts' jurisdiction. Federal judges' independence is ensured through life tenure and salary protections. Part 3: Checks and Balances in Practice Interbranch Conflicts: Legislative Checks on Executive: Impeachment (e.g., impeachments of Johnson, Clinton, Trump). Control of funding and oversight hearings. Executive Checks on Legislative: Veto power, executive orders, and signing statements. Judicial Checks on Both: Judicial review (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education, Cooper v. Aaron (1958) reaffirmed federal judicial supremacy). Balancing National Security and Civil Liberties: Cases such as: Korematsu v. United States (1944): Upheld controversial wartime actions, later repudiated by Trump v. Hawaii (2018). Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004): Affirmed detainees' due process rights. Ex parte Milligan (1866): Limited military tribunals where civilian courts are operational. Practical Applications and Exam Strategies Hypotheticals to Consider: Delegation of power to agencies --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Your host Josh Hammer explains the power of President Trump's ultimate ace up his sleeve when it comes to his New York and Georgia prosecutions: the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution. Plus, Trump's fantastic new announced picks to lead his Department of Justice, SCOTUS agrees to hear an important new abortion-related case, and more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to #Millennial, the home of pretend adulting and real post-mortem election talk! Running away to nature and self care: how we've spent the last week (or last million years) since the election. To our friends on the left: WE LOST. SORRY. DON'T GO DOWN THE CONSPIRACY RABBIT HOLE! Let's toot our own horn: unlike prior generations, millennials are not getting more conservative as we age (take that grandpa!). Confirmed: Republicans will take the House majority, but we're predicting a slim one, meaning House Speaker Mike Johnson will need to reach across the aisle to cancel out the crazy freedom caucus in his own party if he wants to get anything done. Get a sneak peak into Trump's cabinet here. What an assortment... On the west coast, CA Governor Gavin Newsom is attempting to bolster his state against the incoming admin's agenda. But how does the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution factor in here? Looking forward, how do we peacefully protest this agenda and maintain our sanity? Lead with kindness, pick 1-2 issue areas you really care about and make that your focus. This week's recommendations are all about self-soothing: Sunrise alarm clock (Pam), Ticket to Ride (Andrew), and outdoor meditation (Laura). And in this week's installment of After Dark: Andrew has a Bumble BFF update and the tea is PIPING hot! Are millennials and Gen Z angrier drivers than previous generations? We do tend to be whores for the horn! What are the traffic situations that bring out our road rage? 2/3 of us are definitely bitchy drivers, and as always, Pam is an angel! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supremacy Clause Source: Excerpts from "The Supremacy Clause: A Law School Lecture" Main Themes: Federal Supremacy: The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties as the "supreme Law of the Land," overriding any conflicting state laws. Federalism and State Sovereignty: While affirming federal supremacy, the Supremacy Clause operates within a framework of federalism, recognizing the reserved powers of states under the Tenth Amendment. Conflict Resolution: The Supremacy Clause provides a mechanism for resolving legal disputes between state and federal laws through the doctrine of preemption. Judicial Interpretation: Landmark Supreme Court cases have shaped the interpretation and application of the Supremacy Clause, defining the boundaries between federal and state authority. Most Important Ideas/Facts: Three Types of Supreme Federal Law: The Constitution: The foundational document, superseding any state action that contradicts it. Federal Laws: Laws enacted by Congress "in pursuance" of the Constitution, overriding conflicting state legislation. Treaties: Ratified agreements with foreign nations, holding equal standing with federal laws and preempting state laws. State Judges Bound: The Supremacy Clause explicitly binds state judges to uphold federal law, ensuring consistent application across state court systems. “Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Preemption Doctrine: The Supremacy Clause gives rise to the preemption doctrine, which determines when federal law overrides state law. This includes: Express Preemption: Congress explicitly states its intent to preempt state law. Implied Preemption: Field Preemption: Federal law is so comprehensive that it leaves no room for state regulation. Conflict Preemption: Compliance with both federal and state law is impossible (direct conflict) or state law hinders federal objectives (obstacle preemption). Landmark Cases: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Established the principle of implied powers and barred states from taxing federal institutions. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): Upheld federal supremacy in regulating interstate commerce. Arizona v. United States (2012): Reaffirmed federal preemption in the area of immigration law. Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: Limits federal power by prohibiting the federal government from forcing states to enact or enforce federal regulations. Limitations of the Supremacy Clause: Federalism Considerations: The Tenth Amendment reserves powers to states, allowing state laws to operate where there is no direct conflict or preemption. Presumption Against Preemption: Courts tend to favor state law in areas traditionally regulated by states, unless Congress clearly intended preemption. Concurrent Jurisdiction: Federal and state laws can coexist in many areas, permitting states to enforce their own laws and exceed federal requirements as long as there is no conflict. Quotes: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." "Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." "[The Supremacy Clause] was essential to addressing these issues, creating a mechanism through which federal laws, including treaties and constitutional provisions, would bind states and local governments." Conclusion: The Supremacy Clause is a cornerstone of the American legal system, ensuring the consistent application of federal law and resolving conflicts between state and federal authority. Understanding the Supremacy Clause is essential for grasping the dynamics of American federalism and the balance of power between the federal government and the states. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

