Podcasts about Supremacy Clause

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.

Tom Martz from the Locke and Smith Foundation joins me tonight to discuss amendments that will be appearing on Missouri ballots this November. And, of course, we'll be talking about the court opinion on SAPA. When justices don't understand the Supremacy Clause, you know you're in trouble.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/missouri-liberty-report--4329356/support.

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

Summary of Chapter 7: Preemption and the Supremacy Clause Chapter 7 delves into the intricacies of federalism, focusing on the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of preemption, which are foundational to understanding the relationship between federal and state laws in the United States. Supremacy Clause: Found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy Clause establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the "supreme Law of the Land." This clause ensures that federal law prevails over state law in cases of conflict, promoting a uniform legal framework across the nation. It mandates that state judges must uphold federal laws even when state laws or constitutions conflict. Preemption Doctrine: Preemption, derived from the Supremacy Clause, occurs when federal law overrides or preempts state law. The chapter explains the two types of preemption: Express Preemption: Occurs when a federal statute explicitly states that it overrides state law. Implied Preemption: Arises when federal regulation is so pervasive (field preemption) or when compliance with both federal and state law is impossible (conflict preemption). Impact on State Laws: The chapter discusses how preemption reflects the tension between state sovereignty and federal authority. While it ensures national uniformity in law, it can also limit states' ability to regulate matters within their borders. The courts, particularly the Supreme Court, play a crucial role in determining the boundaries of preemption. Key Case Law: The chapter highlights significant Supreme Court cases, such as McCulloch v. Maryland and Arizona v. United States, which have shaped the interpretation of the Supremacy Clause and preemption. Federal Preemption in Practice: The chapter provides examples of how preemption operates in areas like healthcare, environmental regulation, and consumer protection, illustrating the practical implications of the doctrine. Interstate Relations and the Full Faith and Credit Clause: The chapter also covers the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which requires states to recognize and honor the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states, promoting legal consistency and cooperation across state lines. Privileges and Immunities Clause: This clause prevents states from discriminating against citizens of other states, ensuring that all citizens enjoy the same rights and protections when they travel or move between states. In essence, Chapter 7 provides a comprehensive overview of how the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of preemption function within the U.S. federal system, emphasizing the balance between national authority and state autonomy, and the mechanisms that ensure legal consistency across the nation. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 7: Preemption and the Supremacy Clause Chapter 7 delves into the intricacies of federalism, focusing on the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of preemption, which are foundational to understanding the relationship between federal and state laws in the United States. Supremacy Clause: Found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy Clause establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the "supreme Law of the Land." This clause ensures that federal law prevails over state law in cases of conflict, promoting a uniform legal framework across the nation. It mandates that state judges must uphold federal laws even when state laws or constitutions conflict. Preemption Doctrine: Preemption, derived from the Supremacy Clause, occurs when federal law overrides or preempts state law. The chapter explains the two types of preemption: Express Preemption: Occurs when a federal statute explicitly states that it overrides state law. Implied Preemption: Arises when federal regulation is so pervasive (field preemption) or when compliance with both federal and state law is impossible (conflict preemption). Impact on State Laws: The chapter discusses how preemption reflects the tension between state sovereignty and federal authority. While it ensures national uniformity in law, it can also limit states' ability to regulate matters within their borders. The courts, particularly the Supreme Court, play a crucial role in determining the boundaries of preemption. Key Case Law: The chapter highlights significant Supreme Court cases, such as McCulloch v. Maryland and Arizona v. United States, which have shaped the interpretation of the Supremacy Clause and preemption. Federal Preemption in Practice: The chapter provides examples of how preemption operates in areas like healthcare, environmental regulation, and consumer protection, illustrating the practical implications of the doctrine. Interstate Relations and the Full Faith and Credit Clause: The chapter also covers the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which requires states to recognize and honor the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states, promoting legal consistency and cooperation across state lines. Privileges and Immunities Clause: This clause prevents states from discriminating against citizens of other states, ensuring that all citizens enjoy the same rights and protections when they travel or move between states. In essence, Chapter 7 provides a comprehensive overview of how the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of preemption function within the U.S. federal system, emphasizing the balance between national authority and state autonomy, and the mechanisms that ensure legal consistency across the nation. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Tani Cantil-Sakauye, former Chief Justice of California Supreme Court for 11 years, and current President of the Public Policy Institute of California, was interviewed by Joanne Z. Tan, host and producer of "Interviews of Notables and Influencers" of 10 Plus Podcast on June 24, 2024. Around 22 questions and answers are presented in three parts: Part One: Tani's journey, lessons learned, and insights from being the Chief Justice on the highest court in California;  Part 2: California's economy and future; Part 3: Election reform, federalism, and democracy.   –  Please SHARE it! Thank you. To read as a blog (coming soon) To watch as a video (Introduction of the Host of this Podcast:) Before I have the GREAT honor to introduce Tani Cantil-Sakauye, let me briefly introduce myself. I am Joanne Tan, host and producer of the 10 Plus Podcast, “Interviews of Notables and Influencers”.  I am the CEO of 10 Plus Brand, Inc. — a brand-building and brand-marketing agency for companies and leaders. Growing brands - business or personal - is my passion. I also have a law degree and I career-coach attorneys and executives, and manage brands of board members, leadership coaches, and consultants. I have lived and worked in the San Francisco Bay Area for 36 years. It was in San Francisco that I became a US citizen almost 30 years ago. I care deeply about my home state and our country whose ideals and values inspired me to leave everything behind in China 42 years ago. I'd like to give back to my beloved California and America.  (Introducing Tani Cantil-Sakauye:) Tani Cantil-Sakauye was the former Chief Justice of California Supreme Court for 11 years. Currently, she is the president and CEO of the Public Policy Institute of California (“PPIC”) where she holds the Walter and Esther Hewlett Chair in Understanding California's Future. One of the founders of PPIC was Walter Hewlett, also one of the founders of Hewlett Packard.  PPIC provides data-based research to the state legislature to help make better policies for all Californians. California legislators and executive officials do listen to Tani and PPIC. From 2011 to 2022, Tani served as the 28th Chief Justice of California, and led the judiciary as the chair of the Judicial Council—the constitutional policy and rule making body of the judicial branch—the first person of color and the second woman to do so. Before she was elected statewide as the Chief Justice of California, she served more than 20 years on California appellate and trial courts and was appointed or elevated to higher office by three governors. Earlier in her career she served as a deputy District Attorney for the Sacramento DA Office, and on the senior staff of Governor Deukmejian as legal affairs and legislative deputy secretary. https://www.ppic.org/person/tani-cantil-sakauye/ Disclaimer: I take a completely non-partisan approach to economic policy, election reform, and judicial issues. All my questions here are issue-based, not through the lens of politics or political partisanship, even though I regard myself as a centrist Democrat. Part 1 Questions: Tani's personal journey, lessons learned and insights as former Chief Justice of CA Supreme Court (1) Q: How did you choose your path? What were your challenges and satisfactions as a California Supreme Court Chief Justice? What lessons would you like to share with us from serving on the state Supreme Court? (2) Q: As a role model, raised in a non-privileged background, what qualities and mindset are the most important for your achievements and continued growth? What wisdom can you share with people of all backgrounds? (3) Facts or Opinions? - Critical Thinking and Human Intelligence Are Needed to Process Information and Decipher Facts from Media, Social Media, AI (4) Q: As a personal branding expert and a business brand builder, I ask all my honored guests this question: What does your brand stand for?   (5) Q: Are you considering running for any office in the future?    Part 2 Questions: California's Economy and Future (6) Q: About AI and regulations. AI is being widely adopted across many industries globally, and is playing a significant role in reducing costs and increasing productivity. (https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai)  But at the same time, AI is making fake information, disinformation, as well as its distribution a lot easier, faster, and with more impact (based on the Economist Magazine in May 2024 featured two articles: “Fighting disinformation gets harder, just when it matters most”, while “Producing fake information is getting easier” (https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2024/05/01/fighting-disinformation-gets-harder-just-when-it-matters-most?utm_campaign=r.science-newsletter&utm_medium=email.internal-newsletter.np&utm_source=salesforce-marketing-cloud&utm_term=5/1/2024&utm_id=1877854 (https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2024/05/01/producing-fake-information-is-getting-easier?utm_campaign=r.science-newsletter&utm_medium=email.internal-newsletter.np&utm_source=salesforce-marketing-cloud&utm_term=5/1/2024&utm_id=1877854) What is the legislative balance between controlling the harm from AI generated or facilitated false information, and not killing the golden goose of AI technology? (7) Q: California's aging population: What are the anticipated consequences, and how are we going to tackle the issue? Can AI offset the shrinking productive population, since AI increases productivity and decreases labor cost? (8) Q: Related or unrelated to the aging population issue, do border-crossing, undocumented immigrants actually help with the labor shortage? Is it also related to political advantage, i.e. the number of congressional seats are based on the census?  What will California do with the border crossing issue?  (9) Q: Insurance:  Many insurance companies for residential homes have left California. The lack of competition has resulted in much higher premiums for all Californians. What can be done about it? (10) Q: High housing cost for Californians and exodus to other states: Californian families are leaving for other states where housing and living expenses are lower. What are the ramifications for the mid and long term California economy? Does it lead to brain drain?  (11) Q: Homelessness and the implementation of Prop. 1: What improvement have we seen? How can the implementation be improved? Who is accountable?  (12) Q: Increase of minimum wage for California fast food workers and the ripple effects: A Bloomberg article on April 16, 2024 pointed out the impact of California minimum wage hike for fast food workers on prolonging inflation and delaying the Fed's rate cut.  Now, California consumers have to pay more for fast food because the increased wage was passed down to the buyers, and most of the fast food consumers are not well off. Is it a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul? Does this well-intended law result in delayed inflation recovery for everyone? Is legislation interfering with the free market? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-16/how-california-s-huge-raises-for-fast-food-workers-will-ripple-across-industries (13) Q: The high cost of doing business in California creates an exodus of businesses to other states. Many are leaving due to pro-labor legislation that burdens employers. What can the state legislature do to keep the cost down for businesses? (14) Q: What does the state government need to do to keep tech giants like Google, Apple, Nvidia and others in Silicon Valley? (15) Q: Budget deficits and tax increases: In the tech industry, there are fewer IPOs now, and less tax from capital gains for the government. (https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/technology/why-california-budget-problems-could-be-blamed-on-ipo-market/article_197ac9d8-0f24-11ef-9f28-5f7fe6820efc.html#:~:text=IPOs%20%E2%80%94%20the%20typical%20way%20startups,are%20taxed%20by%20the%20state.)  Budget deficits exist at both state and local levels.  The California Supreme Court will hear arguments on the legality of a ballot measure that would strip the Legislature and governor of the ability to increase taxes (The Los Angeles Times reports). Tax increases will further the exodus of companies and Californians out of California. Are there any other options for dealing with budget deficits? (16) Q: Bullet trains:  Are they ever going to be completed, after three decades? ( - The Economist's article, May 17, 2024: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/05/16/the-worlds-slowest-bullet-train-trundles-ahead-in-california (17) Q: Drought and water shortage due to global warming: Governor Newsom was talking about building reservoirs. What can we do to make it happen, hopefully not in three decades since global warming might turn California into a desert in 30 years without us taking actions NOW? Part 3 Questions: Federal election reform; Term Limits, SCOTUS Ethics Rules, Republic Democracy, Politics (18) Q: Rank Choice Voting:  It has been advocated by some very intelligent Harvard professors and political consultants. Rank Choice Voting is already used in some gubernatorial and mayoral elections, can it be used in primaries for presidential elections? (As advocated in the book The Politics Industry: How Political Innovation Can Break Partisan Gridlock and Save Our Democracy, by Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter, a Harvard Business School professor.) (19) Q: Term Limits for US Supreme Court Justices: Stanford Professors Larry Diamond and other highly respected voices recommend term limits for SCOTUS, which is gaining traction widely in the US.  Some suggested the term limit to be at age 75, or three terms of six years, and the fourth term is up to six years.  Stanford Professor Larry Diamond in his book “Ill Winds” suggests limiting every SCOTUS' term to 18 years. What do you think? (20) Ethic rules for SCOTUSES:  In light of the revelations about accepting lavish gifts for decades by the US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, do you think Congress needs to make ENFORCEABLE ethics rules that will hold SCOTUSES liable, since no one is above the law? If any of the SCOTUSES violate them, who should enforce the rules, and what would be the punishment? (21) Q: Regarding the principles of federalism, state power, and our republic. This may be a loaded question, but I think we all want to hear from your perspective. The United States was founded on the principle of a republic consisting of independent states, where federal laws and state laws are independent and separate. This question is not meant to be political (I know that your political party affiliation is independent, and I respect that) . I'd like to use the current conviction of former President Donald Trump by New York State Court to learn about federal court limitations and potential over-reach.  Federalism, checks and balances: Assume this scenario: IF the US Supreme Court rules that a sitting president has Absolute Immunity, (which sounds like the power of a king), and further rules that the New York conviction must be retried, vacated, or even overruled, on the ground that the falsification of business records under New York Law is related to the FEDERAL election, even though the illegal act related to federal election deprived citizens their right to be informed, which is a FEDERAL crime, will the federal Absolute Immunity override New York state law, under the Supremacy Clause (since Trump wrote the check to reimburse the hush money after inauguration, presumably under Absolute Immunity protection)?  If the US Supreme Court indeed rules as such, what are the ramifications, in your opinion, for our foundational principles of independent state and federal judiciaries? Would that be an overreach by the federal judicial branch? What harm would Absolute Immunity do to the checks and balances of our government? Same scenario, same questions, but with Limited Immunity instead of Absolute Immunity. (22) Q: About civility, the prerequisite for democracy. The vitriol, the hatred, the partisanship, the mutual blaming... All of these are eating America up from inside. What do you think each citizen should do, to restore civility, respect for institutions, public office, healthy debates, and save our democracy?   –  Please SHARE it! Thank you. To read as a blog (coming soon) To watch as a video © Joanne Z. Tan   All rights reserved. ========================================================= - To stay in the loop, subscribe to our Newsletter - Download free Ebook (About 10 Plus Brand: In addition to the “whole 10 yards” of brand building, digital marketing, and content creation for business and personal brands. To contact us: 1-888-288-4533.) - Visit our Websites: https://10plusbrand.com/ https://10plusprofile.com/ Phone: 888-288-4533 - Find us online by clicking or follow these hashtags: #10PlusBrand #10PlusPodcast #JoanneZTan #10PlusInterviews  #BrandDNA #BeYourOwnBrand #StandForSomething #SuperBowlTVCommercials #PoemsbyJoanneTan #GenuineVideo #AIXD #AI Experience Design

