Podcasts about Tenth Amendment

Looking 4 Healing Radio with Dr. Angelina Farella – In the realm of education, this vision means returning authority to parents, teachers, and local communities. Texans are increasingly concerned that federal overreach and bureaucratic mandates have weakened both educational quality and constitutional balance. Reform advocates emphasize that the Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to...

Hats off to Minnesota! The Twin Cities kicked Greg Bovino's a** so hard he's limping back to California and then retiring altogether. We'll discuss the Trump administration's apparent pivot on the invasion of Minneapolis and the many legal cases pending there.First up, Minnesota v. Noem, where the state is trying to convince Judge Katherine Menendez to order DHS out of Minneapolis. Their Tenth Amendment argument got a big boost from Attorney General Pam Bondi, who actually sent Governor Walz a letter offering to pull back ICE's goons if the state would surrender its legal rights.Then we'll discuss Minnesota's lawsuit to preserve the evidence from the murder of Alex Pretti. The FBI says they've got it locked down, but Judge Eric Tostrud isn't so sure.Finally we've got a deep dive into the DOJ's effort to turn a protest at a church into a criminal conspiracy to oppress Christians.Show Links:Minnesota v. Noem https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72132615/state-of-minnesota-v-noem/?order_by=descBondi-Walz Letterhttps://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230268/gov.uscourts.mnd.230268.114.1_1.pdfMinnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension v. Noemhttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72185880/minnesota-bureau-of-criminal-apprehension-v-noem/US vs SEALED [Nekima Levy-Armstrong]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72181995/united-states-v-sealed/?order_by=deschttps://www.lawandchaospod.com/BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPodThreads: @LawAndChaosPodTwitter: @LawAndChaosPodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Looking 4 Healing Radio with Dr. Angelina Farella – In the realm of education, this vision means returning authority to parents, teachers, and local communities. Texans are increasingly concerned that federal overreach and bureaucratic mandates have weakened both educational quality and constitutional balance. Reform advocates emphasize that the Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to...

A federal judge in Minnesota heard arguments on whether to expel ICE agents from the state and put an end to the Trump administration's sweeping immigration enforcement. The hearing comes as state and local leaders warn that ICE's actions have pushed them into crisis. They also argue it's an unconstitutional occupation under the Tenth Amendment. Geoff Bennett discussed more with Mary McCord. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

The 2025 Oklahoma Republican Party Platform - Part 2 II. EDUCATION Preamble: We acknowledge our dependence upon Almighty God and ask His blessings upon our students and their parents, teachers, and nation. It is the right and responsibility of parents (hereafter to mean parents and/ or legal guardians) to direct their children's upbringing and education whether public, private, charter, or education by other means without interference, regulation, or penalty from the government. The primary goal of public schools should be to teach proficiency in the basic subjects of phonics-based reading, written and oral communication, mathematics, sciences, history, founding documents, Godly heritage of our nation, critical thinking skills, basic morals, and civics. Locally elected school boards should have the authority to determine and implement all public-school curricula, policies, and procedures for their districts. We demand open accountability from all tax-funded education in Oklahoma. The federal government has no constitutional role in education. A. Philosophy We Believe 1. We believe the traditional family unit, consisting of a (husband) man, (wife) woman, and child(ren) is the foundation of our social structure. The Oklahoma Department of Education and the various 7 Boards of Regents should uphold and teach this definition of traditional family at all levels of public education. 2. We believe individuals should have the right to choose their own education and career tracks. 3. We believe to comply with the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, we favor elimination and complete defunding of the Federal Department of Education. 4. We believe in and affirm the right of students and school employees to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment, including the right to wear and display religious symbols, voluntary vocal prayer, optional Bible and religious study, religious expression including holidays, and equal access to use of school facilities for these activities. 5. We believe the only flags to be displayed at, or in, any Oklahoma school are the flags of the United States of America and the State of Oklahoma. Students should start the day by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, including "one nation under God", and be taught the history of and respect for our United States flag. 6. We believe the K-12 public-school system is for the benefit of children of legal residents of the United States. 7. We believe the responsibility to teach children the philosophy, values, and theology to live by belongs to a child's parents. We Support 1. We support all parents fulfilling their God-given responsibility to educate and raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, free from government control. 2. We support parental access to examine and evaluate all educational and assessment, records pertaining to their children. 3. We support notification to parents that should be clear, simple, and descriptive when any alternative school programs are offered. Active parental consent to opt in must be obtained without repercussion. 4. We support The Ten Commandments being displayed in public schools as a means of moral guidance along with our national motto "In God We Trust" and the Bill of Rights. Public schools shall not prohibit the teaching of the Judeo-Christian worldview upon which our country was founded. 5. We support the recognition of, instruction in, and honor given to men motivated by Judeo-Christian ethics who made great contributions to the development of traditional Western Civilization. 8 6. We support proficiency in math, reading, writing, and other basic skills before computer technology and calculators are used. 7. We support notification of parents of medical treatment sought by students including dispensing of any pharmaceuticals. We oppose mandatory healthcare in public schools, vaccinations for students, and any forced mental health evaluations or prescriptions. We Oppose 1. We oppose the imposition of national curricula, testing, data collection and teacher certification, Common Core State Standards and associated assessments, and federally mandated programs such as "No Child Left Behind", "Race to the Top," Early Learning Guidelines and Core Competencies. 2. We oppose any government required community service condition for graduation. 3. We oppose overt racism by schools in the name of thinly disguised faux efforts to "eliminate racism" which seek to achieve atheist, Marxist, or Socialist political outcomes. 4. We oppose government expansion and control by the use of public tax dollars to fund and interfere with private forms of education. 5. We oppose the teaching of humanist character education programs, such as Social Emotional Learning (SEL). B. Curriculum We Believe 1. We believe that curricula should include the basics: phonics-based reading, grammar, composition, mathematics, government, history, science, spelling, penmanship, geography, and economics. We encourage the teaching of art, music, foreign languages, and sports/physical fitness. 2. We believe parents must maintain their right and responsibility to educate their children regarding sexuality and sexual conduct. We believe sexual abstinence is the only safe way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases, HIV/AIDS, and pregnancy. 3. We believe local school boards should exercise their right to choose curriculum and textbooks, including the Bible as a literature or history text, without state limitations. 4. We believe Biblical creation and intelligent design must be taught and must receive equal funding, class time, and materials as other theories such as evolution. 5. We believe the heritage of the United States of America should be taught in public schools and include representative limited government, the lives and beliefs of the Founders, influence of the Bible and religion on our laws and principles, and the concept of free enterprise. We believe students should study directly from the primary founding documents, which teach that the distribution of power is among three branches of federal government and the difference between federal and state government teaching that our nation is a constitutional republic. 6. We believe English, the dominant language of our nation, should be the primary language taught in 9 public schools with other languages only offered as electives. We Support 1. We support curricula that promotes the U.S. national sovereignty and the singing of traditional songs and teaching of patriotic literature in all grades. We respect different cultures, but support prioritizing our commonalities as U.S. Citizens. 2. We support the right of parents to personally observe all classroom instruction, activities, and curriculum choices. 3. We strongly support the teaching of the scientific biologically verifiable X and Y chromosomal definition of male and female at birth. 4. We support teaching the basic rules of finance, such as economics, saving, investing, borrowing, balancing a checkbook, and living within a budget. We Oppose 1. We oppose the portrayal of homosexual, promiscuous, or fornication behaviors in a positive light in public schools. 2. We oppose the teaching of non-chromosomal gender and LGBTQ+ lifestyle, history, and demonstration. 3. We oppose one-world government and global citizenship. 4. We oppose teaching multiculturalism that promotes cultural segregation. We are created in God's image. There is one race: the human race. 5. We oppose the implementation of all revisionist U.S. history in education. 6. We oppose the teaching of the theory of anthropogenic global warming without providing equal time for instruction in the complex systems of geo-physics that cause observable climate change, such as solar variations, plate tectonics, and volcanic eruptions. C. Administration and Management We Believe 1. We believe that all education and management decisions should be returned to the control of parents, elected school boards, teachers, and administration at the local level. 2. We believe schools should protect the privacy of any personal information or data collected on a student or their family. 3. School elections should be on the same date as general elections. 4. We believe security options should be pursued, including but not limited to officers and school 10 employees who are qualified to be armed. 5. We believe teachers, school administrators, and the local school board should work together to set and implement policies that give teachers the freedom and authority to lawfully maintain order, discipline, and safety. 6. We believe teachers should not be coerced to adjust standards for any failing students, including athletes. 7. We believe the Teachers Retirement Fund should be actuarially funded with full public disclosure. We Support 1. We support the freedom of local school boards to hire, direct, train, retain, or terminate any teacher who fails to provide the highest quality of instruction based on merit, not years of service. The evaluation criteria should be determined by local school boards for their school districts. 2. We support extensive background checks of prospective school employees, with the right of local school boards to refuse employment to anyone. 3. We support public independent auditing of all public schools and institutions of higher education in Oklahoma. 4. We support the enforcement of Oklahoma statutes that prohibit teachers from strikes, walkouts, or semblance thereof during the school year by penalizing any district that closes its schools with a funding cut equivalent to the daily payroll and expenses of the district. 5. We support professional development for teachers; however, we believe classes should not be canceled in order for public school employees to attend political conventions, electioneering, campaigning, voting, or union meetings. 6. We support right-to-work laws, which provide all public-school administrators, teachers, and staff the choice to refuse to join or financially support any union, political party, or any other organization. All options are to be made available to teachers, staff, and parents. 7. We support requiring public schools to provide parents the platforms of all educational organizations for which a teacher or staff member is eligible to join. 8. We support local school districts placing year-end excess monies into an interest-bearing account to encourage fiscal responsibility, and they should not be penalized by the State Department of Education for doing so. 9. We support the consolidation of the technical, operational, and administrative resources of school districts, but do not support the closing of individual schools. 10. We support local school board appointed textbook committees to select the state/district funded textbooks and the elimination of the Oklahoma State Textbook Committee. 11. We support the right of parents to determine and guide their children's medical needs including vaccination. Schools must disclose all legal exemptions when making requests. 11 12. We support the independent testing of radiation levels in all public schools with full disclosure of the proven hazards and impacts of radio frequency, electromagnetic, and microwave radiation upon children and youth (e.g.: mitochondrial and DNA damage and destruction). We Oppose 1. We oppose Public School Districts receiving any state funding to pay or collect any employee's organizational and/or union dues by using the payroll deduction system or any other accounting/collection system of the school district to provide centralized dues collection. 2. We oppose the collection by the government of personal information or data on students or their families, aka: data mining. 3. We oppose the designation of public schools as "gun free zones". 4. We oppose the issuance of bonds by school districts to fund operational expenses. 5. We oppose any non-chromosomal sex/gender use of locker rooms, sports team qualifications, or public restrooms. While we support a positive, competitive spirit in all activities, we oppose student athletes competing as anything other than their genetically determined sex/gender. 6. We oppose automatic teacher tenure. 7. We oppose schools requiring access to medical documents, including vaccination/immunization records, for enrollment. All medical determinations should be decided by the parents. 8. We oppose mandatory year-round schooling. 9. We oppose mandatory expansion of public school from birth on; aka: universal childcare 10. We oppose the teaching or presence of any inappropriate, harmful, or perverse content such as sexualized information, pornography, illustrations, or books with this material. 11. We oppose any increased state funding for the government schools. D. Higher Education We Believe 1. We believe higher education is a privilege, not a right. There are many options for education to be explored and determined by each individual. 2. We believe the Constitutional rights of college/university students, including their right to due process, must be protected. 3. We believe the Constitutional right to carry shall not be infringed upon at any college/university in Oklahoma. 4. We believe all publicly funded institutions of higher education should offer curriculum designed to train a student for a viable career path upon graduation. Responsibility for the market need for a specific degree should rest with the institution. 12 5. We believe there should be a required course in phonics for elementary teacher certification, as well as for certification at all levels of reading and language arts. We Support 1. We support the freedom of each individual college/university to hire, direct, train, retain, or terminate any teacher who fails to provide the highest quality of instruction based on merit, not years of service. 2. We support the freedom of each individual college/university to develop its own standards, course curriculum, scholarships, tuition, and fees. 3. We support budgeting tied to comprehensive planning processes with increases in funding directly related to specific goals and objectives listing expected improvements. 4. We support any student being able to use all scholarships, grants, or other financial aid to obtain a degree in the field of their choice, including religious studies. 5. We support strict adherence to the law that requires the majority of the nine-member Board of Regents for the Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College ("OSU") to be actively engaged in farming or ranching. We Oppose 1. We oppose all Marxist ideology such as Critical Race Theory (CRT), Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Social Emotional Learning (SEL), and all other critical theories. 2. We oppose the enactment of any compelled speech policies forcing students, staff, or faculty at public colleges/universities to use other people's preferred or gender-neutral pronouns. 3. We oppose public higher education funding of one-sided studies intended to prove anthropogenic global warming for the purpose of justifying wealth redistribution 4. We oppose higher education funding and teaching of all aspects of gender reassignment: research, surgery, mental health, and "affirming care". 5. We oppose non-U.S. citizens being able to take advantage of taxpayer-funded scholarships, grants, or other financial aid to obtain a degree. 6. We oppose the requirement of completing and submitting a FAFSA form for enrollment in Oklahoma colleges and universities. III. Government Preamble: The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land and should be interpreted according to the original intent of the founding fathers as explained in the federalist papers. We call for reaffirmation of our God-given rights enumerated in the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights. The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government, and the Constitution of the United States together establish the exclusive basis 13 of the rule of law for our nation. These Organic Documents supersede all subsequent legislation, judicial decisions, and declared emergencies. Our founding fathers based these first laws on traditional Judeo- Christian ethics and values. We believe these documents are the basis for law, order, and behavior, allowing individuals, including government officials, the freedom to involve God in all activities according to their consciences. We believe all persons are responsible and should be held accountable for their actions. We believe in transparent and honest government with minimal intrusion, providing protection for all its citizens with fair and equitable treatment, enforcement, and justice. We realize without economic freedom there is no political freedom. We believe the greatest incentive for the creation of wealth lies in the respect for private property rights and the free enterprise system as the best and most efficient distribution of resources. A. Financial & Tax Issues i. Budget We Believe 1. We believe all governmental budgets should be balanced by decreasing spending, eliminating fraud, and eliminating duplication of services. 2. We support transparency and audits in government spending. 3. We believe the US Congress should ban earmarks. 4. We believe individuals, families, churches, and private organizations should take responsibility in meeting the needs of the citizens of the community. 5. We believe in a welfare policy that promotes the traditional American family unity, a strong work ethic, and individual responsibility. Those who repeatedly misuse the system, or fraudulently represent themselves shall forfeit further assistance. 6. We believe all able-bodied recipients of welfare and other federal entitlements should be required to work. 7. We believe in the implementation of "sunset laws," "zero-based budgeting," and performance audits to require justification for government programs. 8. We believe designated funds should be spent only for the stated purpose and not placed in the general fund. We Support 1. We support a full and complete public audit of the Federal Reserve System. 2. We support the elimination of barriers to purchase insurance across state lines. 3. We support total state control of Medicaid programs. 4. We support requiring a balanced federal budget, except in times of congressionally declared war. 14 5. We support the repeal or consolidation of federal, state, and local programs found to be non- performing, duplicative, or not authorized by the constitution. 6. We support the elimination of government funding for the Public Broadcasting System, the National Endowment for the Arts and National Public Radio. 7. We support making the Congressional Pension and health care benefits the same as the benefits the citizens use such as private savings, Social Security, and Medicare. 8. We support a requirement that all bills presented in Congress identify the specific Constitutional authorization (Article I, Section 8). 9. We support lowering the national debt by cutting non-defense spending. 10. We support abolishment of the federal minimum wage. 11. We support repeal of federal legislation that requires paying prevailing union wages on government contracts. 12. We support the elimination of funding for Planned Parenthood and other programs promoting or providing preborn baby murder. 13. We support a free market-based public transportation system as opposed to government funding. 14. We support abolishing the Federal Reserve. We Oppose 1. We oppose raising the debt limit. 2. We oppose the use of continuing resolutions to fund the federal government in lieu of passing an annual federal budget. 3. We oppose paying congressional members during any government shutdown. 4. We oppose simply 'printing money' to allow increased spending. 5. We oppose the nationalization of private businesses and enterprises, and efforts to support or subsidize in return for partial or complete control of private enterprises. 6. We oppose federal programs that enlarge the number of US citizens dependent upon government for their basic subsistence. 7. We oppose all congressional pay increases until the federal budget is balanced. 8. We oppose socialized medicine, the Affordable Care Act, or any other nationalized health care system. 15 ii. Taxation We Support 1. We support the repeal of the 16th Amendment, the elimination of the Internal Revenue Service, and replacement of the current tax system based on income with a simple system such as the Fair Tax. 2. We support eliminating taxation on income and property. 3. We support that any tax or fee set up for a particular purpose should be used solely for that purpose or should be repealed. 4. We support lowering or removing the state sales tax on groceries. 5. We support legislation requiring that state lottery funds be applied in addition to, not as a replacement for, state funding of schools. 6. We support requiring all initiative petitions to define the funding mechanisms. 7. We support tax policies that promote personal savings and capital formation. 8. We support the elimination of the marriage penalty, capital gains taxes, the earned income tax credit, the alternative minimum tax, double taxation of dividends, and inheritance tax. 9. We support requiring a two-thirds majority vote by Congress to increase taxes. 10. We support legislation requiring that all state fuel and vehicle taxes and tag fees go to state, county, and local transportation infrastructure. 11. We support reducing fuel taxes, both federal and state for agricultural use. 12. We support abolishing the income tax entirely. We Oppose 1. We oppose the creation of a tax on services as this will negatively impact working families and individuals. 2. We oppose the use of sales tax and use tax revenue bonds for advance local capital improvements. City and county improvements should be authorized only on a pay-as-you-go basis, and should not incur new taxes or bonds. 3. We oppose taxes or other incentives for businesses that encourage the exportation of jobs from the United States to foreign nations. 4. We oppose the use of restrictive fuel taxes for regulation of carbon or particulate matter emissions. 16 iii. Economic Development We Believe 1. We believe in free, open, and fair markets. 2. We believe that Oklahoma's efforts to attract industry should be grounded upon the establishment of a favorable and friendly "economic climate" rather than upon tax and other governmental subsidies to individual businesses. We Support 1. We support the revision of corporate laws and regulations to encourage business and economic development while reflecting free market principles. We Oppose 1. We oppose and discourage government competition with the private sector. 2. We oppose market interference by the government in setting insurance premiums. 3. We oppose public-private partnerships and the use of eminent domain. 4. We oppose governmental efforts to stimulate the economy or bail out troubled entities through massive increases in governmental spending, crushing debt, or massive tax increases. 5. We oppose a temporary assistance package for lenders or borrowers in mortgage foreclosures. The free market should be allowed to work. 6. We oppose the existence of a minimum wage. iv. Social Security We Believe 1. We believe Social Security is a contract with the United States workers and not an entitlement. Taxpayers should have the option of ownership and control over individual Social Security funds, including allowing a percentage of their Social Security tax to be placed in private investments of their choosing. We Support 1. We support repealing the 1993 Clinton tax on Social Security benefits.

