Podcasts about take care clause

The discussion covered various topics, including a lawsuit filed by 19 states against Trump and Elon Musk for accessing Treasury Department records. The lawsuit, filed by Attorney General Letitia James, claims the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Take Care Clause. The court granted a temporary restraining order, barring access to sensitive information. The panel debated the constitutionality of the order and suggested filing ethics charges against the judge. Additionally, they discussed Trump's recent actions, such as ending the USAID program and offering asylum to persecuted South African farmers. The conversation also touched on the Super Bowl, with opinions on the game and halftime show.

OA1062 We begin with a brief update on Disney's truly Mickey Mouse arguments in a Florida wrongful death lawsuit before discussing three other questionable legal claims from the week's news: As expected, Hunter Biden has tried to use findings from a Florida federal court that special counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed to have his own pending federal tax charges dismissed in California. Can this creation of Aileen Cannon's imagination survive in the wild? Speaking of the BIDEN CRIME FAMILY: we review the final report from the House Republicans in support of impeaching Joe Biden--for, well you know. Something. If anyone wants to get around to it. What are we even doing here? News this week that presidential candidate Donald Trump may have discussed delaying a Gaza ceasefire agreement with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu until after the election has set off yet another round of online demands for prosecution under the Logan Act of 1799. What's the deal with this 225-year-old law--and are we ever going to get around to actually using it? Order denying Hunter Biden's motion to reconsider his previous motion to dismiss (8/19/24) House Republicans' Report of the Impeachment Inquiry of Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (8/19/24) “Non-Enforcement by Accretion: The Logan Act and the Take Care Clause,” Daniel B. Rice, Harvard Journal on Legislation (2018) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

In light of the recent indictment of former President Trump over classified documents, there has been no shortage of commentary about what all of it means. However, we thought it was important to address the big elephant in the room and that's, is this a politically motivated prosecution? In this episode, we explore the significance of impartiality in investigations and how organizations like Protect Democracy are leading the way in this area. We discuss recent politically motivated investigations, the role of journalism in upholding institutional honesty, and the release of the Special Counsel John Durham report.We begin by examining the weaponization of government investigations, particularly in relation to President Trump. We highlight Protect Democracy's article on identifying weaponized investigations and discuss examples such as James Comey's announcement on the Clinton investigation and Alvin Bragg's indictment in NY. Additionally, we analyze the Take Care Clause and its application to presidential oversight of the Justice Department. We also scrutinize the GOP House majority's Committee on the Weaponization of Government and suggest other crucial issues they should address.Next we assess the impartiality of Attorney General Merrick Garland and evaluate specific cases like Hunter Biden and the Trump-E. Jean Carrol case. We also discuss concerns about the Durham Report intentionally omitting relevant information. Furthermore, we explore the Durham Investigation's new findings and the assessment by DOJ IG Michael Horowitz. Lastly, we touch upon the Authoritarian Threat Index and compare the John Durham report with other investigations on Russia's interference in the 2016 election.Join us for an insightful discussion on investigations and the vital role of impartiality in preserving our democratic values.Articles referenced in the show:How to tell whether a government investigation or prosecution is “weaponized”Investigating and Prosecuting Political Leaders in a DemocracyGuests:Anne Tindall is Counsel at Protect Democracy, where she works to secure accountability for abuses of power and counter anti-democratic activity at the federal and state level. Prior to joining Protect Democracy, she served as Assistant General Counsel for Litigation and Oversight at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Kristy Parker is Counsel at Protect Democracy. She leads litigation to secure accountability for abuses of executive power and interference with government functions, and leads advocacy to reform the Department of Justice and protect its independence from politicization. Before joining Protect Democracy, she spent 15 years as a federal prosecutor at the Justice Department, specializing in police excessive force and hate crimes cases as a Deputy Chief of the Civil Rights Division's Criminal Section. Support the showTo learn more about the show, contact our hosts, or recommend future guests, click on the links below: Website: https://www.faithfulpoliticspodcast.com/ Faithful Host: Josh@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Political Host: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Twitter: @FaithfulPolitik Instagram: faithful_politics Facebook: FaithfulPoliticsPodcast LinkedIn: faithfulpolitics