Chapter 2: The Structure of the Federal Government Separation of Powers The doctrine of separation of powers is a cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution. It divides the federal government into three distinct branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial. Each branch has specific powers and responsibilities, ensuring that no single entity wields unchecked authority. Legislative Branch (Article I): Comprised of the House of Representatives and the Senate, collectively known as Congress. Its primary functions include making laws, declaring war, regulating interstate and foreign commerce, and controlling taxation and spending policies. Executive Branch (Article II): Headed by the President, who acts as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, oversees the execution of federal laws, conducts foreign policy, and has the power to veto legislation. The President is supported by the Vice President, Cabinet, and various executive agencies. Judicial Branch (Article III): Consists of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. It interprets laws, adjudicates disputes under the law, and has the authority to declare laws or executive actions unconstitutional. This system of separation of powers is designed to prevent the concentration of power and protect individual liberties. It creates a framework for each branch to operate independently while maintaining a system of mutual oversight. Checks and Balances To further safeguard against tyranny, the Constitution implements a system of checks and balances. Each branch of government has mechanisms to limit or check the powers of the other branches: Legislative Checks: Congress can override a presidential veto with a two-thirds vote, control funding for executive actions, and impeach and remove the President or federal judges for misconduct. The Senate also confirms judicial and executive appointments and ratifies treaties. Executive Checks: The President can veto legislation, appoint judges and other officials, and issue executive orders to direct government operations. The President also has the power to pardon individuals convicted of federal crimes. Judicial Checks: The judiciary can review and invalidate laws or executive actions that are unconstitutional through judicial review. Judges are appointed for life, ensuring independence from political pressures. These checks and balances ensure that each branch can restrain the other branches, fostering a balanced distribution of power and promoting accountability within the government. Federalism: Division of Power Between Federal and State Governments Federalism is a defining feature of the U.S. constitutional system, dividing authority between the national government and the states. This division allows for a balance of power, with each level of government exercising sovereignty in its sphere. Federal Powers: The Constitution grants the federal government certain enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate commerce, conducting foreign affairs, and providing for national defense. The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to enact laws essential to carrying out these powers. State Powers: The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government or prohibited by the Constitution. This includes authority over areas such as public health, safety, education, and local governance. Concurrent Powers: Both federal and state governments share some powers, including the ability to tax, build roads, and enforce laws. In cases of conflict, the Supremacy Clause asserts that federal law prevails over state law. Federalism promotes diversity and experimentation in policy, as states can tailor their laws to local needs and preferences. It also provides a system of government that accommodates a large and diverse nation by distributing power across multiple levels. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Chapter 2: The Structure of the Federal Government Separation of Powers The doctrine of separation of powers is a cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution. It divides the federal government into three distinct branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial. Each branch has specific powers and responsibilities, ensuring that no single entity wields unchecked authority. Legislative Branch (Article I): Comprised of the House of Representatives and the Senate, collectively known as Congress. Its primary functions include making laws, declaring war, regulating interstate and foreign commerce, and controlling taxation and spending policies. Executive Branch (Article II): Headed by the President, who acts as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, oversees the execution of federal laws, conducts foreign policy, and has the power to veto legislation. The President is supported by the Vice President, Cabinet, and various executive agencies. Judicial Branch (Article III): Consists of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. It interprets laws, adjudicates disputes under the law, and has the authority to declare laws or executive actions unconstitutional. This system of separation of powers is designed to prevent the concentration of power and protect individual liberties. It creates a framework for each branch to operate independently while maintaining a system of mutual oversight. Checks and Balances To further safeguard against tyranny, the Constitution implements a system of checks and balances. Each branch of government has mechanisms to limit or check the powers of the other branches: Legislative Checks: Congress can override a presidential veto with a two-thirds vote, control funding for executive actions, and impeach and remove the President or federal judges for misconduct. The Senate also confirms judicial and executive appointments and ratifies treaties. Executive Checks: The President can veto legislation, appoint judges and other officials, and issue executive orders to direct government operations. The President also has the power to pardon individuals convicted of federal crimes. Judicial Checks: The judiciary can review and invalidate laws or executive actions that are unconstitutional through judicial review. Judges are appointed for life, ensuring independence from political pressures. These checks and balances ensure that each branch can restrain the other branches, fostering a balanced distribution of power and promoting accountability within the government. Federalism: Division of Power Between Federal and State Governments Federalism is a defining feature of the U.S. constitutional system, dividing authority between the national government and the states. This division allows for a balance of power, with each level of government exercising sovereignty in its sphere. Federal Powers: The Constitution grants the federal government certain enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate commerce, conducting foreign affairs, and providing for national defense. The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to enact laws essential to carrying out these powers. State Powers: The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government or prohibited by the Constitution. This includes authority over areas such as public health, safety, education, and local governance. Concurrent Powers: Both federal and state governments share some powers, including the ability to tax, build roads, and enforce laws. In cases of conflict, the Supremacy Clause asserts that federal law prevails over state law. Federalism promotes diversity and experimentation in policy, as states can tailor their laws to local needs and preferences. It also provides a system of government that accommodates a large and diverse nation by distributing power across multiple levels. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