i. Constitution We Believe 1. We believe the First Amendment's Establishment Clause was intended to prevent a federal government-sponsored or preferred religion, not to separate God from our government or to remove religion from public life; therefore, we affirm our right under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to exercise our freedom of speech including religious speech. 2. We believe the Second Amendment is an individual right of the citizens of the United States to keep and bear arms; therefore, we oppose any attempts, whether by law or regulation at any level of government, to restrict any citizen's right to keep and bear arms (open or concealed), to restrict access to ammunition, or to record the purchase thereof. 3. We believe the United States Constitution directs the judiciary to interpret law, not make law or create law through judicial activism. 4. We believe in the concept that Congress shall make no law that applies to citizens of the United States that does not apply to the Senators and Representatives. 5. We believe in the concept of nullification as a legitimate tool for adjudicating disputes between the states and the federal government when the federal government enacts a law clearly not in pursuance of the constitution and powers delegated in Art. I, Sec. 8. 6. We believe in the Tenth Amendment that provides "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," and we oppose any attempt by the federal government to intrude on state's rights. 7. We believe the Constitution provides for a clear and distinct separation of powers among the three branches of government. Any governmental action that tends to promote or allow one branch of government to practice the power or powers of the other branches of government is a violation of the limits placed on government by the people. 8. We believe in the duty and obligation of the federal government and the State of Oklahoma to adhere to and respect treaties between the federal government and the Indian tribes. We Support 1. We support the display of Judeo-Christian religious symbols, including the Ten Commandments in public places. 2. We support legislation that will protect gun and ammunition manufacturers or resellers from lawsuits attempting to hold the manufacturers or resellers liable for misuse of guns. 3. We support requiring that candidates for president present public proof of qualification in accordance with the Constitution at the time of filing, through the election board of each state. 4. We support a US Constitutional Amendment requiring a balanced budget. 18 5. We support a US Constitutional Amendment instituting term limits for all elected members of Congress. 6. We support a U.S. Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. 7. We support a requirement that each piece of legislation only address one issue. 8. We support the review and minimization of the Endangered Species Act. 9. We support the abolishment, or reduction and restructuring, of the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Education, IRS, CIA, ATF, FBI, FEMA, NSA, DHS, CDC, and the Department of Labor and their powers and responsibilities distributed to state authority. 10. We support the protection of public and private sector whistleblowers who have firsthand information. 11. We support union's refunding dues used for partisan political activity. 12. We support the right of private associations to admit or deny membership based on what each association's conscience dictates. 13. We support an English Language Act, which would make English our official language in the United States. 14. We support the idea that when U.S. Conference Committees meet, they should consider only those terms submitted from the House and Senate, with no additional expenditures and items added. 15. We support the preservation of the National Day of Prayer. 16. We support legislation to limit the power of federal regulatory agencies. 17. We support the identification of persons as citizens or non-citizens in the census. We Oppose 1. We oppose any federal taxation on firearms, ammunition, or accessories and/or confiscation of firearms, ammunition, or accessories. 2. We oppose universal background checks and red flag laws for firearm purchases. 3. We oppose any legislation that would require the use of trigger or other locking devices on firearms. 4. We oppose any so-called "assault" weapons ban and any effort to register or restrict firearms, ammunition, or magazines. 5. We oppose legislation that would require gun owners to purchase insurance policies covering the misuse of their firearms. 6. We oppose the Patriot Act and the NDAA' s Sections 1021 and 1022, which allow American citizens, 19 except for enemy combatants, to be held indefinitely without due process, and call for its repeal. 7. We oppose court decisions based on any foreign law, such as Sharia Law, U.N. regulations and other international organizations, instead of U.S. law and Constitutional doctrine. 8. We oppose the creation of a new federal internal security force. 9. We oppose federal wage caps. 10. We oppose Statehood for the District of Columbia and allowing its representative a vote in Congress. 11. We oppose the appointment and funding of presidential "czars." 12. We oppose any attempts by the Federal Government to reinstitute the "Fairness Doctrine" or institute "Net Neutrality." 13. We oppose the construct of "Free Speech or Safe Zones." 14. We oppose national injunctions by federal district courts. 15. We oppose the use and sharing of data from Automated License Plate Readers as an infringement on our 4th amendment protected rights. ii. Criminal Justice We Believe 1. The rights of victims and their families must be protected in criminal proceedings, with notice and opportunity to attend all proceedings related to the crime(s) against them. 2. Restitution by the convicted criminal should be ordered to be made to the victim (or his estate) to compensate for losses and damages incurred as a result of the crime(s) committed. 3. The death penalty must be retained as an available punishment in appropriate cases. 4. Inmates who abuse the legal system by filing repeated frivolous claims should receive appropriate punishments for their misconduct. 5. Decisions on prison reform should be made by the Legislature after consultation with district attorneys, prison officials, and other interested parties, with the view towards stopping criminal behavior early, rather than adopting permissive treatment of low-level crimes which may deceive or encourage a young adult to continue on the wrong path under the mistaken assumption that there will be no consequences for criminal behavior. Consideration of incentives for first-time or youthful offenders who refrain from further misconduct may be a useful option to be considered in designing such reforms. 6. We believe in due process and that no one should be deprived of life, liberty, or property by the government or its agents without either being found guilty by a jury or pleading guilty of a crime. We therefore oppose the practice of civil asset forfeiture. 20 We Support 1. We support the repeal of The Oklahoma Uninsured Vehicle Enforcement Diversion Program as it is unconstitutional at the state and federal level. We Oppose 1. We oppose the monitoring, surveillance and tracking of United States citizens without a lawfully obtained warrant. iii. Federal & State Elections Preamble: The foundation of our representative-republic is honest elections. The Oklahoma Republican Party is committed to preserving every legally eligible Oklahoman's right to vote. We support only day of in-person voting as written in the Constitutions with limited exceptions to protect voting rights for the elderly, the disabled, military members, and all other eligible voters. We urge all elected officials around our state to take all necessary steps to ensure that voters may cast their ballots in a timely and secure manner. Security and transparency shall take precedence over convenience to ensure honest and fair, local, state, and federal elections. We Believe 1. We believe in fair and honest election procedures. 2. We believe equal suffrage for all United States citizens of voting age. 3. We believe in the constitutional authority of state legislatures to regulate voting. We Support 1. We support a bit-by-bit forensic audit of all electronic devices, including but not limited to servers, ballot machines, and paper ballots throughout the state immediately before and after each election. 2. We support vigorous enforcement of all our election laws as written and oppose any laws, lawsuits, and judicial decisions that make voter fraud difficult to deter, detect, or prosecute. 3. We support full enforcement of all voter ID laws currently enacted. 4. We support felony status for willful violations of the election code and increasing penalty for voter fraud from a misdemeanor back to a felony. 5. We support consolidating elections to primary, runoff, special, and general election. 6. We support sequentially numbered and signed ballots to deter counterfeiting. 7. We support expanding the Attorney General's staff for investigating election crimes and restoring the ability of the Attorney General to prosecute any election crimes. 8. We support the ability for civil lawsuits to be filed for election fraud or officials' failure to follow the Oklahoma Election Code. 21 9. We support allowing trained poll watchers from anywhere in Oklahoma with local party or candidate approval. 10. We support creating processes that will allow rapid adjudication of election law violations. 11. We support requiring voters to re-register if they have not voted in a five-year period. 12. We support requiring proof of residency, citizenship, and voter registration via photo ID for each voter. 13. We support retaining the 25-day registration deadline. 14. We support requiring a list of certified deaths be provided to the Secretary of State for the names of deceased voters to be removed from the list of registered voters, with checks every third year of the voter rolls to ensure all currently registered voters are eligible. 15. We support giving the Secretary of State enforcement authority to ensure county registrar compliance with Secretary of State directives. 16. We support protecting the integrity of the Republican Primary Election by requiring a closed primary system in Oklahoma. 17. We support drawing districts based on eligible voters, not pure population. Districts should be geographically compact when possible 18. We support hand counting of ballots. 19. We support recalls, audits, recounts, and irregularity and fraud investigations requested within 45 days of an election. 20. We support verification of United States citizenship for voting or registering to vote. 21. We support elections run by United States citizens. 22. We support counts to be posted on Precinct doors. We Oppose 1. We oppose internet voting, the use of tabulation machines and electronic voting machines of any kind for public office and any ballot measure. 2. We oppose all motor voter laws, automatic voter registration (AVR), and all forms of electronic databases, such as ERIC (Electronic Registration Information Center) and all third-party registration vendors. 3. We oppose all federal legislation, including but not limited to the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022, which nullifies the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. 22 4. We oppose unlawful voting, illegal assistance, or ineligible people voting in our national, state, and local elections. 5. We oppose ranked choice voting. 6. We oppose any identification of citizens by race, origin, creed, sexuality, or lifestyle choices and oppose the use of any such identification for the purposes of creating voting districts. We urge that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 be repealed. 7. We oppose any redistricting map that is unfair to conservative candidates in the Primary or the General Election. 8. We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. 9. We oppose after-hours voting C. Natural Resources We Believe 1. We believe dependence on foreign energy sources is a national security issue. 2. We believe governments should ease restrictions in the search for energy and other natural resources. 3. We believe the federal agricultural appropriations should accurately show the percentage of money set aside for non-agricultural programs such as school lunch programs and food stamps. 4. We believe the responsible use of natural resources is essential for the benefit of future generations. We Support 1. We support the creation and enactment of a national energy policy to reduce dependence on foreign sources. 2. We support the private expansion of oil and gas exploration and refining capacity. 3. We support the exportation of U.S. petroleum products. 4. We support labeling of all food and fiber with country-of-origin labeling. Further, only products born, raised, slaughtered, and processed or sprouted, harvested, grown, and processed in this country should receive a U.S. label. 5. We support energy policy based on private development, efficient use and expansion of current resources such as fossil fuels, clean coal, and nuclear energy; and exploration and efficient use of other resources such as biofuels, wind, solar and water energy. 6. We support ending all federal and state subsidies, including tax credits, for industrial renewable 23 energy, including but not limited to, wind and solar. 7. We support the rights of individuals and businesses to refuse the installation of smart meters without penalties. 8. We support the right of states to provide water for present and future use within their borders by state residents before they can be designated for use to other states. 9. We support environmental recommendations that are based on sound science, that respect and protect the rights of property owners, and that do not impose unreasonable burdens on Oklahoma citizens or businesses. 10. We support more use of coal and natural gas to be used in the production of electricity. 11. We support the use of modular nuclear, or small natural gas fired generation facilities to be built close to high demand facilities to greatly reduce the need for long and expensive transmission lines. 12. We support mandatory country-of-origin labeling of meat products and that a country-of-origin label that states in any way that it is a product of the USA must be of the following requirements: Born, raised, harvested, packaged & processed in the USA. 13. We support The Packers and Stockyards Act and the enforcement of anti-trust laws. 14. We support private property rights and call for appropriate legislation to prohibit the use of eminent domain by private companies. 15. We stand with Oklahoma and her property owners against the Green Agenda. We Oppose 1. We oppose government curbs, moratoriums, punitive taxes and fees on our domestic oil and gas industry. 2. We oppose states selling water rights to out-of-state buyers. 3. We oppose the use of eminent domain for any water sale. 4. We oppose human rights for animals. 5. We oppose livestock taxation. 6. We oppose legislation that restricts or regulates family farms or farmers' markets. 7. We oppose restrictive regulation of carbon and particulate matter emissions in agriculture. 8. We oppose the "Cap and Trade" system for carbon dioxide. 9. We oppose the UN's Agenda 21, aka UN 2030, as a coordinated effort to relinquish the sovereignty of the United States to foreign powers. 24 10. We oppose the purchase or ownership of land by a foreign government or entity. 11. We oppose the production, selling, and labeling of a product that is an alternative protein source claiming to be meat, otherwise known as or referred to as fake meat, and labeling such product as meat, beef, burger, steak, or any other name given to an actual meat protein source derived from the production and slaughter of livestock. 12. We oppose current regulations that allow foreign beef to enter the U.S. and be packaged, repackaged, or commingled with domestic product and then labeled a product of the USA. 13. We oppose the theory that cow flatulence, belching, or any process of enteric fermentation that is said to emit methane or a greenhouse gas that some link to the theory of global warming is some sort of detriment threat to the environment. 14. We oppose any form of carbon tracking solutions imposed on farmers and ranchers that will ultimately lead to more costly and burdensome regulations. 15. We oppose NACs (natural asset companies) or similar companies derived by investors, the SEC, or any other entity that wishes to monetize, trade natural outputs, or otherwise maximize ecological performance in such a way that any company can control the management of public or private lands quantifying outputs of natural resources such as air and water. 16. We oppose any effort of the federal government to have any role in animal care or husbandry. 17. We oppose mandates or restrictions on the use of antibiotics for farm or veterinary use. 18. We oppose mandatory Electronic Identification device (EID) tags on livestock, birds, and animals. D. National Issues i. Defense We Believe 1. We believe that a strong national defense should be fully funded, provide sufficient compensation, educational opportunities, quality training, and the best equipment for our armed forces. 2. We believe any educational institution that inhibits the normal operations of ROTC or military recruiters should be ineligible for government funding. 3. We believe foreign enemies who have committed or planned acts of aggression against the U.S. are unlawful enemy combatants and are not entitled to citizenship rights under the U.S. Constitution. We believe they should be held in detention facilities such as Guantanamo Bay, not the U.S. Prisons Systems, and their cases adjudicated by military tribunals, not by U.S. Criminal Courts. 4. We believe Congress and the President should refrain from weakening the military through changes to the Uniform Coe of Military Justice. The military should be allowed to maintain its high level of honesty, integrity, morality, and operational capabilities. 25 5. We believe in the complete accounting of all MIAs and POWs that were engaged in military actions by the United States. We Support 1. We support maintaining a strong national defense and advocate "peace through strength", with a combat ready and capable force. 2. We support the right of the military's internal determination of who is qualified to perform the various roles and functions of each branch of the uniformed armed services. 3. We support veterans' and survivors' benefits, and to receive top quality health care. We support the reform of the Veteran's Administration and the use of private facilities when appropriate. 4. We support helping our veterans to succeed in their return to civilian life in medical care, mental health care, education, housing, and employment assistance. 5. We support the freedom of military chaplains to provide religious services including freedom of worship according to their faith. 6. We support and encourage continued public and privately funded exploration of space. 7. We support returning to "Don't Ask Don't Tell" for the military of the United States. We Oppose 1. We oppose re-instituting the draft except in time of war as declared by Congress. 2. We oppose drafting females into U.S. military service. 3. We oppose the military use of U.S. troops under foreign command except joint operations. 4. We oppose the erosion of our military's readiness through "gender norming" for training and promotion. 5. We oppose the further reduction of benefits and entitlements to service members, former service members, and their families. 6. We oppose halting military pay during US government shutdowns. ii. Foreign Relations We Support 1. We support economic stability be it in the U.S. or Internationally 2. We support the dollar as the principal currency of the world. 3. We support equal access of U.S. products to global markets and the elimination of trade barriers. 26 4. We support withdrawing from treaties and agreements, such as the Kyoto Treaty, and the Paris Climate Accord, that hamper the U.S. economy and compromises freedoms We Oppose 1. We oppose the Chinese Communist Party and any other governments that are manipulators of the U.S. dollar and exchange rates at the expense of U.S. National Security as well as economic stability. 2. We oppose paying into UN programs that are against American principles and freedoms. 3. We oppose any doctrines that infringe upon U.S. Sovereignty and the Sovereignty of U.S. allies such as Israel, the Ukraine, and Taiwan. 4. We oppose terrorism and any nations that sponsor terroristic organizations and groups that are anti-U.S. such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS. 5. We oppose the sale of technology by U.S. Corporations to terrorist and enemy nations. 6. We oppose the transfer of U.S. taxpayer wealth to any foreign governments under the umbrella of foreign, humanitarian aid, scientific research, and military assistance for non-U.S. interests. 7. We oppose the principles of the World Economic Forum to devalue the U.S. dollar and do not accept them as a body of global governance. 8. We oppose the creation of the Transatlantic Common Market 9. We oppose any United Nations Programs that seek a "world order" over the Earth's population and U.N. policies that are forced over the world's nations. 10. We oppose the World Health Organization's policies over U.S. citizens and setting precedent for the U.S. medical community. 11. We oppose foreign control over any ports or bases within the jurisdiction of the United States. 12. We oppose any actions taken by previous administrations that relinquish U.S. sovereignty and control over U.S. data and private communications. iii. Immigration We Support 1. We support limited legal immigration and embrace legal immigrants who choose to assimilate to our American culture, language, and values. 2. We support securing our borders against illegal immigrants and potential enemies of the United States including building a wall or barrier on our southern border. 3. We support legal requirements for citizenship, excluding provisions for birthright citizenship to children of illegal residents. 27 4. We support a strictly regulated and enforced guest worker program. Legal guest workers should assume social costs, such as education and health care for themselves and their dependents. 5. We support the method for determining the number of immigrants and temporary visa holders allowed in the United States should be revised to prevent an adverse effect on our national security, wages, housing, environment, medical care, or schools. 6. We support that the U.S. government should vigorously enforce and demand that all local law enforcement agencies uphold and enforce all federal laws concerning illegal immigration. We particularly support the work of the men and women of Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) and US Border Patrol and Protection. 7. We support the elimination of sanctuary cities for illegal aliens and the defunding of any government entity which declares itself a sanctuary city. 8. We support strong enforcement of state and federal laws dealing with illegal aliens. 9. We support substantial state fines for employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. 10. We support issuing driver's license only to citizens and others who reside here legally, and not to illegal aliens. We Oppose 1. We oppose illegal aliens being given the same privileges as U.S. citizens or legal aliens, including entitlements such as Social Security, health care (excepting trauma care), education, and earned income tax credits. State government social programs should be available only to citizens and legal residents of the United States. 2. We oppose any form of blanket amnesty. 3. We oppose legal immigrants overstaying their visas. 4. We oppose a "path to citizenship" that would grant citizenship to illegal aliens faster than to immigrants who have come to the United States through legal means. E. State Issues i. State Legislature We Believe 1. We believe all bills should be limited to one issue. 2. We believe that it is the responsibility of individual legislators to read and to be knowledgeable of all pieces of legislation prior to voting. 3. We believe that all state-tribal compacts and agreements should require the approval of both houses of the legislature in addition to the ten-member Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations. 28 4. We believe Oklahoma shall participate only in programs or plans that protect private property rights and encourage citizens to develop their property in a manner that does not harm others. 5. We believe Oklahoma should not participate in any global ID initiatives and should prohibit the introduction of a radio frequency identification device (RFID) in any state-issued identification card. 6. We believe the Oklahoma Lottery should be repealed. 7. We believe a fee shall be defined as funds collected for voluntary use of government service, be used exclusively for that service, and not to exceed the cost of that service. We Support 1. We support any legislation that protects our rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. 2. We support an explanation of the specific Oklahoma and U.S. Constitutional authority when filing a bill. 3. We support full funding of all state retirement systems. 4. We support legislation rescinding Oklahoma's previous calls for a U.S. Constitutional Convention. 5. We support the state and any county, municipality, city, town, school or any other political subdivision to display, in its public buildings and on its grounds, replicas of United States historical documents including, but not limited to, the Ten Commandments, Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence, United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, Oklahoma Constitution and other historically significant documents in the form of statues, monuments, memorials, tablets or any other display that respects the dignity and solemnity of such documents. Such documents shall be displayed in a manner consistent with the context of other documents contained in such display. 6. We support full protection of U.S. Second Amendment rights in Oklahoma by amending the Oklahoma Constitution to mirror the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. 7. We support maintaining the Constitutional Carry law in Oklahoma statute. 8. We support the ability of state law enforcement to restore the peace and protect Oklahoma citizens through the arrest and prosecution of any persons/agents attempting to inflict unconstitutional laws/mandates on its citizens. 9. We support the fundamental right to own and to enjoy our private property and we oppose restrictions or losses of that right. 10. We support fair, just, and timely compensation for property owners when governmental regulations limit property use. 11. We support driver's license photos of a lower resolution that is perfectly adequate for visual identification, but not for biometric tracking. 12. We support the repeal of mandatory fingerprinting or other traceable biometric information, and 29 we oppose the maintenance of a biometric database, in connection with an application for a driver's license or government ID. 13. We support lawsuit reform including but not limited to "loser pays". 14. We support amending the current Right to Farm law to explicitly allow for expansion, production, technological changes, and measures to protect these activities. 15. We support the Unmanned Surveillance Act which prohibits the use of a drone when no warrant has been issued. 16. We support a state constitutional amendment requiring judges to inform jurors of their duty to judge the law (nullification); and prohibiting judges and district attorneys from infringing on the rights of the defense to inform the jury of this duty. 17. We support amending the Oklahoma Constitution to remove the unelected Judicial Nominating Commission and adopt the federal model authorizing the Governor to appoint Oklahoma appellate judges with confirmation by the Oklahoma State Senate. 18. We support the oversight and regulation of the medical marijuana industry for medical purposes only. 19. We support the state and its citizens maintaining control of all transportation instead of selling or leasing control of that right to foreign entities, corporations, private/public partnerships, or other states. 20. We support efficient and necessary spending on our state, county, and local roads and bridges because they are essential for economic growth and development. 21. We support a moratorium on creation of additional turnpikes in Oklahoma until existing turnpikes in Oklahoma have generated enough toll revenue based upon an independent audit to repay their original costs, are conveyed to state ownership, and converted to toll-free roads. 22. We support the elimination of the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and all tolls. We Oppose 1. We oppose the final passage of any legislation before the full text has been read. 2. We oppose the concept of claiming property as "blighted" as a reason for taking land. 3. We oppose allowing state agencies to hire lobbyists to lobby other state agencies or the legislature. 4. We oppose animal ID programs by the government, leaving it up to the free market. 5. We oppose the expansion of gambling in any form in Oklahoma. 30 ii. State Agencies, State, County, and Local Government We Believe 1. We believe in transparent and honest government in the Oklahoma Legislature, all legislative committees, and in state and county agencies. 2. We believe all state agencies should be made accountable for maintenance of their records and accurate enforcement of rules, policies, and regulations. 3. We believe all government officials, including judges, who act in violation of the U.S. or Oklahoma Constitution should be impeached and removed from office in a timely manner. 4. We believe the Attorney General should be removed from the District Attorney's Council so that locally elected officials have the proper degree of autonomy. 5. We believe that no governmental agency or private business should require from any citizen any information that is not essential to the direct performance of the agency's/ business's operation or mandate. We Support 1. We support reducing the size of state government to allow citizens to do those things that people can do best for themselves. 2. We support legislative efforts to repeal outdated and irrelevant statutes in keeping with the philosophy of smaller government and support the elimination or consolidation of redundant authorities, boards, commissions, and agencies. 3. We support providing an enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance with the Open Meetings and Records Act and with audit findings. 4. We support external annual performance and financial audits. The auditor shall not be selected by the audited agencies. 5. We support public disclosure of all financial records of public institutions including trusts, authorities, libraries, community foundations, all state retirement funds, and teacher retirement funds. 6. We support the Whistleblower Act which protects all public employees, including higher education employees. 7. We support all elected and appointed officials to aggressively uncover, remedy, and prosecute all waste, fraud, and abuse in government including the elimination of all unnecessary state agencies. 8. We support the repeal of Title 11, Section 22-104.1 of the OK Statutes, which enables a municipal corporation to engage in any business it is authorized to license. 9. We support mandatory random drug testing for all employees of the State of Oklahoma and recipients of public assistance with sanctions for positive test results. 31 10. We support and call on the Attorney General to vigorously enforce Article XXII, Section 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution which prohibits foreign governments from owning businesses or real estate in Oklahoma. 11. We support that the state of Oklahoma shall not exercise any eminent domain action until at least 90% of affected property holders/interests has been acquired without the threat of eminent domain. 12. We support enforcement of state and federal Anti-Trust laws regulating the mergers of domestic and foreign corporations that create monopolies resulting in a loss of competition, and detrimental to Oklahoma entities. We Oppose 1. We oppose any exemptions to the current Open Meetings and Open Records Act. 2. We oppose unfunded mandates by the State Legislature and state agencies. 3. We oppose the declaration of a United Nations Day in Oklahoma. 4. We oppose legislative actions that would alter current county government structures (i.e. Home Rule). 5. We oppose self-serving legislation and conflict of interest legislation. 32   2025 Oklahoma Republican Party Platform Committee Casey Wooley, Chair Lori Gracey , Vice-Chair Patricia Pope – Blaine Bryan Morris – Canadian Rachel Ruiz – Canadian John Spencer – Canadian LeRoss Apple – Cimarron Bruce Fleming – Cleveland Sherrie Hamilton – Haskell Gary Voelkers – Kay Julie Collier – McClain Leslie Mahan – Oklahoma Ruth Foote – Oklahoma Mark Harris – Oklahoma Robert Scott – Okmulgee Jason Shilling – Payne Mishela DeBoer – Rogers Patricia Lyle – Rogers John Doak – Tulsa April Dawn Brown – Garvin Amanda Bergerson – Logan Michelle Wax – Carter Jana Belcher – Grady