OA1070 Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code OPENING for 4 months EXTRA at https://surfshark.com/OPENING We begin today's show with updates on two small victories for the power of art against the Donald Trump legal-industrial complex before turning to our main story: the biggest leak of internal communications in Supreme Court history.  We review what we can learn about how Chief Justice John Roberts has been managing his (and the Court's) public image from the extremely unauthorized release to the New York Times of memos that we were never supposed to read.  Also, Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee has just eliminated three more counts from the Georgia RICO indictment against Donald Trump and the co-conspirators charged with their attempt to submit a false slate of Presidential electors to a federal court based on 134-year-old Supreme Court precedent. What's going on here, and how safe is this indictment now? Finally in this week's Footnote Fetish, Matt explains why some scruffy-looking nerf-herder is trying to convince a British court that his legal rights were violated by Lucasfilm's digital resurrection of the deadliest villain in Star Wars history.  How Chief Justice Roberts Shaped Trump's Supreme Court Winning Streak - The New York Times (nytimes.com) (9/15/24) Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee's order dismissing defendants' motion to dismiss RICO indictments against Donald Trump et al under the Supremacy Clause (9/12/2024) UK High Court's judgment in Tyburn FIlm Productions Ltd v. Broughton et al If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

In this all-new episode, Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor, and Asha Rangappa, a national security law professor, dissect the recent dismissal of three felony charges against Trump and his co-defendants in Georgia, two of which directly implicated the former president.  Why does any of this matter in the grand scheme of things? Well, it's complicated. Subscribe to our Patreon here, where paid members will get access to exclusive portions of this show. patreon.com/reallyamericanmedia Asha and Renato delve into the complexities of the Georgia case, which contains a sprawling indictment against Donald Trump and other defendants that still has 32-counts remaining, including the wide-ranging racketeering charge. You'll also hear their analysis on that judge's ruling on state versus federal supremacy in perjury cases which resulted in last week's dismissals and you'll get an overall update on the status of District Attorney Fani Willis' case.  Our hosts also discuss the various legal challenges and rulings from the Georgia case, including several previously quashed charges over issues related to specificity and perjury. Burrowing into the weeds, we'll cover the unique challenges of determining jurisdiction and reach in state versus federal law in these groundbreaking cases. And you'll hear an expert examination of how the Constitution's Supremacy Clause and the Electoral Count Act play into it all.  Asha and Renato also explore how these recent developments will impact those who pleaded guilty to Georgia charges that have since been quashed. Specifically, they ponder over convicted Trump lawyer Kenneth Cheeseborough's plea deal and what the nullified charges might mean for him.   They'll also explain why the Fulton County's Election Board's potential growing influence on national elections is so significant, and give you the latest on the Democratic Party's major lawsuit filed against the Board. For more highly entertaining detailed legal insights and expert analysis, be sure to tune in next week for a very special episode. Stay informed, stay engaged, and be part of the conversation about the future of American justice, right here on It's Complicated. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution states federal laws and treaties are the supreme law of the land.