In an unforeseen twist in the multi-pronged legal saga surrounding former US President Donald Trump, a rarely invoked constitutional provision could potentially provide a shield to Trump, allowing him to evade state sentences or trials, as reported by USA Today.According to legal experts, the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, which states that federal laws reign supreme over state regulations in case of conflict, could be a game changer in Trump's current legal scenario. While it is clear that the Supremacy Clause, as the "supreme Law of the Land," doesn't grant immunity to a sitting president for crimes committed during their term, its applicability against criminal charges and sentences passed by state authorities on a former president is less known territory.New York and Georgia house the two main cases Trump is currently embroiled in. The state of New York is investigating his finances, which involves claims of tax evasion, misleading business practices, and potential discrepancies in asset valuations. Meanwhile, Georgia is scrutinizing his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state, charging the former commander-in-chief with election interference.However, the Supremacy Clause could act as a potential roadblock for the state authorities pressing charges against Trump. According to the Clause, federal law and authorities supersede their state counterparts when there is a conflict. If applied in Trump's case, his past status as the federal head of state could legally quash any state-held trials or sentences on the grounds of federal-state conflict.While this interpretation of the Supremacy Clause could potentially change the real estate mogul's legal fate, it is important to note that this interpretation is not universally agreed upon among constitutional scholars and legal experts. Critics argue that should Trump successfully leverage this clause to evade his charges, it could set a dangerous precedent for future presidents, many of whom also possess significant state-level legal authority.Jack Smith, a constitutional expert, expressed concern about this development. He stated that if this interpretation of the Supremacy Clause were generally accepted, it could create a 'two-tier' system of justice, where frankly anyone who was ever a federal official could assert supremacy to avoid state-level scrutiny.As debate continues among legal circles regarding the Supremacy Clause's potential use in protecting Trump from state trials, it's clear that this issue promises far-reaching implications, not only for Trump but also for the interaction between state and federal governmental powers. It's adjudication may redefine the very nature of accountability of public officials, both present and past.