Markets are freaked out about the DOJ's threats to Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. And so are we! We've got a deep dive into a court order barring Trump from adding an extra-legal proof of citizenship requirement to voter registration forms and a breakdown of Illinois and Minnesota's respective lawsuits against ICE and CBP. And for subscribers, we'll explain why JD Vance's claim that “Every president, Democrat or Republican, believes the War Powers Act is fundamentally a fake and unconstitutional law,” is utter BS.Links:Kelly v. Hegsethhttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72131361/kelly-v-hegseth/Neguse v. ICEhttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70964222/neguse-v-us-immigration-and-customs-enforcementNew York v. Burgum [Nichols]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72126766/state-of-new-york-v-burgum/New York v. Burgum [Lamberth]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72126847/state-of-new-york-v-burgum/Federal prosecutor in Virginia fired after refusing to lead Comey casehttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/12/us-attorney-virginia-fired-jTrump DOJ fires prosecutor who declined to pursue James Comey casehttps://www.ms.now/news/trump-doj-fires-prosecutor-who-declined-to-pursue-james-comey-caseWashington v. Trump [Election EO]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69845185/state-of-washington-v-trump/Illinois v. DHShttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72131845/state-of-illinois-v-department-of-homeland-security/Show Links:https://www.lawandchaospod.com/BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPodThreads: @LawAndChaosPodTwitter: @LawAndChaosPodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