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, there have been 50 terrorists caught at the southern border since October compared with only 2 in 2016. We must assume that terrorists see that we have a weak porous border and take advantage of it. Democrats have steadily followed through with their plans to defund the police and abolish ICE, this defies the 'Take Care' clause of the Constitution. This clause requires the staff of the President to follow the law whether they agree with it or not because it is the sole responsibility of the executive branch to enforce laws, not congress, and not the courts. By not supporting the overwhelmed border patrol, Biden, the Democrats, and their partners in the media are allowing fentanyl and sex trafficking to go on unchecked. Then, Rep. Ro Khanna claims oil companies are lying about global warming 50 years ago with the inception of OPEC. Khanna fails to realize that the left was crying about global cooling back then, not global warming. Democrats think they have all the answers and want to control everything. Later, communist China is a grave threat to this country both economically and militarily. China just launched a new generation carrier ship equipped with the latest technology and weaponry. Afterward, Matt Walsh from the Daily Wire joins the show to discuss his new book and movie "What Is a Woman?: One Man's Journey to Answer the Question of a Generation.".  https://www.amazon.com/What-Woman-Journey-Question-Generation/dp/1956007008/ref=sr_1_2?crid=1WOV7CP3W2XH5&keywords=matt+walsh&qid=1655156866&sprefix=matt+walsh+%2Caps%2C85&sr=8-2 The book and documentary explore the question with advocates of transgenderism. Walsh says most of their gender theory is absurdly and self-contradictorily geared to destroying the nuclear family and the idea of objective truth yet it's perverting society in a big way because this movement has been percolating for a generation       June 17, border, border patrol, Take Care Clause, illegals, terrorists, illegal immigrants, cbp, jan 6, January 6, Donald trump, trump, adam Schiff, Schiff, Stephen Colbert, Colbert, capitol, oil, gas, gas prices, woman, china, matt walsh, walsh, gender ideology, energy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode, Daniel B. Rice, an Associate at Georgetown University Law Center Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, discusses his article "Nonenforcement by Accretion: The Logan Act and the Take Care Clause," which was published in the Harvard Journal on Legislation. Rice begins by explaining what the Logan Act is, how it was enacted, and its 220 year history of non-enforcement. He identifies 12 different reasons the executive branch has declined to enforce the Logan Act at different points in time, and explains why the "nonenforcement by accretion" creates a constitutional conflict with the Take Care Clause. Rice also reflects on the future of the Logan Act and the likelihood of its eventual repeal. Rice is on Twitter at @daniel_b_rice.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Dahlia Lithwick pans back this week to assess what’s holding and what’s buckling in terms of norms and institutions, two years and change into the Trump presidency. She’s joined by Ian Bassin of Protect Democracy, a new kind of litigation shop looking at global trends toward authoritarianism and trying to resist those trends in the United States. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick pans back this week to assess what’s holding and what’s buckling in terms of norms and institutions, two years and change into the Trump presidency. She’s joined by Ian Bassin of Protect Democracy, a new kind of litigation shop looking at global trends toward authoritarianism and trying to resist those trends in the United States. This episode is brought to you by Simplisafe. Start protecting your home today at simplisafe.com/amicus. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie begin their run of shows with Easha on leave and discuss a fascinating new lawsuit contending that the Trump Administration is unconstitutionally "sabotaging" the Affordable Care Act as a whole. Jason starts the discussion by explaining the case of City of Columbus v. Trump, which was brought by several cities and individuals who contend that the Aministration's actions over the last several years amount to an unconstitutional sabotage of a law the President is required to execute faithfully. As Jason explains, the suit has two claims: one a traditional claim that the Administration is acting arbitrarily, and the second a unique claim that the President is violating the "Take Care" Clause of the Constitution (blog synergy alert!). They then get into a lengthy discussion about the meaning of the Clause, whether such a suit could be viable, and whether the allegations here make out a potential violation. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. NotesA non-profit organization called Democracy Forward is behind this case. Their case page is here. The Complaint is here.Jason mentioned an article called The Protean Take Care Clause, by Harvard Law Professors John Manning and Jack Goldsmith. That article is here.Law Professors Abbe Gluck and Nick Bagley had an op-ed in the New York Times contending that Trump's "sabotage" of the Act is illegal. It's here.Charlie insisted that we link to the video for the Beastie Boys song "Sabotage." It's here. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order entitled Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. The Executive Order instructs federal agencies to identify two existing regulations for repeal for each new regulation proposed. The Order further instructs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to set an incremental cost target for each agency for each future fiscal year. Subject to certain exceptions, each agency must meet its target by offsetting the costs of new regulations by cost savings from repealed rules. -- A lawsuit has been filed challenging the legality of the Executive Order in federal district court in Washington, D.C. The complaint argues, among other things, that the Order violates the separation of powers, the President's obligations under the Take Care Clause, and the Administrative Procedures Act. Thomas M. Johnson, Jr., is the Deputy Solicitor General of West Virginia and counsel of record on an amicus brief co-filed with the State of Wisconsin on behalf of a 14-state coalition supporting the legality of the Executive Order. Mr. Johnson joined us to discuss the Order and the pending litigation. This Teleforum is the fourth in our Executive Order Teleforum Series. -- Featuring: Thomas M. Johnson, Jr., Deputy Solicitor General of West Virginia.