Brad Young, KMOX Legal Analyst, and partner at Harris Dowell Fisher & Young, joins Debbie and Tom and explains that the Constitution's Supremacy Clause lays out the qualifications for President.  Washington's state law barring felons from running for elected office can not 'trump' the Constitution says Young.    Brad also takes a look at a free speech case involving a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

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

                                       The History of Child Support. FACT or Fiction@Chrish289 (c)Copyright, 2021-2030The inception of the Child Support Enforcement (C.S.E.) program dates back to 1975 when it was established under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act as a collaborative effort between the federal and state governments. This initiative was born with a clear objective: to mitigate the financial burden on taxpayers by securing consistent financial support from noncustodial parents. By doing so, the program aimed to alleviate the need for public cash assistance provided to custodial parents, thus relieving the strain on state and federal budgets. This overarching goal, often termed as public assistance cost-recovery, underscores the program's fundamental mission. Through effective enforcement measures and support mechanisms, the C.S.E. program endeavors to ensure that children receive the financial support they are entitled to, while also promoting fiscal responsibility within the broader welfare system.Child Support Lawsuit Simplified. We teach you strategies and techniques to free yourself of judicial misconduct from the State and Federal. The guarantee is YOURS.❤️ Please Donate to Support The Research ----------

#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

The enactment of the new Texan statute, Senate Bill 4, expected to be operational by Tuesday, was temporarily stalled by U.S. District Judge David Ezra in Austin this week. The legislation, crafted to provide state law enforcement the power to apprehend anyone suspected of unauthorized crossing on the Texas-Mexico border, now stands inside an accelerating legal challenge. The state of Texas finds itself in the midst of multiple lawsuits, primarily led by the federal government and some immigration-focused nonprofits Ezra's order highlighted the potential for severe and inalterable damage if SB 4 is put into effect, notably for the federal government. His argumentation emphasizes how the law could potentially inspire other U.S. states to craft their unique immigration laws, consequently leading to a discordant set of immigration rules. This outcome can potentially disturb the long-established norm of immigration regulation being solely within federal rule. In his judicial order, Ezra voiced, 'SB 4 may compromise the crucial understanding that immigration regulation within the U.S. must present a unified front.' He argued further that SB 4 could result in the detention and expulsion of immigrants who might qualify for political asylum. Such actions would be in violation of both the Constitution and U.S. treaty obligations. Recognizing the threats posed by drug cartels and trafficking organizations, Ezra made it clear in his ruling that these concerns do not validate crimes against the Supremacy Clause. 'Certainly, Texas has the authority to and indeed does crackdown on such illicit activities. This ruling does not hinder any law enforcement efforts against them. Notwithstanding, disagreement on the federal government's delivery on border immigration policies cannot justify infringing the Supremacy Clause,' he stated.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sometimes you can't actually fake being smart. _________________________________________________ Alina Habba may soon be replaced in the Trump legal team constellation, but we'll always have memories of her crackerjack legal analysis and the stupid swimsuit debate. There are four justices who don't seem to care about the Supremacy Clause. And Davis Polk faced -- and successfully beat -- a discrimination suit.