LISTEN and SUBSCRIBE on:Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/watchdog-on-wall-street-with-chris-markowski/id570687608 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2PtgPvJvqc2gkpGIkNMR5i WATCH and SUBSCRIBE on:https://www.youtube.com/@WatchdogOnWallstreet/featured  Most of the media skipped the homework, but we didn't. Chris explores Trump's push for a unified national AI standard, examines how it intersects with the Tenth Amendment, and asks where state authority ends and federal power begins. From refinery-blend absurdities to outlet-standard logic, from protecting kids from deepfakes to protecting communities from soaring utility demands, we break down what this order could mean—and why Big Tech lobbyists are already celebrating.

Twila Brase, RN, PHN, and president and co-founder of the Citizens' Council for Health Freedom, joins Steve to discuss the recent escalation of TSA penalties for travelers without a REAL ID, from $18 to $45. She explains why this is less about security and more about coercing Americans into a federal identification system that could expand into digital IDs, biometric surveillance, and even domestic passports. Brase breaks down the constitutional concerns, the Tenth Amendment implications, and what Americans can legally do to protect their privacy and resist this growing federal overreach. For more information, visit cchfreedom.org.

President Trump announced on Monday that he was signing an executive order to have ONE RULE (his words, not mine) when it comes to artificial intelligence, seeking to suppress the Tenth Amendment rights of states to have their own regulatory framework around, well, every single other industry on the planet. Over the weekend the president said he was concerned about the Netflix purchase of Warner Brothers because “that might give them too big of a market share.”These feigned antitrust/monopolistic concerns and blatant disregard for states' rights in favor of a behemoth federal government control are longstanding beliefs and practices of the New Deal, big government left. They have been anathema to the right for time eternal. These are deeply concerning shifts in both action and philosophy that must be fervently resisted by those who still revere the Constitution and cherish the very concept of economic liberty. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Ann Vandersteel sits down with former Graham County, Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack—the man who challenged the Brady Bill and won at the Supreme Court—to explore what it really means to be a “constitutional sheriff.” Together, they break down the legal foundation behind Printz v. United States, state-regulated militias, and how the Tenth Amendment still protects local autonomy today.Ann presses Sheriff Mack on how counties can build lawful, transparent preparedness networks—from trained volunteer posses to state defense forces—without crossing the line into vigilante territory. They tackle “interposition,” election integrity, cooperation with federal agencies, and the urgent need for written County Peace Plans that unite sheriffs, citizens, and governors under constitutional law.It's a masterclass in how local leadership can protect liberty, restore accountability, and keep the peace—by the book.Presented in partnership with: American Made Foundation & American Made Actionhttps://AmericanMadeFoundation.orghttps://AmericanMadeAction.orgFollow Ann Vandersteel on Pickax: https://pickax.com/annvandersteel

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson unpacks a significant federal court decision blocking the Trump administration from withholding or conditioning federal funds to UCLA in exchange for major campus policy changes. The discussion covers the court's reasoning under the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and 10th Amendments, and why the judge deemed the administration's actions coercive. Join us for a breakdown of this breaking legal news and its broader implications for university autonomy.Here are three key takeaways from the episode:Federal Funding Leverage Challenged: A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Trump administration from freezing, terminating, or conditioning UC research funds—pointing out that the administration's approach may violate legal requirements, including the Administrative Procedures Act, the First Amendment, and the Tenth Amendment.Academic Freedom & Speech Protected: The court found that forcing changes to speech policies, DEI efforts, gender healthcare, protest rules, and admissions could unlawfully coerce universities and chill free speech, especially among public university faculty and students.States' Rights and Spending Clause Limits: The judge ruled that federal conditions on funding can't be so extreme they essentially take away states' ability to decide their own policies—a “gun to the head” tactic that threatens economic stability and state sovereignty.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