In light of the extraordinary legal, social, and political events of the past week, we return to an examination of Locke's notion of Prerogative Power, The Take Care Clause, and Executive Orders.  In addition, we examine Locke's fascinating and terrifying analysis of what happens when there is a potentially irresolvable conflict in the political community between the citizens and the President about the legality and public good of the President's Executive Order.  Locke's famous statement that when this arises, there is only an "appeal to heaven" is code for the potential and justification for revolution. This is very serious stuff.

On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Texas. This case relates back to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which set forth special criteria to direct how DHS should exercise prosecutorial discretion in enforcing federal immigration laws against certain young persons. In 2014, DHS issued a memo that then expanded eligibility under DACA and directed establishment of a similar program for the parents of DACA-eligible persons: Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). -- Twenty-six states sued in federal district court to prevent the DHS from implementing DAPA, arguing that DAPA violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it had not gone through a notice-and-comment process, and was moreover arbitrary and capricious. The states also argued that DAPA abrogated the President’s constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The district court concluded that of the suing states, Texas had standing, and temporarily enjoined implementation of DAPA after determining that Texas had shown a substantial likelihood of success on its notice-and-comment claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed that ruling, and further held that the other states had standing and has shown a substantial likelihood of success on both the notice-and-comment and arbitrary and capricious components of their APA claims. The Fifth Circuit did not reach the Take Care clause claim. -- The four questions before the Supreme Court in this case were: (1) whether a state that voluntarily provides a subsidy to all aliens with deferred action has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the APA to challenge the Secretary of Homeland Security’s guidance seeking to establish a process for considering deferred action for certain aliens because it will lead to more aliens having deferred action; (2) whether the guidance is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law; (3) whether the guidance was subject to the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures; and (4) whether the guidance violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, Article II, section 3--a question the Court itself directed the parties to brief. -- An equally divided Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Fifth Circuit in a single sentence per curiam opinion, thereby leaving the district court’s injunction in place. -- To discuss the case, we have Josh Blackman, who is Assistant Professor of Law at South Texas College of Law.

On April 18, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Texas. This case relates back to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which set forth special criteria to direct how DHS should exercise prosecutorial discretion in enforcing federal immigration laws against certain young persons. In 2014 DHS issued a memo that then expanded eligibility under DACA and directed establishment of a similar program for the parents of DACA-eligible persons: Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). -- Twenty-six states sued in federal district court to prevent the DHS from implementing DAPA, arguing that DAPA violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it had not gone through a notice-and-comment process, and was moreover arbitrary and capricious. The states also argued that DAPA abrogated the President’s constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The district court concluded that of the suing states, Texas had standing, and temporarily enjoined implementation of DAPA after determining that Texas had shown a substantial likelihood of success on its notice-and-comment claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed that ruling, and further held that the other states had standing and has shown a substantial likelihood of success on both the notice-and-comment and arbitrary and capricious components of their APA claims. The Fifth Circuit did not reach the Take Care clause claim. -- The four questions before the Supreme Court in this case are: (1) whether a state that voluntarily provides a subsidy to all aliens with deferred action has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the APA to challenge the Secretary of Homeland Security’s guidance seeking to establish a process for considering deferred action for certain aliens because it will lead to more aliens having deferred action; (2) whether the guidance is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law; (3) whether the guidance was subject to the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures; and (4) whether the guidance violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, Article II, section 3--a question the Court itself directed the parties to brief. -- To discuss the case, we have Josh Blackman, who is Assistant Professor of Law at South Texas College of Law.

This week's episode covers the case of U.S. v. Texas, which determines whether or not President Obama's executive orders on immigration are Constitutional under the Take Care Clause of the Constitution.  Brett and Nazim discuss the elements of both orders, the DACA and the DAPA, and how those orders should be viewed through the President's existing Constitutional Powers under Article 2.