Sometimes you can't actually fake being smart. _________________________________________________ Alina Habba may soon be replaced in the Trump legal team constellation, but we'll always have memories of her crackerjack legal analysis and the stupid swimsuit debate. There are four justices who don't seem to care about the Supremacy Clause. And Davis Polk faced -- and successfully beat -- a discrimination suit.

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.

News

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.

Session 6 - Preamble and Articles of the Constitution. Part 6: Federalism - The Division of Powers Between Federal and State Governments. Welcome back to the sixth part of our session on the Preamble and Articles of the U.S. Constitution. In the previous segments, we examined the significance of the Preamble, scrutinized each Article of the Constitution, discussed the Amendments, and explored the principles of judicial review. Today, we will delve into another core principle of our constitutional system: federalism and the intricate balance of powers between the federal government and the states. Introduction to Federalism. Federalism is a fundamental aspect of the U.S. Constitution that shapes the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the federal government and individual state governments. This system was designed to strike a delicate balance, preventing either level of government from becoming too dominant. Federal Powers - Enumerated and Implied. The Constitution grants certain powers explicitly to the federal government. These are known as enumerated powers and are primarily found in Article I, Section 8. Some key federal powers include: Regulating commerce among the states and with foreign nations. Levying and collecting taxes. Coining money and establishing a national currency. Providing for the common defense and general welfare. Declaring war and maintaining the armed forces. These enumerated powers are the foundation of federal authority. In addition to these explicit powers, the federal government also possesses implied powers necessary to carry out its functions. These were affirmed in the landmark case of McCulloch v. Maryland. State Powers - Reserved and Concurrent. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people. These reserved powers encompass a wide range of functions, including: Regulating intrastate commerce. Conducting elections. Establishing and maintaining schools. Enforcing criminal laws. Managing public health and safety. States also exercise concurrent powers, which are shared with the federal government. This means that both levels of government can act in areas such as taxation, law enforcement, and environmental regulation. The Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution, establishes that the federal Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the supreme law of the land. This clause clarifies the hierarchy of laws in cases of conflict between federal and state laws. When state laws clash with federal laws or the Constitution itself, federal law prevails, and state laws are invalidated. This principle ensures that the federal government's authority is maintained when there is a need for uniformity in areas of national concern. The Role of the States. States play a crucial role in our federal system. They serve as laboratories of democracy, experimenting with different policies and approaches to address local needs. States also have the power to amend their own constitutions and pass laws in areas not explicitly reserved to the federal government. States are responsible for a wide range of policy areas, including education, healthcare, transportation, criminal justice, and environmental regulation. The diversity of state laws and regulations reflects the unique priorities and values of each state's citizens. Federalism as a Check on Government Power. Federalism serves as a check on government power, preventing any single entity from accumulating too much authority. It promotes competition and innovation in governance, as states can pursue their own policies to address specific challenges. The dual sovereignty of federalism also safeguards individual rights. If one level of government infringes on rights, individuals may find protection at the other level. This balance of power ensures that government remains responsive to the needs and preferences of its citizens. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

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.

Good Morning #LALiens! Reality has curved Norm's path away from vacation, and Law and Legitimacy is locked in for another great week. Be sure to like this video, subscribe to the channel, and follow @LawPodDaily on X! . Today: . › The American Bar Association published a proposal that aims to mandate free speech policies at accredited American law schools. Why is this necessary? . › Will the sweep and force of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the United States constitution really work without a hearing by some court of competent jurisdiction? . › Vivek Ramaswamy continues his emergence. Norm posted over the weekend that he is all in on the 38 year-old candidate for President of the United States. Will America elect an intellectual as president?  . › Mark Meadows has filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against him filed by the State of Georgia, arguing that he is shielded by the Supremacy Clause, and further that the first and fourteenth amendments otherwise apply to preclude his prosecution. . Join us. . For the rest of the year, creators will receive 100 percent of the revenue from the purchase of monthly subscription badges, which Rumble recently launched for the price of $5 per month. Please consider purchasing a subscription badge to LAL and be assured that LAL will receive every penny of that subscription through the end of the year. Your consideration and patronage is most sincerely appreciated! . Daily livestreams beginning at 8:00 am EST on: › Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/LawandLegitimacy  › Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@lawandlegitimacy  › X: https://twitter.com/LawPodDaily  . Subscribe and turn on notifications! . Support Law and Legitimacy: . Locals: https://lawandlegitimacy.locals.com/ X: @LawPodDaily, @PattisNorm, and @MichaelBoyer_ - Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Audible, Spotify, or wherever you receive podcasts and rate LAL 5 stars.  Subscribe here on our Rumble and Youtube channels, give us a Rumble, and join our active community of free-thinkers, contrarians, and the unafraid on Locals!