When does justice become control? Deputy Sergeant Chris Clark pulls back the curtain on the Melendres v. Arpaio legacy — a 20-year federal court order that's cost taxpayers hundreds of millions and placed an elected sheriff's office under judicial rule. With Judge G. Murray Snow's monitor still in charge, residents argue that the Constitution's Tenth Amendment is on the line — and that Maricopa's voters are ready to reclaim their say.   https://yournews.com/2025/10/25/4403759/silenced-in-phoenix-residents-say-judges-community-meeting-was-anything/ Join Me On Telegram https://t.me/theambermayshow Podcast Like A PRO https://podcast-like-a-pro.trainercentralsite.com Promocode Amber Discord https://discord.gg/kUsDba4zRj https://discord.com/channels/1331829063400034435/1331829063869792308 The Amber May Show Theme Song https://suno.com/song/87e27080-4ddb-47f7-8722-b00b251e6c84 Get AMAZING Amber May Merchandise https://www.ambermayshow.com/amazing-products Follow Me on Pickax https://pickax.com/?referralCode=gb4e11n&refSource=copy GLP-1 LifeRX https://liferxmd.everflowclient.io/affiliate/signup/?p=2DGZN931 Get all your My Pillow Products at a DISCOUNT www.mypillow.com/amber Use Promo Code AMBER and save up to 66% off Promo code-AMBER 800-957-2123 Get Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and SAVE Dr Stella Immanuel https://shop.drstellamd.com/?linkId=lp_080983&sourceId=amber-may&tenantId=rehoboth-medical-cli Use Promo Code AmberMay and save Become An Affiliate with Dr Stella https://rehoboth-medical-cli.trackdesk.com/sign-up?referralAccountId=1f8c94aa-933e-4aa8-ac5b-5a8d9a0d4508 Save Money When Using A Patient Advocate In The Medical System https://www.graithcare.com/?ref=Amber Take Control of Your Health & Healing! Get the full celebration of solutions that happened at Healing For The A.G.E.S. Over 20 hours of ground-breaking, life-changing, information you've never heard before, and can't get anywhere else! https://healingfortheages.com/ use promocode Amber Patriot Mobile- Free Activation When you become a Patriot Mobile member, your dollars are helping to fund our God-given right to freedom. A portion of every dollar we earn is given back to the causes that support organizations that fight for First Amendment Religious Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms, Sanctity of Life, and the needs of our Veterans and First Responders. https://www.patriotmobile.com/amber/ Use Promocode AMBER The Flynn Movie https://www.flynnmovie.com/ref/azladyz/ War On Truth Movie You've been told that J6 was a violent insurrection against the United States by a group of angry, fringe, MAGA supporters… What if it wasn't? What if there really was a War on Truth? https://hisglory.tv/?ref=448 Promocode MAY Patrick Byrne, the founder/CEO of Overstock.com, rose to the height of financial success and was once heralded as a Wall Street prophet. However, in 2019, Byrne seemingly slipped into madness — stepping down from his multi-billion dollar company, claiming to be a covert government asset trapped in a deadly game of political espionage https://enemywithindocuseries.com/ref/amber Promocode AMBER Is it possible with Turbo Cancers on the rise and Big Pharma's reputation at zero, that Americans are finally ready to hear the truth about Cancer? Are you ready? In the 70's a Doctor working for a National Cancer Institute discovered that Apricot seeds, which contain B-17, actually slowed the growth of tumors. https://rncstore.com/ambermay Ensure the health of the indoor air quality in your home investing in good air purifiers to eliminate pollutants and allergens. Find adjunctive therapies to cancer and better health with red light and methylene blue found in the link below! https://airwaterhealing.com/#May Promocode May Supermassive Black Coffee Use Promocode AMBER https://www.supermassiveblackcoffee.com/ The Commander's Artist Save 10% Promo Code Amber https://thecommandersartist.com/shop/ My Gold Guy https://www.mygoldguy.com/amber Hero's Soap Save 10% with Promo Code AmberMay We Are on These Platforms Rumble https://rumble.com/c/TheAmberMayShow Faith N Freedom Network https://faithnfreedom.tv/ Odysee https://odysee.com/@azladyz:c Locals https://theambermayshow.locals.com https://yournews.com/author/amber-may/ Bitchute https://www.bitchute.com/search/?query=azladyz&kind=video Podbean: http://theambermayshow.podbean.com Catch Amber May On UG Media Fridays 10PM (UK Time) 3pm MST/5pm EST https://theug.media/wp-content/ugplayer/xlplayer.html Catch Amber May on Express Radio Station Thursday at 6pm MST/8pm EST https://live365.com/station/Express-Radio-a643 The Vera Radio Network today at 7pm ET www.mikevara.com https://www.mastiff.media/ www.Patriot-Radio.com

It's late October 2025, and I'm sitting here at my desk, sorting through yet another thick stack of court filings, headlines, and political tweets—the most newsworthy legal battles in the country right now center on Donald Trump, and trust me, if you've been listening to the news these past few days, you already know it's a lot. Let me bring you up to speed.We start with the Supreme Court. Right now, Trump finds himself as the lead petitioner in a consolidated case on the docket as Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al., No. 25-250. This case, originally heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, was docketed by the Supreme Court on September 4, 2025. The Justices granted certiorari and set the case for oral arguments in the first week of November, with argument specifically scheduled for Wednesday, November 5, 2025. One hour is allotted for oral argument, and the docket is loaded with amicus briefs from groups like Advancing American Freedom, Washington State Amici, and We Pay the Tariffs.But the Supreme Court case is just one thread of a much larger web. Out west, in Portland, Oregon, things have reached a fever pitch. The State of Oregon and the City of Portland sued President Trump, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, in the United States District Court. The case, 3:25-cv-01756-IM, centers on the federal government's deployment of National Guard troops to Portland—over the objection of Oregon Governor Tina Kotek. According to the court opinion, on September 27, 2025, Trump posted on Truth Social, directly ordering Hegseth to provide troops to protect Portland from what he called Antifa and other domestic terrorists, authorizing “full force, if necessary.” By the next day, Secretary Hegseth federalized 200 members of the Oregon National Guard.The reaction was immediate. The plaintiffs filed for a temporary restraining order on September 28, arguing that the President's actions violated federal law, including the Posse Comitatus Act and 10 U.S.C. § 12406, and trampled on Oregon's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Governor Kotek pushed back hard, insisting that Portland had not seen the kind of violent, sustained protests Trump described for months—local law enforcement had handled earlier summer disruptions, and by late September, protests outside key locations like the ICE facility were small and uneventful. Trump, however, doubled down in a Truth Social post on October 1, saying that conditions in Portland were deteriorating, “lawless mayhem” was taking hold, and that the National Guard was needed to restore order.While this Oregon drama unfolds, there's another story developing behind closed doors. The Lawfare Litigation Tracker notes that a coalition of states is suing the Trump administration over the suspension of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for November 2025. This case hasn't hit the headlines as hard, but for thousands of families, it's a life-or-death matter—another legal flashpoint in an increasingly litigious era.Now, by the time you hear this, today is October 29, 2025, and the Supreme Court's reply brief is due tomorrow, October 30. The nation is waiting—and not just on the legal questions. The constitutional balance between federal and state power is being tested, and the President's use of the military at home is under a microscope. Legal scholars from Trade Scholars in Economics, Politics, and Law—alongside former U.S. Trade Representative Carla Anderson Hills and former WTO Deputy Director-General Alan William Wolff—have filed briefs that may influence the Justices' thinking. And for everyday listeners, there's a nervous feeling in the air, a sense that all it takes is one more Tweet or court order to send everything spiraling.Let me close by saying thanks for tuning in. No matter where you stand on these issues, we're all trying to make sense of the storm, and stories like these define the moment. Come back next week for more—until then, this has been a Quiet Please production. For more on the week's biggest stories, visit Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

The legal battles against President Donald Trump took a dramatic turn this past week, with federal courts issuing significant rulings that could reshape the boundaries of executive power. On October 4th, a federal district court in Oregon granted a temporary restraining order against Trump and his administration in a case that strikes at the heart of presidential authority and state sovereignty.The case centers on Trump's decision to federalize the Oregon National Guard and deploy them to Portland. On September 27th, Trump posted on Truth Social that he was directing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to provide troops to protect what he called war-ravaged Portland from Antifa and other domestic terrorists, authorizing full force if necessary. The very next day, Secretary Hegseth issued a memorandum authorizing the deployment and federalization of 200 Oregon National Guard service members, completely overriding the objections of Oregon Governor Tina Kotek.The State of Oregon and the City of Portland immediately filed suit, arguing that Trump exceeded his statutory authority under federal law and violated Oregon's sovereign rights protected by the Tenth Amendment. What makes this case particularly compelling is the timing and justification. The court found that unlike previous situations where such deployments might have been warranted, there was minimal evidence of significant unrest in Portland during September 2025. While there had been protests at a Portland ICE facility that peaked back in June, federal and local law enforcement had successfully managed the situation. In the month leading up to the federalization order, there were only four minor incidents involving protesters and federal officers.The district court sided with Oregon and Portland, issuing the temporary restraining order on October 4th. But Trump's legal team immediately appealed, and by October 20th, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was considering whether to stay that order. The three-judge panel consisting of Judges Susan Graber, Ryan Nelson, and Bridget Bade heard arguments about whether the President acted within his authority under Title 10 of the United States Code, specifically Section 12406.This case joins a growing list of legal challenges against the Trump administration's actions in 2025. According to Lawfare's litigation tracker, similar cases have emerged in other jurisdictions, including challenges to immigration enforcement in sanctuary cities.What happens next could have lasting implications. If the courts ultimately rule against Trump, it would represent a significant check on presidential power to deploy military forces domestically. For Oregon and Portland, it's about preserving state sovereignty and preventing what they see as federal overreach.Thank you for tuning in. Come back next week for more updates on this developing story and other important legal news. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – The Constitution of the United States created a government with limited and enumerated powers, at least according to the Tenth Amendment. Yet those limits seem to have no effect on government today, regardless of which political party is in power. Does the federal government have the authority to make a de facto national ID, where every state and federal actor has...

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – The Constitution of the United States created a government with limited and enumerated powers, at least according to the Tenth Amendment. Yet those limits seem to have no effect on government today, regardless of which political party is in power. Does the federal government have the authority to make a de facto national ID, where every state and federal actor has...

SummaryThis lecture discussion explores the evolution of the Commerce Clause, located in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which empowers Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with Indian tribes. Initially intended to prevent economic fragmentation among the states under the Articles of Confederation, the clause has since become a cornerstone of federal legislative authority. The lecture traces the doctrine's development from early cases like Gibbons v. Ogden, which established a broad interpretation of interstate commerce, through periods of judicial contraction during the Lochner era, and into its expansive use during the New Deal era with cases like Wickard v. Filburn. It also covers the modern Court's retrenchment in United States v. Lopez and Morrison, reaffirming limits on federal power. The lecture concludes with analysis of Gonzales v. Raich, the Affordable Care Act case (NFIB v. Sebelius), and the interplay between the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Tenth Amendment, providing students with a framework to understand the clause's reach and limitations in contemporary constitutional law.Key TakeawaysCommerce Clause Authority: Congress has the power to regulate channels, instrumentalities, and activities substantially affecting interstate commerce.Early Interpretations: Gibbons v. Ogden broadly defined “commerce” and Congress's authority over it.Judicial Contraction: Cases like E.C. Knight and Hammer v. Dagenhart restricted commerce power by excluding manufacturing and production.New Deal Expansion: NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel and Wickard v. Filburn upheld federal regulation of intrastate activities with substantial economic effects.Civil Rights and Commerce: Heart of Atlanta Motel and Katzenbach v. McClung affirmed Congress's authority to address racial discrimination through commerce power.Modern Limits: Lopez and Morrison reasserted that non-economic activities and areas of traditional state concern fall outside commerce power.Necessary and Proper Clause: Raich shows Congress may regulate intrastate activity if essential to a broader regulatory scheme.Tenth Amendment Constraints: Federal power under the Commerce Clause cannot commandeer state governments (New York v. United States, Printz).Affordable Care Act: In NFIB v. Sebelius, the individual mandate exceeded commerce power but was upheld under the taxing power.Doctrinal Framework: The three-category test for Commerce Clause regulation guides constitutional analysis post-Lopez.

In this episode, we sit down with Victoria Litman, M.Div., J.D., LL.M., to discuss why the future of psychedelic access in the United States is being shaped not by federal agencies, but by the bold actions of individual states. As a legal scholar and writer focusing on drug policy, Victoria breaks down the significance of the FDA's 2024 rejection of psychedelic-assisted therapy, and why that decision might be less of a setback than it seems. We explore how state-level initiatives like Oregon's Psilocybin Services Act and Colorado's Natural Medicine Health Act are setting the stage for a new model of access—one rooted in harm reduction, personal liberty, and existing regulatory infrastructure. Victoria discusses the importance of the Tenth Amendment and the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine, which allow states to move forward regardless of federal inaction. Rather than waiting for slow-moving federal institutions, Victoria argues that states can build safe, scalable systems now—especially by leveraging cannabis infrastructure for psychedelic regulation. She also touches on the ethical and cultural implications of this transition, including protections for spiritual and religious use. If you're wondering what psychedelic policy will look like in the years ahead, this episode offers an insightful and hopeful roadmap. Link to CATO article

In a sweeping ruling and stern condemnation of Trump's violation of both the federal law AND the Constitution, a federal judge in California ruled that Trump must relinquish control of the California National Guard and return control to California Governor Gavin Newsom. However, the appeals court has issued a brief stay/pause on the ruling.In ruling against Trump, Judge Charles Breyer wrote: "At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not. His actions were illegal both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith." Glenn reviews Judge Breyer's ruling and his clever use of the Latin Tern "ipse dixit".If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In a sweeping ruling and stern condemnation of Trump's violation of both the federal law AND the Constitution, a federal judge in California ruled that Trump must relinquish control of the California National Guard and return control to California Governor Gavin Newsom. However, the appeals court has issued a brief stay/pause on the ruling.In ruling against Trump, Judge Charles Breyer wrote: "At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not. His actions were illegal both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith." Glenn reviews Judge Breyer's ruling and his clever use of the Latin Tern "ipse dixit".If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This educational text, presented as a lecture, aims to prepare students for the bar exam by covering essential legal topics. It explores core concepts of Constitutional Law, focusing on federalism, the separation of powers, and individual rights such as due process and equal protection, referencing significant court cases. The lecture also provides an overview of Professional Responsibility, outlining ethical obligations for lawyers based on the ABA Model Rules, including conflicts of interest and confidentiality. Finally, it offers guidance on preparing for the Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) and Multistate Essay Examination (MEE) with sample questions and essay structures.The legislative branch's primary function is to make laws.The executive branch can check the legislative branch by using a Presidential Veto to reject laws passed by the legislature.The Equal Protection Clause is an invaluable tool for groups that experience discrimination and states that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.One standard of review mentioned is Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny, or Rational Basis Review.The Tenth Amendment reserves all powers not delegated to the federal government or denied to state governments to the states or the people, emphasizing state sovereignty.Powers typically reserved for the states include education, public health, safety, transportation, and welfare, often referred to as "police powers."Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review.Congress has directed Justices to comply with financial reporting requirements and limitations on the receipt of gifts and outside earned income.The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between a lawyer and their client that relate to seeking legal advice or services.The attorney-client privilege belongs to the client.