It's the Ranch It Up Radio Show Herd It Here Weekly Report!  A 3-minute look at cattle markets, reports, news info, or anything that has to do with those of us who live at the end of dirt roads.  Join Jeff 'Tigger' Erhardt, the Boss Lady Rebecca Wanner aka 'BEC' by subscribing on your favorite podcasting app or on the Ranch It Up Radio Show YouTube Channel. EPISODE 43 DETAILS Current Cattle Industry News JBS Cattle Outlook for 2025 & Beyond According to MeatingPlace.com, JBS expects 2025 to continue to be a challenging year for the US beef industry, with cattle availability increasing to higher levels in 2026, according to the JBS USA chief executive officer. He went on to say that we are pretty optimistic about the beginning of (cattle) retention in the US. We see cow slaughtering coming down by 15% year-over-year. We think that is a huge sign of retention starting.  The moment that is very important for us to watch out for is going to be this fall, and we're going to see what happens. He said JBS Beef North America will continue to capture gains from improvements in industrial processes, which should contribute to increasing the unit's margins in the future. In the second quarter of 2024, JBS USA's beef margins were pressured by low cattle availability Florida Sued Over Cultivated Meat Ban Upside Foods filed a lawsuit recently over a Florida law that bans the sale of cultivated meat in the state. Berkeley, Calif.-based Upside Foods, one of two companies approved to sell cultivated meat in the United States, contends the Florida law that took effect July 1 is unconstitutional, according to court documents. Specifically, the lawsuit argues that the ban violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by federal laws regulating meat and poultry products, and that it violates the dormant aspect of the Commerce Clause by purposely “insulating” Florida ag businesses from out-of-state competition. Florida was the first state to ban cultivated meat, with Gov. Ron DeSantis saying Florida was “fighting back” against the “global elite” who were allegedly forcing consumers to eat cultivated meat. He said his administration was protecting Florida farmers and ranchers in an effort to “save our beef.” Alabama was the second state to ban cultivated meat. “UPSIDE doesn't want to force anyone to eat cultivated meat,” the company's lawsuit states. “But it does want the opportunity to distribute its product to willing consumers, so that those consumers can decide for themselves whether UPSIDE's product is worth eating. And UPSIDE has a right to do so, because SB 1084 is unconstitutional.” SPONSORS Trans Ova Genetics https://transova.com/ @TransOvaGenetics American Gelbvieh Association https://gelbvieh.org/ @AmericanGelbvieh Allied Genetic Resources https://alliedgeneticresources.com/ @AlliedGeneticResources Ranch Channel https://ranchchannel.com/ @RanchChannel Axiota Animal Health https://axiota.com/ @MultiminUSA Questions & Concerns From The Field? Call or Text your questions, or comments to 707-RANCH20 or 707-726-2420 Or email RanchItUpShow@gmail.com FOLLOW Facebook/Instagram: @RanchItUpShow SUBSCRIBE to the Ranch It Up YouTube Channel: @ranchitup Website: RanchItUpShow.com https://ranchitupshow.com/ The Ranch It Up Podcast is available on ALL podcasting apps. https://ranchitup.podbean.com/ Rural America is center-stage on this outfit. AND how is that? Because of Tigger & BEC... Live This Western Lifestyle. Tigger & BEC represent the Working Ranch world by providing the cowboys, cowgirls, beef cattle producers & successful farmers the knowledge and education needed to bring high-quality beef & meat to your table for dinner. Learn more about Jeff 'Tigger' Erhardt & Rebecca Wanner aka BEC here: TiggerandBEC.com https://tiggerandbec.com/ #RanchItUp #StayRanchy #TiggerApproved #tiggerandbec #rodeo #ranching #farming REFERENCES https://www.meatingplace.com/Industry/News/Details/115653 https://www.meatingplace.com/Industry/News/Details/115613

Despite what supporters of the monster state want you to believe, there are times when states push back against federal power and the supremacy clause doesn't even apply. Learn about this powerful 10th Amendment tool called anti-commandeering. The post 10th Amendment: Why the Supremacy Clause Doesn't Apply When States Opt Out first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

#SistersInlaw LIVE: Get tickets now - politicon.com/tour May 2 - Chicago - Athenaeum Center May 9 - Detroit - Royal Oak Music Theatre May 30 - Boston - Shubert Theatre politicon.com/tour Kimberly Atkins Stohr hosts #SistersInLaw to cover Trump's options for raising funds and the implications of not being able to post bond, Judge Cannon's issuance of divergent sets of jury instructions in the Mar-A-Lago case, and why the upcoming “Stormy Daniels' hush money trial” is actually a prosecution of election interference.  The #Sisters also discuss the legality of Texas S.B. 4's attempt to override federal immigration laws, why the Supremacy Clause applies, Mexico's response, and how enforcement could lead to discrimination.  Then they explain the DOJ's antitrust complaint against Apple. Get your #SistersInLaw gear or the perfect gift at politicon.com/merch WEBSITE & TRANSCRIPT Email: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcast #SistersInlaw LIVE: Get tickets now - politicon.com/tour May 2 - Chicago - Athenaeum Center May 9 - Detroit - Royal Oak Music Theatre May 30 - Boston - Shubert Theatre politicon.com/tour Get Barb's New Book:  Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America Barb's Book Tour  Please Support This Week's Sponsors: Reel Paper: Get 30% off a subscription and free shipping on sustainable paper products for your home when you go to reelpaper.com/sil and use promo code: SIL OneSkin: Get 15% off OneSkin with the code SISTERS at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod Wild Grain:  Get $30 off and free croissants in every box when you start your subscription to delicious quick bake artisanal pastries, pastas, and bread at wildgrain.com/sisters with promo code: SISTERS Aura:  Explore the effectiveness of Aura's parental controls with a free 14-day trial when you go to aura.com/sisters Mentioned By The #Sisters: From Joyce on recusing Judge Cannon DOJ complaint against Apple Get More From #SistersInLaw Joyce Vance: Twitter | University of Alabama Law | MSNBC | Civil Discourse Substack Jill Wine-Banks: Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | Unbound Newsletter Barb McQuade: Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC

#SistersInlaw On Tour: We are going on tour !! Sign up now to get updates on the upcoming live shows  in Boston, Detroit, and Chicago at politicon.com/tour Joyce Vance hosts #SistersInLaw to discuss the reasoning behind the SCOTUS taking up Trump's immunity claims, how they are expected to rule, and effects of the delay on his trial calendar and future presidential powers.  Then, the #Sisters explain the contrasting 1st Amendment and censorship issues that led to a Circuit Court split on Big Tech's ability to moderate content, and lay out what might happen next.  They also cover whether the Supremacy Clause applies to the SB4 immigration law in Texas and game out how it will progress through the courts. Get your #SistersInLaw gear or the perfect gift at politicon.com/merch WEBSITE & TRANSCRIPT Email: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcast #SistersInlaw On Tour: Get updates on the #Sisters' upcoming tour to Boston, Detroit, and Chicago at politicon.com/tour Get Barb's New Book:  Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America Barb's Book Tour  From The #Sisters: Birthright: A War Story Please Support This Week's Sponsors Earth Breeze: Save 40% on a subscription for eco-friendly laundry detergent sheets at earthbreeze.com/sisters LolaVie: Get 15% off LolaVie with the code SISTERS at https://www.lolavie.com/sisters #lolaviepod Aura:  Explore the effectiveness of Aura's parental controls with a free 14-day trial when you go to aura.com/sisters Wild Grain:  Get $30 off and free croissants in every box when you start your subscription to delicious quick bake artisanal pastries, pastas, and bread at wildgrain.com/sisters with promo code: SISTERS Get More From #SistersInLaw Joyce Vance: Twitter | University of Alabama Law | MSNBC | Civil Discourse Substack Jill Wine-Banks: Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | Unbound Newsletter Barb McQuade: Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC

One of the most twisted and abused clauses of the Constitution - most people get it almost totally backwards. The post Constitution 101: The Supremacy Clause first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

On August 14, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis announced that the grand jury had returned a criminal indictment against Trump and eighteen other defendants for what they did in the days and weeks after the 2020 election. The story told by the indictment is that this group were part of a criminal enterprise that worked towards one singular goal: overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia.One of the people indicted is former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. He is trying to get his case tried in federal court instead of Georgia state court. In his petition, Meadows cites a 1899 case about margarine.  Yes, margarine.

This week, Alan, Quinta, and Scott reunited to talk through the week's big national security news, including:“Pack Your Knives and Go Home.” Vladimir Putin's top chef has been eliminated. Wagner mercenary chief and Kremlin caterer Yevgeny Prighozin was killed in a plane crash this past week alongside a number of associates, in what the government has conceded might have been a deliberate act. If this was Putin's revenge, what led him to take this step now? And what will it mean for his Wagner mercenary group—and the stability of Putin's regime?“The Down Mexico Way.” At the first Republican presidential primary debate last week, there was surprising unity around one point: using the military to go after drug cartels in Mexico, whether it cooperates or not. What should we make of the villainization of America's southern neighbor? And how realistic are these sorts of proposals?“(Re)Movin' On Up.” Mark Meadows spent this past Monday trying to move his prosecution for crimes relating to 2020 election interference from Fulton County, Georgia, to federal court, so he can claim a form of immunity stemming from the Supremacy Clause. And some of his co-defendants are not far behind. What should we make of these arguments? Are they likely to succeed?For object lessons, Alan recommended literary puzzle box and joy to read " Trust" by Hernan Diaz. Quinta shared the HBO show, "How to with John Wilson." And Scott dug into the historical archive to endorse Stanley Karnow's "Vietnam: A History." Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Alan, Quinta, and Scott reunited to talk through the week's big national security news, including:“Pack Your Knives and Go Home.” Vladimir Putin's top chef has been eliminated. Wagner mercenary chief and Kremlin caterer Yevgeny Prighozin was killed in a plane crash this past week alongside a number of associates, in what the government has conceded might have been a deliberate act. If this was Putin's revenge, what led him to take this step now? And what will it mean for his Wagner mercenary group—and the stability of Putin's regime?“The Down Mexico Way.” At the first Republican presidential primary debate last week, there was surprising unity around one point: using the military to go after drug cartels in Mexico, whether it cooperates or not. What should we make of the villainization of America's southern neighbor? And how realistic are these sorts of proposals?“(Re)Movin' On Up.” Mark Meadows spent this past Monday trying to move his prosecution for crimes relating to 2020 election interference from Fulton County, Georgia, to federal court, so he can claim a form of immunity stemming from the Supremacy Clause. And some of his co-defendants are not far behind. What should we make of these arguments? Are they likely to succeed? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.