Good Morning #LALiens! Reality has curved Norm's path away from vacation, and Law and Legitimacy is locked in for another great week. Be sure to like this video, subscribe to the channel, and follow @LawPodDaily on X! . Today: . › The American Bar Association published a proposal that aims to mandate free speech policies at accredited American law schools. Why is this necessary? . › Will the sweep and force of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the United States constitution really work without a hearing by some court of competent jurisdiction? . › Vivek Ramaswamy continues his emergence. Norm posted over the weekend that he is all in on the 38 year-old candidate for President of the United States. Will America elect an intellectual as president?  . › Mark Meadows has filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against him filed by the State of Georgia, arguing that he is shielded by the Supremacy Clause, and further that the first and fourteenth amendments otherwise apply to preclude his prosecution. . Join us. . For the rest of the year, creators will receive 100 percent of the revenue from the purchase of monthly subscription badges, which Rumble recently launched for the price of $5 per month. Please consider purchasing a subscription badge to LAL and be assured that LAL will receive every penny of that subscription through the end of the year. Your consideration and patronage is most sincerely appreciated! . Daily livestreams beginning at 8:00 am EST on: › Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/LawandLegitimacy  › Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@lawandlegitimacy  › X: https://twitter.com/LawPodDaily  . Subscribe and turn on notifications! . Support Law and Legitimacy: . Locals: https://lawandlegitimacy.locals.com/ X: @LawPodDaily, @PattisNorm, and @MichaelBoyer_ - Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Audible, Spotify, or wherever you receive podcasts and rate LAL 5 stars.  Subscribe here on our Rumble and Youtube channels, give us a Rumble, and join our active community of free-thinkers, contrarians, and the unafraid on Locals!

More on the curious case of Charles McGonigal - and why has this former Agent not gotten the Robert Hansen treatment? The Leftist Media is obsessed with those obsessed with Trump; arguments for the Supremacy Clause. (This episode was aired on Wednesday Aug 16)_____________________________________________ Today's podcast supported by https://CatholicVote.Org If you are interested in supporting the going litigation against the FBI over religious liberties, you can visit https://CatholicVote.Org. SUSPENDABLES MERCH STORE: http://The-Suspendables.com Visit http://PatriotCoolers.com/discount/KYLE and use Promo code "KYLE" for 10% off and free shipping over $50.

OUTLINE of today's show with TIMECODES Have we forgotten the Trump administration gave us the most rapid, massive transfer of wealth in history based on the phony pandemic, and a preview of UBI (universal basic income) for "non-essential" people? (2:07)The GCI (genetic code injection) is indeed modifying DNA. Trojan horse of TrumpShots is worse than previously thought (9:19) Canadian police detective charged with "discreditable conduct" b/c she investigated SIDS from the jabs. But investigation is blowing back on the establishment as people see what caused her to investigate — 33 pregnant women jabbed and EVERY BABY DIED BUT ONE. (21:33)Trump, the master showman, will likely surrender to authorities timed to draw attention away from debates he doesn't want to attend (27:17) Who in the RNC put in the "loyalty oath" that Trump is using to avoid debates? A story about something similar happening in local government when our small business was competing with a Wall Street giant (30:45)Mark Levin floats totally crackpot legal fantasies about the Supremacy Clause and a President pardoning himself in order to suck up to the Trump crowd. (This guy wants a Constitutional Convention to make radical changes). Trump's hope is not in pardons but overturning what is likely to be a kangaroo conviction (33:03)AI Goes MAD: Recycled Synthetic Data Destroys LLMs Desc: When AI begins consuming information put out by other AI, something strange begins to happen, similar to when cows are fed the the brains and spinal cord tissue of other cows — MAD COW disease (54:33) Another problem with AI — massive water consumption (and power) (1:09:38)NY State may cut tax subsidies to filmmakers if they use AI to replace actors (1:12:22) To understand why the current actors and screenwriters strike is so intractable, look at this AI suite of postproduction tools (1:18:02)A question mark in space — James Webb telescope finds a bizarre illusion and psychedelics are coming back — and the spiritual issues that come with them. Reason, Rogan, politicians of both parties want it for medical reasons but everyone talks about its spiritual properties — the PHARMAKEIA (1:22:44) — continued after interviews at (2:27:29)INTERVIEW De-Dollarization, BRICS — and Silver We're days away from BRICS conference. Will they introduce a new gold-backed currency? Whether they do or not, its clear that the world, INCLUDING BIDEN ADVISORS, want to move away from the dollar (for Biden as apart of move to CBDC) Tony Arterburn, DavidKnight.gold, joins (1:32:18) INTERVIEW Strikes in Film Industry About AI as Much as Inflation Radical changes in distribution, as well as AI's replacement of screenwriters and actors are part of the impasse. "Hollywood" is a massive industry that impacts the economy far beyond California, but the impact of AI on labor, especially white collar jobs, is just beginning to be felt. Nicole Brener-Schmitz, Former Political Director of the Teamsters Union, joins (1:57:48) Rise of psychedelics & occult continued (2:27:29)Chinese communists begin rewriting the Bible — with ludicrous result (2:32:45)Both a Republican and Democrat Congressman, both Jewish, demand woman take down a tweet about Jesus being the only way to the father (2:38:20)Small news organization takes on the Intelligence Community's and DARPA censorship by suing Newsguard (2:51:58)Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHT

OUTLINE of today's show with TIMECODES Have we forgotten the Trump administration gave us the most rapid, massive transfer of wealth in history based on the phony pandemic, and a preview of UBI (universal basic income) for "non-essential" people? (2:07)The GCI (genetic code injection) is indeed modifying DNA. Trojan horse of TrumpShots is worse than previously thought (9:19) Canadian police detective charged with "discreditable conduct" b/c she investigated SIDS from the jabs. But investigation is blowing back on the establishment as people see what caused her to investigate — 33 pregnant women jabbed and EVERY BABY DIED BUT ONE. (21:33)Trump, the master showman, will likely surrender to authorities timed to draw attention away from debates he doesn't want to attend (27:17) Who in the RNC put in the "loyalty oath" that Trump is using to avoid debates? A story about something similar happening in local government when our small business was competing with a Wall Street giant (30:45)Mark Levin floats totally crackpot legal fantasies about the Supremacy Clause and a President pardoning himself in order to suck up to the Trump crowd. (This guy wants a Constitutional Convention to make radical changes). Trump's hope is not in pardons but overturning what is likely to be a kangaroo conviction (33:03)AI Goes MAD: Recycled Synthetic Data Destroys LLMs Desc: When AI begins consuming information put out by other AI, something strange begins to happen, similar to when cows are fed the the brains and spinal cord tissue of other cows — MAD COW disease (54:33) Another problem with AI — massive water consumption (and power) (1:09:38)NY State may cut tax subsidies to filmmakers if they use AI to replace actors (1:12:22) To understand why the current actors and screenwriters strike is so intractable, look at this AI suite of postproduction tools (1:18:02)A question mark in space — James Webb telescope finds a bizarre illusion and psychedelics are coming back — and the spiritual issues that come with them. Reason, Rogan, politicians of both parties want it for medical reasons but everyone talks about its spiritual properties — the PHARMAKEIA (1:22:44) — continued after interviews at (2:27:29)INTERVIEW De-Dollarization, BRICS — and Silver We're days away from BRICS conference. Will they introduce a new gold-backed currency? Whether they do or not, its clear that the world, INCLUDING BIDEN ADVISORS, want to move away from the dollar (for Biden as apart of move to CBDC) Tony Arterburn, DavidKnight.gold, joins (1:32:18) INTERVIEW Strikes in Film Industry About AI as Much as Inflation Radical changes in distribution, as well as AI's replacement of screenwriters and actors are part of the impasse. "Hollywood" is a massive industry that impacts the economy far beyond California, but the impact of AI on labor, especially white collar jobs, is just beginning to be felt. Nicole Brener-Schmitz, Former Political Director of the Teamsters Union, joins (1:57:48) Rise of psychedelics & occult continued (2:27:29)Chinese communists begin rewriting the Bible — with ludicrous result (2:32:45)Both a Republican and Democrat Congressman, both Jewish, demand woman take down a tweet about Jesus being the only way to the father (2:38:20)Small news organization takes on the Intelligence Community's and DARPA censorship by suing Newsguard (2:51:58)Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHT

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – The fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and the rule of law in the United States that is being exhibited by the administration, states, and, yes, the media. The latest attempt by a president to trade American sovereignty and the people's rights for their own aggrandizement...

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – The fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and the rule of law in the United States that is being exhibited by the administration, states, and, yes, the media. The latest attempt by a president to trade American sovereignty and the people's rights for their own aggrandizement...

Audio of the 1958 unanimous opinion of the Court in Cooper v. Aaron. A few years after the Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the Arkansas legislature and Governor Orval Faubus openly resisted the Supreme Court's decision to desegregate public schools. So, the February following the integration crisis at Little Rock High School, members of the Little Rock school board and Superintendent filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, urging suspension of the plan to integrate schools - they were asking the courts for black students to be returned to their former segregated schools for the next two-and-one-half years while they figured out a more permanent solution to avoid integration. When the case made its way before the Supreme Court, the question before them was whether Arkansas officials were bound by federal court orders mandating desegregation. In a unanimous per curiam opinion the Court broke it down like this: it was constitutionally impermissible under the Equal Protection Clause to deprive black students of their equal rights under the law, and that since the Supremacy Clause of Article VI made the U.S. Constitution the supreme law of the land, and Marbury v. Madison made the Supreme Court the final interpreter of the Constitution, the precedent set forth in Brown v. Board of Education was the supreme law of the land and was therefore binding on all the states. Yes, even Arkansas.   I omit citations when reading SCOTUS opinions in order to provide a better listening experience; you may access the opinion here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/358/1/#tab-opinion-1942101   Music by Epidemic Sound

Hamilton's Federalist Paper No. 33, "The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation," examines the Supremacy Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.Morgan Zegers and Connor Clegg explain that the Necessary and Proper Clause was never intended to create powers, but rather to execute the existing powers provided to the government in the constitution. The Supremacy Clause states that the laws of a society must be the supreme regulator of each state's conduct; otherwise; the country will not be united on a federal level.Join Morgan Zegers weekly on Freedom Papers for a conversation that focuses on the necessity of America's most important manuscripts and the debates surrounding them!#TaxationIsTheft #FreedomPapers #iHeartAmerica #BigGovSucks #FederalistPapers