More from Rightside Media: https://www.rightsidemedia.org Our other shows: https://www.rightsidemedia.org/podcasts

Lecture One introduces foundational concepts in Constitutional Law, addressing federalism, separation of powers, and core individual rights (Due Process, Equal Protection, and the Commerce Clause). It explains federalism's distribution of authority between federal and state governments, highlighting key Supreme Court cases like McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden. It also discusses the essential separation of powers principle, reinforced by landmark decisions such as Marbury v. Madison. Critical individual rights are examined, specifically procedural and substantive due process rights, equal protection standards, and the extensive interpretation of the Commerce Clause through landmark cases.The lecture also covers fundamental professional responsibility topics guided by the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, focusing on conflicts of interest, confidentiality, and attorney-client privilege. It emphasizes the ethical duties and obligations attorneys have toward their clients and the legal system. The lecture concludes with practical preparation strategies for the MBE and introduces structured methods for writing effective MEE essays, including sample questions and essay analyses.Key Takeaways:Constitutional Law:Federalism: Federal government powers are enumerated explicitly; states hold reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment.Separation of Powers: Legislative, executive, and judicial branches have distinct roles to prevent abuses of power.Due Process: Protects individuals from unfair government deprivation of life, liberty, or property.Equal Protection: Requires equal governmental treatment and scrutiny standards to evaluate discrimination.Commerce Clause: Grants broad authority to Congress over activities significantly affecting interstate commerce.Professional Responsibility:ABA Model Rules: Set ethical standards for legal practice; adopted widely by state bar associations.Conflicts of Interest: Attorneys must avoid or mitigate conflicts that impair professional judgment or client interests.Confidentiality: Lawyers have an expansive duty to protect client information, with limited exceptions.Attorney-Client Privilege: Specifically safeguards confidential communications meant to secure legal advice.Exam Preparation:Regularly practice MBE-style questions to build accuracy and analytical skills.Employ the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) method systematically for MEE essays.Understand ethical dilemmas deeply to clearly articulate duties in professional responsibility essays.These key concepts form the foundation for your continued bar exam preparation.

A United States federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order directing President Donald Trump to return control of the National Guard to California. The order says the deployment of the Guard was illegal, violating the Tenth Amendment and exceeding Trump's statutory authority.

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we examine the legal showdown in Los Angeles as President Trump sends the National Guard against California's wishes. Host Jessica Levinson analyzes the president's broad—though not unlimited—authority under Title 10 and California's legal case challenging the move on grounds of state sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment. Jessica explains how federal law and the Posse Comitatus Act restrict the National Guard's role, and why courts are usually hesitant to overrule presidential decisions on national security. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Presidential Authority to Federalize the National Guard Jessica Levinson breaks down the Trump administration's decision to send the National Guard into Los Angeles, despite objections from California officials. She explains that under federal law (Title 10), presidents have broad—though not unlimited—powers to federalize state National Guard troops. This authority can be exercised when there is a “rebellion or danger of rebellion” against federal authority, even if the state's governor disagrees.State Sovereignty vs. Federal Power California, led by Governor Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, challenges Trump's move, arguing it infringes on state sovereignty. Levinson examines the legal conflict between state autonomy (protected by the Tenth Amendment) and federal authority as outlined in Title 10. However, she concludes that the statute grants the president clear authority in these situations, making California's legal challenge an uphill battle.The Limitations of National Guard Powers (Posse Comitatus Act) Another key theme is what the National Guard can—and cannot—do once federalized. The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits the military from acting as domestic law enforcement. Levinson clarifies that under Title 10, the National Guard cannot directly enforce domestic law (like making arrests or searches), unless additional powers are invoked (e.g., via the Insurrection Act).Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

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

After Dark with Hosts Rob & Andrew – Richard Mack highlights Scott Jenkins' leadership in protecting civil rights. Drawing from his landmark victory in Mack/Printz v. U.S., with decades of law enforcement experience, he emphasizes the importance of upholding the Tenth Amendment and defending individual liberty against government overreach, actively offering seminars nationwide to empower sheriffs and officers.

After Dark with Hosts Rob & Andrew – Richard Mack highlights Scott Jenkins' leadership in protecting civil rights. Drawing from his landmark victory in Mack/Printz v. U.S., with decades of law enforcement experience, he emphasizes the importance of upholding the Tenth Amendment and defending individual liberty against government overreach, actively offering seminars nationwide to empower sheriffs and officers.

The REAL ID Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in May of 2005, as part of https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/real-id-act-text.pdf (H.R. 1268). Due to costs, logistical issues, legal questions, its full implementation was delayed until 2008, 2011, 2013, and then in 2014 set to be gradually introduced instead. But delays continued into 2020, 2021, and finally until https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/25_0414_fps_id-requirements-for-federal-facilities.pdf, when it went into full force - kind of. The REAL ID is a new form of https://www.tsa.gov/real-id/about-real-id. Even after 20 years of preparations, implementation is causing widespread confusion across U.S. airports. Up to 7% of domestic flight customers still do not have the new ID and this, mixed with general confusion about requirements, regulations, enforcement, etc., are causing delays and heightening suspicion of every citizen, especially because of the growing frustration and additional screening procedures put in place. However, those without the REAL ID can still fly. How? Well, they will be subject to additional security and the TSA will have to manually check their regular driver's licenses like they always have. These people may also be subject to additional questioning and documentation checkpoints. https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2025/04/28/tsa-lehigh-valley-international-airport-gets-new-credential?fbclid=IwY2xjawKd591leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFvaEh4VWJ3RmJadVFVdUhBAR6mF6CiS3Eva2ofGQGsU3L5tLIhNJkpUFiZAm1K74M_UpSAsEciqQY_oTWBKA_aem_3wMgsHVa4FW3Utc3QwY9qA just introduced new credential authentication technology to improve checkpoint screening procedures, yet another layer of security. https://www.usa.gov/real-id“Yes. If you do not upgrade your license or state ID, you can use a passport or one of these other acceptable forms of identification to fly.” The list provided includes everything from passports to tribal IDs and enhanced driver's licenses or enhanced identification cards, themselves basically state-run programs akin to the federal REAL ID. What it does not say is that you still may be able to fly without any of those additional ID cards. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that the exemption is not just a temporary measure while the bugs are worked out or a matter of presenting a passport: “If it's not compliant, they may be diverted to a different line, have an extra step, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-homeland-security-chief-says-travelers-without-real-id-will-be-allowed-fly-2025-05-06/.” Without a REAL ID you can still travel, but you will likely be subject to the same, or increased, harassment, demeaning comments, or downright assault, by TSA agents trained to see noncompliants as terrorists. Anyone having ever opted out of the full body scanner knows this to be true. And by definition, this is coercion: “the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.” The same tactics were used from 2020-2023 for health related reasons.A https://www.yahoo.com/news/know-getting-real-id-090257989.html: "Passengers who present a state-issued identification that is not REAL ID compliant and who do not have another acceptable alternative (i.e., passport) can expect to face delays, additional screening and the possibility of not being permitted into the security checkpoint.” Notice that the words “the possibility” and not the actual guarantee itself, i.e., coercion. And coercion is one of the main red lines in the sand for any constitutionality of the REAL ID in the first place, because the anti-commandeering doctrine of SCOTUS prohibits federal authorities form compelling states to enact or administer federal programs - also, see Fourth Amendment and Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not specifically delegated to the federal government to the states and people. This can be avoided by outsourcing the whole thing, including the database. Each state has a motor vehicle department which collects and stores the data for REAL ID and EDL or EIC. All of that data is this shared with the private nonprofit American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), run by boards, directors, and other agency affiliations related to the DMV in each state. Also, non-governmental entities, including corporations, nonprofits, local governments, and individual law enforcement agencies, that align with AAMVA's goals but do not have voting rights in governance, run the AAMVA. As of May 21, 2025, reports are making the rounds that the https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2025/05/21/tsa-airport-security-privatization/83767563007/?fbclid=IwY2xjawKd599leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFvaEh4VWJ3RmJadVFVdUhBAR5FprsNQe5xs23YIi93GovLHkVz87_r7qfnoNZEfe15q7-Oznos2DTb5Lwmeg_aem_Uo91GFvr1c-9wZtd0-Rxag. The REAL ID has never fully been challenged due to political compromise resulting in delays, and states slowly adopting the standard. It's not illegal if states and people adopt the policy themselves through a sort of drawn out coercion of threats and the thought that it will never be fully implemented anyways after twenty years. Proponents, of course, argue that it keeps the country safe, linking the lack of these national ID cards to the cause of 911 - argued for under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause. As https://www.yahoo.com/news/real-id-america-now-national-110039671.html, however, “With REAL ID, America now has National ID cards and Internal Passports.”Interestingly, the original bill specifically says the Secretary of Homeland Security can expand the use of REAL ID for “any other purposes” they “shall determine,” with no other authorization. When you https://www.dhs.gov/archive/real-id-public-faqs, they say “No. REAL ID is a national set of standards, not a national identification card. REAL ID does not create a federal database of driver license information. Each jurisdiction continues to issue its own unique license, maintains its own records, and controls who gets access to those records and under what circumstances. The purpose of REAL ID is to make our identity documents more consistent and secure.”In other words, it's not a card but a standard; its not a federal database, but a state database that links to a nonprofit controlled by the federal government; it's about privacy, even though the records are collected as part of a drag net of coercion and threats; it's about ensuring consistency, but each jurisdiction issues its own “unique license” like they always have. Of course, none of this is discussed, debated, or even known by the public. Instead, they read heartfelt stories about https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/a-challenging-real-id-process-is-stranding-immigrants/ar-AA1F7FE9 who are essentially exempt anyways if they have a permanent resident card, border crossing card, foreign issued passport, immigration services card, and the like. Or they hear about https://www.yahoo.com/news/watch-fake-real-id-sites-164059826.html targeting travelers, as if the “real” REAL ID isn't itself a scam and unconstitutional, which is probably the main reason that DHS says https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-homeland-security-chief-says-travelers-without-real-id-will-be-allowed-fly-2025-05-06/” even without it. So what's the point? It's more extortion for profit (like TSA pre-check), security theater (like hygiene theater in 2020), coercive tactics to enforce compliance with illegal and unlawful dictates (like masking), and another step in criminalizing law abiding citizens (like the https://www.newsweek.com/what-quiet-skies-details-about-secret-flight-spy-program-revealed-1047915). Even the name is a scam, the “REAL ID” as opposed to all those fake sate issued ones by the same states that are now going to be forced to issue the true REAL ID. It's like “patriot act” or “big, beautiful bill.”  Watch this episode https://www.youtube.com/live/sww0QMst_SY-https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tst-radio--5328407https://thesecretteachings.info/donate-subscribe/ http://tstradio.info/https://cash.app/$rdgable: $rdgable Paypal email rdgable1991@gmail.com EMAIL: rdgable@yahoo.com / TSTRadio@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-secret-teachings--5328407/support.

The REAL ID Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in May of 2005, as part of https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/real-id-act-text.pdf (H.R. 1268). Due to costs, logistical issues, legal questions, its full implementation was delayed until 2008, 2011, 2013, and then in 2014 set to be gradually introduced instead. But delays continued into 2020, 2021, and finally until https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/25_0414_fps_id-requirements-for-federal-facilities.pdf, when it went into full force - kind of.  The REAL ID is a new form of https://www.tsa.gov/real-id/about-real-id. Even after 20 years of preparations, implementation is causing widespread confusion across U.S. airports. Up to 7% of domestic flight customers still do not have the new ID and this, mixed with general confusion about requirements, regulations, enforcement, etc., are causing delays and heightening suspicion of every citizen, especially because of the growing frustration and additional screening procedures put in place. However, those without the REAL ID can still fly. How? Well, they will be subject to additional security and the TSA will have to manually check their regular driver's licenses like they always have. These people may also be subject to additional questioning and documentation checkpoints. https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2025/04/28/tsa-lehigh-valley-international-airport-gets-new-credential?fbclid=IwY2xjawKd591leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFvaEh4VWJ3RmJadVFVdUhBAR6mF6CiS3Eva2ofGQGsU3L5tLIhNJkpUFiZAm1K74M_UpSAsEciqQY_oTWBKA_aem_3wMgsHVa4FW3Utc3QwY9qA just introduced new credential authentication technology to improve checkpoint screening procedures, yet another layer of security. https://www.usa.gov/real-id“Yes. If you do not upgrade your license or state ID, you can use a passport or one of these other acceptable forms of identification to fly.” The list provided includes everything from passports to tribal IDs and enhanced driver's licenses or enhanced identification cards, themselves basically state-run programs akin to the federal REAL ID. What it does not say is that you still may be able to fly without any of those additional ID cards. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that the exemption is not just a temporary measure while the bugs are worked out or a matter of presenting a passport: “If it's not compliant, they may be diverted to a different line, have an extra step, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-homeland-security-chief-says-travelers-without-real-id-will-be-allowed-fly-2025-05-06/.” Without a REAL ID you can still travel, but you will likely be subject to the same, or increased, harassment, demeaning comments, or downright assault, by TSA agents trained to see noncompliants as terrorists. Anyone having ever opted out of the full body scanner knows this to be true. And by definition, this is coercion: “the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.” The same tactics were used from 2020-2023 for health related reasons.A https://www.yahoo.com/news/know-getting-real-id-090257989.html: "Passengers who present a state-issued identification that is not REAL ID compliant and who do not have another acceptable alternative (i.e., passport) can expect to face delays, additional screening and the possibility of not being permitted into the security checkpoint.” Notice that the words “the possibility” and not the actual guarantee itself, i.e., coercion. And coercion is one of the main red lines in the sand for any constitutionality of the REAL ID in the first place, because the anti-commandeering doctrine of SCOTUS prohibits federal authorities form compelling states to enact or administer federal programs - also, see Fourth Amendment and Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not specifically delegated to the federal government to the states and people. This can be avoided by outsourcing the whole thing, including the database. Each state has a motor vehicle department which collects and stores the data for REAL ID and EDL or EIC. All of that data is this shared with the private nonprofit American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), run by boards, directors, and other agency affiliations related to the DMV in each state. Also, non-governmental entities, including corporations, nonprofits, local governments, and individual law enforcement agencies, that align with AAMVA's goals but do not have voting rights in governance, run the AAMVA. As of May 21, 2025, reports are making the rounds that the https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2025/05/21/tsa-airport-security-privatization/83767563007/?fbclid=IwY2xjawKd599leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFvaEh4VWJ3RmJadVFVdUhBAR5FprsNQe5xs23YIi93GovLHkVz87_r7qfnoNZEfe15q7-Oznos2DTb5Lwmeg_aem_Uo91GFvr1c-9wZtd0-Rxag. The REAL ID has never fully been challenged due to political compromise resulting in delays, and states slowly adopting the standard. It's not illegal if states and people adopt the policy themselves through a sort of drawn out coercion of threats and the thought that it will never be fully implemented anyways after twenty years. Proponents, of course, argue that it keeps the country safe, linking the lack of these national ID cards to the cause of 911 - argued for under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause. As https://www.yahoo.com/news/real-id-america-now-national-110039671.html, however, “With REAL ID, America now has National ID cards and Internal Passports.”Interestingly, the original bill specifically says the Secretary of Homeland Security can expand the use of REAL ID for “any other purposes” they “shall determine,” with no other authorization. When you https://www.dhs.gov/archive/real-id-public-faqs, they say “No. REAL ID is a national set of standards, not a national identification card. REAL ID does not create a federal database of driver license information. Each jurisdiction continues to issue its own unique license, maintains its own records, and controls who gets access to those records and under what circumstances. The purpose of REAL ID is to make our identity documents more consistent and secure.”In other words, it's not a card but a standard; its not a federal database, but a state database that links to a nonprofit controlled by the federal government; it's about privacy, even though the records are collected as part of a drag net of coercion and threats; it's about ensuring consistency, but each jurisdiction issues its own “unique license” like they always have. Of course, none of this is discussed, debated, or even known by the public. Instead, they read heartfelt stories about https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/a-challenging-real-id-process-is-stranding-immigrants/ar-AA1F7FE9 who are essentially exempt anyways if they have a permanent resident card, border crossing card, foreign issued passport, immigration services card, and the like. Or they hear about https://www.yahoo.com/news/watch-fake-real-id-sites-164059826.html targeting travelers, as if the “real” REAL ID isn't itself a scam and unconstitutional, which is probably the main reason that DHS says https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-homeland-security-chief-says-travelers-without-real-id-will-be-allowed-fly-2025-05-06/” even without it. So what's the point? It's more extortion for profit (like TSA pre-check), security theater (like hygiene theater in 2020), coercive tactics to enforce compliance with illegal and unlawful dictates (like masking), and another step in criminalizing law abiding citizens (like the https://www.newsweek.com/what-quiet-skies-details-about-secret-flight-spy-program-revealed-1047915). Even the name is a scam, the “REAL ID” as opposed to all those fake sate issued ones by the same states that are now going to be forced to issue the true REAL ID. It's like “patriot act” or “big, beautiful bill.” *The is the FREE archive, which includes advertisements. If you want an ad-free experience, you can subscribe below underneath the show description.-https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tst-radio--5328407https://thesecretteachings.info/donate-subscribe/https://x.com/TST___Radio https://www.facebook.com/thesecretteachingshttps://www.youtube.com/@TSTRadioOfficialhttp://tstradio.infohttps://cash.app/$rdgable: $rdgable Paypal email rdgable1991@gmail.comEMAIL: rdgable@yahoo.com / TSTRadio@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-secret-teachings--5328407/support.

The Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments to theConstitution of The United States, it was ratified on December 15, 1791.The Bill of Rights spells out Americans' rights in relationto their government. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to theindividual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion. It sets rules for dueprocess of law, and reserves all powers not delegated to the Federal Governmentto the people or the States. And it specifies that “the enumeration in theConstitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparageothers retained by the people.” The First Amendment provides several rights protections: toexpress ideas through speech and the press, to assemble or gather with a groupto protest or for other reasons, and to ask the government to fix problems. Italso protects the right to religious beliefs and practices. It prevents thegovernment from creating or favoring a religion. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and beararms. The Third Amendment prevents government from forcinghomeowners to allow soldiers to use their homes. Before the Revolutionary War,laws gave British soldiers the right to take over private homes. The Fourth Amendment bars the government from unreasonablesearch and seizure of an individual or their private property. The Fifth Amendment provides several protections for peopleaccused of crimes. It states that serious criminal charges must be started by agrand jury.  A person cannot be triedtwice for the same offense or have property taken away without justcompensation. People have the right against self-incrimination and cannot beimprisoned without due process of law. The Sixth Amendment provides additional protections topeople accused of crimes, such as, the right to a speedy and public trial, incriminal cases, trial by an impartial jury, and to be informed of criminalcharges. Witnesses must face the accused, and the accused is allowed his or herown witnesses and to be represented by a lawyer. The Seventh Amendment extends the right to a jury trial inFederal civil cases. The Eighth Amendment bars excessive bail and fines and a crueland unusual punishment. The Ninth Amendment states that listing specific rights inthe Constitution does not mean that people do not have other right, that havenot been spelled out. The Tenth Amendment says that the Federal Government onlyhas those powers delegated in the Constitution. If it isn't listed, it belongsto the states or to the people.

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

America Out Loud PULSE with Dr. Peter & Ginger Breggin – Sheriff Mack brought to the U.S. Supreme Court a vital and highly successful case supporting states' rights and federalism called Mack/Printz v. the United States. The Mack/Printz v US case has been hailed as the most powerful Tenth Amendment decision in US history. Obtain copies of the “Supreme Court Case for Stat Sovereignty” from...

America Out Loud PULSE with Dr. Peter & Ginger Breggin – Sheriff Mack brought to the U.S. Supreme Court a vital and highly successful case supporting states' rights and federalism called Mack/Printz v. the United States. The Mack/Printz v US case has been hailed as the most powerful Tenth Amendment decision in US history. Obtain copies of the “Supreme Court Case for Stat Sovereignty” from...

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

This Day in Legal History: United Nations Charter Comes into ForceOn October 24, 1945, United Nations Day marked the formal establishment of the United Nations (UN) as the UN Charter officially came into force. The Charter had been signed a few months earlier on June 26, 1945, in San Francisco by 50 countries, laying the foundation for an international organization dedicated to peace, security, and cooperation among nations. The creation of the UN was a direct response to the devastation of World War II, with the goal of preventing future conflicts and fostering global collaboration. The UN Charter outlines the organization's purposes, principles, and structure. Its preamble emphasizes the need to save succeeding generations from war, reaffirm fundamental human rights, and promote social progress and better standards of life. The Charter established six principal organs, including the General Assembly, Security Council, International Court of Justice, and Secretariat, each with specific roles in maintaining international peace and security. Chapter VII of the Charter granted the Security Council significant powers to address threats to peace, including authorizing the use of force.United Nations Day has since been celebrated annually to honor the organization's ongoing work in diplomacy, humanitarian efforts, and human rights advocacy. The day also highlights the importance of international cooperation in addressing global challenges, from conflict resolution to climate change.A lawsuit filed in Wisconsin two weeks before the 2024 presidential election highlights cybersecurity issues with the state's MyVote portal, which allows users to register and request absentee ballots online. The suit argues that the website lacks adequate security, leaving it vulnerable to unauthorized access and data breaches. The plaintiffs want the site taken down until it undergoes a redesign and testing. They cited a 2022 case where someone fraudulently requested absentee ballots using minimal personal information. Experts, however, find the timing problematic, as implementing a comprehensive security audit and fixes could take months, making it impossible to resolve before Election Day. Despite these concerns, some believe the state's current systems are sufficient to catch and prevent fraudulent votes. The suit underscores broader identification and authentication challenges across industries, which are struggling with securing user identities. The case raises critical questions about how to balance election security with practical constraints.Wisconsin MyVote Website Suit Puts Focus on Authentication WoesSeveral trade associations have challenged the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) final "click-to-cancel" rule, which aims to make it easier for consumers to cancel subscriptions. The rule requires businesses to provide a simple and straightforward way to withdraw from subscription services and to disclose the terms of signing up clearly. The Electronic Security Association, Interactive Advertising Bureau, NCTA, and others filed petitions in the Fifth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, seeking to vacate the rule. They argue that the rule imposes excessive regulatory burdens across industries, potentially affecting over a billion paid subscriptions in the U.S.The "click-to-cancel" rule was introduced in response to consumer complaints about difficult-to-cancel recurring subscriptions. In 2024, the FTC averaged 70 consumer complaints per day regarding such practices. The rule, which the FTC finalized after receiving over 16,000 public comments, is intended to protect consumers from deceptive subscription practices by making the cancellation process as easy as signing up.Trade groups challenging the rule claim it is arbitrary and that it will create costly regulatory obligations for businesses. They argue the rule overreaches by attempting to regulate all consumer contracts involving subscriptions, regardless of the businesses' existing disclosure practices. The "click-to-cancel" initiative hopes to curb "subscription traps," where businesses make it difficult for consumers to end services, thus preventing recurring charges without their consent. By simplifying the process, the FTC aims to foster transparency and fairness in subscription services across industries.Trade Associations Challenge FTC's Final Click-to-Cancel RuleFlorida has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), claiming the federal government is unlawfully obstructing its investigation into an assassination attempt on Donald Trump. Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody's lawsuit seeks to stop the DOJ from blocking the state's probe into the incident, which occurred at Trump's Florida golf course. The DOJ argues that federal law (18 U.S.C. § 351(f)) gives it sole jurisdiction over assassination attempts against presidential candidates, which led the FBI to instruct Florida law enforcement to suspend its investigation.Florida, however, claims this interpretation of the law violates the Tenth Amendment, which protects state sovereignty. The state argues that § 351(f) does not bar its investigation and that preventing Florida from investigating would be unconstitutional. The lawsuit asks for a ruling allowing Florida to continue its investigation or declare the statute unconstitutional as applied in this case. The alleged gunman, Ryan Routh, has already been federally indicted for attempted assassination. The DOJ has not commented on the lawsuit.Florida Says DOJ Is Blocking Their Trump Assassination Probe (1)In a piece I wrote for Forbes, I explore the detrimental impact of Trump's proposed 20% tariff on all imported goods, drawing parallels to the economic struggles caused by tariffs in the late 19th century. Tariffs, I argue, are regressive taxes that disproportionately affect lower-income households by raising prices without adjusting for income. For example, a 20% tariff on electronics would hurt low-income families far more than wealthier ones. While tariffs aim to protect domestic industries, they often fail if no domestic alternative exists, merely increasing costs for consumers. A study shows Trump's tariffs could raise the price of laptops by 46% and smartphones by 26%. The burden of tariffs falls on the countries that impose them, not on exporting nations, which could lead to significant economic strain—an estimated $3.9 trillion cost to U.S. consumers. Historically, high tariffs contributed to economic downturns like the Panic of 1893, and similar policies today risk sparking trade wars and further damaging the economy. Tariffs do little to stimulate domestic industries or protect consumers and should not replace progressive tax policies.Trump's Tariffs Would Cost Trillions—And We Learned This A Century Ago This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Can Marxism be fought with the tools of the Constitution? Gold star father and host of "Constitution Solution," Mark Deluzio, brings his insights to the table, exploring the influence of Marxism on our society and the ways to resist it. We navigate the murky waters of alleged assassination attempts on President Donald Trump, questioning official narratives and the role of insider threats. With reflections on historical political violence, we consider the current climate's impact on political figures and draw lessons from past security failures.The conversation takes a critical look at the current administration's approach to political violence, unity, and the narratives that might divide rather than unite us. We examine the hypocrisy of labeling political opponents in extreme terms, touching on foreign policy stances and the intricate ties between politics and military contractors. Remembering the service members lost during the Afghan pullout, we challenge claims of a casualty-free administration, scrutinizing the broader implications of military engagement and the influence of the military-industrial complex.We venture into the realm of constitutional misconceptions and the power dynamics at play within federal agencies. Deluzio passionately discusses the Tenth Amendment and the concept of nullification, using historical examples to highlight state power against federal overreach. Our discussion expands to address the Federal Reserve's role in economic stability, exposing concerns about digital currency and inflation control. Through the lens of class warfare, we question societal perceptions of success and the lingering effects of greed and jealousy on economic policies. Plus, don't miss the announcement of Elsa Kurtz's "Welcome to Chance," promising a compelling narrative return in a quaint New England setting.Support the showDON'T WAIT FOR THE NEXT EMERGENCY, PLUS, SAVE 15%: https://www.twc.health/elsa#ifounditonamazon https://a.co/ekT4dNOTRY AUDIBLE PLUS: https://amzn.to/3vb6Rw3Elsa's Books: https://www.amazon.com/~/e/B01E1VFRFQDesign Like A Pro: https://canva.7eqqol.net/xg6Nv...

Are you concerned about federal overreach and the erosion of your constitutional rights? What if there was a local official who could stand between you and government tyranny? In this eye-opening episode of The Brian Nichols Show, we dive deep into the often-overlooked role of county sheriffs and their potential to be the last line of defense for your freedoms. Studio Sponsor: Cardio Miracle - "Unlock the secret to a healthier heart, increased energy levels, and transform your cardiovascular fitness like never before.": https://www.briannicholsshow.com/heart Join host Brian Nichols as he welcomes Sheriff Richard Mack, a man who took on the Clinton administration and won a landmark Supreme Court case. Sheriff Mack shares his incredible journey from small-town sheriff to constitutional champion, explaining how he challenged the Brady Bill and emerged victorious. Learn about the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) and why your local sheriff might be the key to preserving liberty in America. Discover the shocking truth about the current state of our southern border and the potential threats lurking within our own communities. Sheriff Mack pulls no punches as he discusses the infiltration of international terrorists, human trafficking, and the proliferation of dangerous drugs like fentanyl. Find out why he believes the upcoming election is crucial for the survival of our constitutional republic and what role sheriffs can play in protecting your rights. Explore the concept of "cooperative federalism" and how it's being used to undermine state and local authority. Sheriff Mack breaks down the importance of the Tenth Amendment and shares practical ways that citizens can get involved in protecting their communities. Learn about the upcoming CSPOA conference in Orlando and how you can join the movement to take America back, county by county. Don't miss this powerful conversation that will challenge your understanding of local government and inspire you to take action. Whether you're a constitutional enthusiast, a concerned citizen, or simply curious about the inner workings of law enforcement, this episode of The Brian Nichols Show is a must-watch. Hit that play button now and prepare to have your eyes opened to the critical role of sheriffs in safeguarding American liberty! ❤️ Order Cardio Miracle (https://www.briannicholsshow.com/heart) with code TBNS at checkout for 15% off and take a step towards better heart health and overall well-being! ☕ Elevate your morning routine with Colockum Craft Coffee (https://www.colockumcraft.coffee)! Use code BNS10 at checkout for an exclusive 10% off and experience the difference of small-batch, artisanal roasts.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Haaland v Brackeen. In this case, the court considered this issue: Do the Indian Child Welfare Act's restrictions on placement of Native American children violate anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment? The case was decided on June 15, 2023. The Supreme Court held that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is consistent with Congress's Article 1 authority and does not violate anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment; the parties lack standing to litigate their other challenges to ICWA's placement preferences. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court. The Court has consistently recognized the “plenary and exclusive”—though not absolute—power of Congress to legislate with respect to Indian tribes. The challengers claim that ICWA infringes on the states' authority over family law, but Court precedent establishes that when Congress validly exercises its Article 1 powers, federal law preempts conflicting state family laws. While the Constitution does not expressly grant Congress the power to regulate custody proceedings of Indian children, the Court has interpreted the Constitution to authorize Congress to regulate “Indian affairs,” which is broadly inclusive. The anti-commandeering arguments similarly fail. Two of the challenged provisions apply not only to government entities, but also to private parties. A demand that public or private actors can satisfy does not require the use of sovereign power and thus does not violate anti-commandeering principles. A third challenged provision requires the states to maintain certain records related to child placement and provide them upon request to the Secretary or the Indian child's tribe. This provision also does not violate anti-commandeering principles, which apply “distinctively” to a state court's adjudicative responsibilities. Congress may impose ancillary recordkeeping requirements related to state-court proceedings without violating the Tenth Amendment. Finally, while the challengers also raise equal protection and non-delegation challenges to ICWA's placement preferences, they must first show they have standing by demonstrating that they have suffered an injury in fact that is “‘fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” The challengers cannot make this showing and thus lack standing on these claims. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in part, to elaborate on the history of the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes. Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, arguing that because there is no express constitutional provision that authorizes Congress to enact ICWA, it must be unconstitutional. Justice Samuel Alito authored a dissenting opinion, arguing that the majority's decision is contrary to the best interests of the children affected. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Mark welcomes Sheriff Richard Mack, found of the "Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association" (www.cspoa.org) and the man primarily responsible for one of the most important Bill of Rights-affirming Supreme Court decisions in our lifetime, Mack v US (later consolidated into Printz v US) which affirmed the authority of what he correctly calls the highest elected law enforcement officer in the land, county sheriffs, to honor their oaths and serve and protect their citizenry, as confirmed by the Tenth Amendment. Don't miss this look at another one of the important things we as individuals can do to reaffirm our choice to 'withdraw consent' from a system which too often now considers "the law" to be whatever those who despise it and Him say it is. And to 'speak the Truth boldly' to our local community, and local sheriff, in the process. An inexpensive, but vital, short summary of the case is available on the website, www.cspoa.org, as are his many books, from "From My Cold Dead Fingers," to the most recent, "THe County Sheriff: America's Last Hope."

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – Exploring the foundational principles of the U.S. Constitution, I delve into the federalist structure and the dynamic between state and federal powers. This analysis highlights the critical role of states in balancing against federal expansion, underscoring the importance of state sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment in maintaining the delicate equilibrium of our republic.

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – Exploring the foundational principles of the U.S. Constitution, I delve into the federalist structure and the dynamic between state and federal powers. This analysis highlights the critical role of states in balancing against federal expansion, underscoring the importance of state sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment in maintaining the delicate equilibrium of our republic.

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – What powers are reserved to the states? How do we not only exercise those rights, but make sure the public servants we hire do so as well? The answer to these questions could be the difference between being at liberty or subjects of an out of control federal government. We start by revisiting the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to remove Donald Trump from the...

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – What powers are reserved to the states? How do we not only exercise those rights, but make sure the public servants we hire do so as well? The answer to these questions could be the difference between being at liberty or subjects of an out of control federal government. We start by revisiting the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to remove Donald Trump from the...

We are wrapping up our series on the Bill of Rights with this special episode on the 10th Amendment.  In just 28 words, it grants tremendous powers not to the federal government but to the states.  How so?  Regular viewers of our chats know Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution grants 17 specific powers to Congress.  That's it.  The 10th Amendment says any powers not granted by the Constitution to the federal government are under the purview of the states or the people.  The Founders did this because they were wary of a strong central government, having just fought a war against a strong central government in King George III.  To help us unpack the ramifications and importance of the 10th Amendment, along with our all-star student panel we are delighted to welcome the 71st Governor of Virginia, The Honorable Robert F. “Bob” McDonnell as our special guest to discuss this special amendment.

Immoral Constitutions Part 2 - We, the gods, of the peopleWebsite: http://www.battle4freedom.comNetwork: https://www.mojo50.comStreaming: https://www.rumble.com/c/Battle4Freedom"Greatest Nation in history!"Our Constitution works; our great republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here, the people rule. - Gerald R. Fordhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12543161/eagle-pass-texas-border-greg-abbott-razor-wire-migrant-crossings.htmlTexas Governor Greg Abbott deploys National Guard to re-install razor wire in Eagle Pass to deter migrants - as mayor declares emergency as 14,000 flood in from Mexico (but Biden gives temporary legal status to 470,000 Venezuelans)The Texas Governor launched a blistering attack on Joe Biden on WednesdayHe slammed him for 'cutting the wire' and assured Texans he was having it fixedIt comes as Eagle Pass is overwhelmed by migrants flooding across the borderThere were 4,000 on Wednesday, 14,000 since last week and 270,000 this yearMeanwhile Joe Biden granted temporary work permits to 472,000 Venezuelans10th Amendment?The Tenth Amendment defined a hard limit to the federal government's powers. While the nine prior amendments protect individuals' rights, this Amendment further restricts the national government's authority to only what's granted by the Constitution, or what is within their Constitutional purview. Any powers not granted would be kept for the states or their people.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12543149/Biden-appears-wander-stage-without-shaking-President-Lulas-hand-end-joint-speech-leaving-Brazilian-leader-visibly-irritated-minutes-President-walked-flag-podium.htmlBiden appears to wander off UN stage without shaking President Lula's hand at end of joint speech - leaving Brazilian leader visibly irritated - minutes after President walked through a flag to take the podiumBiden appeared to wander off the stage without shaking hands with Lula He gave the audience an awkward salute instead before shuffling off stage The Brazilian president looked irritated, while Biden also bumped into a flag"Where is the 25th Amendment?"Section 1 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment confirms the precedent set by John Tyler. If the President is removed from office, dies, or resigns, the Vice President assumes the position.Before the Amendment's ratification, a vacant Vice Presidential seat would remain unfilled until the next election. Section 2 changed this rule, stating that the President nominates a replacement Vice President to fill the position.Section 3 of the Amendment states that the President must formally notify the Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate, who are respectively second and third in line for the presidency after the Vice President, if they are temporarily unable to uphold the powers and duties of the President. The Vice President then becomes Acting President until the President issues a formal notice of their return to capacity.Finally, Section 4 establishes the procedure for naming an Acting President when the President is deemed unable to perform their Constitutional duties but refuses to leave office. First, the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet determine the competency of the President. If the President is ruled incompetent, the Vice President immediately takes charge. The President can then declare themself able, and the Vice President and Cabinet have four days to agree or disagree. If the group agrees, the President resumes their duties. Otherwise, the Vice President keeps office, and Congress votes on the President's ability. A two-thirds majority vote is needed to remove the President from office and replace them with the Vice President.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12541115/Merrick-Garland-says-dont-know-asked-FBI-informants-January-6-former-assistant-directors-bombshell-claim-bureau-MULTIPLE-confidential-sources-involved-Capitol-Riot.htmlhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12541115/Merrick-Garland-says-dont-know-asked-FBI-informants-January-6-former-assistant-directors-bombshell-claim-bureau-MULTIPLE-confidential-sources-involved-Capitol-Riot.htmlThe 5th Amendment?The right to indictment by the grand jury before any criminal charges for felonious crimesA prohibition on double jeopardyA right against forced self-incriminationA guarantee that all criminal defendants have a fair trial, and A guarantee that the government cannot seize private property without making a due compensation at the market value of the property.To live under the American Constitution is the greatest political privilege that was ever accorded to the human race. - Calvin CoolidgeThe Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living, but dead, or as I prefer to call it, enduring. It means, today, not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted. - Antonin ScaliaLiberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it. - Learned HandIt is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters. - Edmund BurkeThe glory of justice and the majesty of law are created not just by the Constitution - nor by the courts - nor by the officers of the law - nor by the lawyers - but by the men and women who constitute our society - who are the protectors of the law as they are themselves protected by the law. - Robert Kennedy

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – The United States of America was designed with a bottom-up power structure. The Constitutions of most of our states say that all power is inherent in the people and that they delegate some of their power to the states. The Constitution of the United States not only created what we now call the federal government, but the Tenth Amendment confirms that the powers delegated...

Liz and Andrew break down several developments in the ongoing effort to hold Trump accountable, including the back-and-forth between Jim Jordan's "Committee on Oversight" and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. Oh, and is Mike Pence going to testify to Jack Smith's Grand Jury? Listen and find out! Along the way we take a deep dive into Congress's power to conduct investigations, the Tenth Amendment, how bad originalism is, and much, much more! Notes OA 708 https://openargs.com/oa708-stormy-daniels-strikes-back/ Politico: Manhattan Trump grand jury set to break for a month https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/29/manhattan-trump-grand-jury-set-to-break-for-a-month-00089422 AMI non-prosecution agreement https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1119501/download Liz Wonkette https://www.wonkette.com/new-house-committee-to-answer-burning-questions-what-did-nancy-pelosi-coup-and-when-did-she-coup-it Jordan 3/20 Letter to Bragg https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-03-20-jdj-bs-jc-to-bragg-re-trump-investigation.pdf Bragg Response Letter March 23, 2023 https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23720988/20230323-letter-response-from-manhattan-da.pdf Jordan Response Letter March 25 https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-03-25-jdj-bs-jc-to-bragg-re-subpoena-and-response.pdf Watkins v. US, 354 U.S. 178 (1957) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=562722361999206621 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com