Podcasts about Tenth Amendment

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...

The Powers of Congress (Commerce Clause, Taxing, and Spending Powers). Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause, found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, grants Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." This clause has been a cornerstone for expanding federal legislative power. Historically, its interpretation has varied from narrow in the early 19th century to expansive during the New Deal era and beyond. Key cases like Gibbons v Ogden (1824) and Wickard v Filburn (1942) demonstrate the evolving nature of Commerce Clause jurisprudence. In Gibbons, the Supreme Court established that federal power over interstate commerce was plenary, overriding state laws that interfered with it. Wickard significantly broadened this interpretation, holding that even activities seemingly local in nature could affect interstate commerce and thus fall under federal regulation. Taxing and Spending Powers. Congress also wields substantial power through its ability to tax and spend for the "general Welfare" (Article 1, Section 8). This power, while ostensibly straightforward, has profound implications for national policy and governance. In cases like United States v Butler (1936), the Supreme Court recognized Congress's broad discretion in taxing and spending to promote the general welfare. However, it also underscored that such powers must not contravene other constitutional provisions. The Affordable Care Act (ACA), particularly the case National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius (2012), is a contemporary example where the taxing power played a key role. The Supreme Court upheld the ACA's individual mandate, characterizing it as a tax and thus within Congress's constitutional authority. The Tenth Amendment and State Powers. The Tenth Amendment is crucial in maintaining the federal balance. It states: "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 amendment emphasizes the principle of reserved powers, ensuring that states retain a significant sphere of autonomy. The interpretation and application of the Tenth Amendment have been central in cases dealing with the limits of federal power. In New York v United States (1992), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not compel states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program, underscoring state sovereignty. Similarly, Printz v United States (1997) affirmed that the federal government could not commandeer state officers to implement federal laws. The Dormant Commerce Clause. The Dormant Commerce Clause is an inferred principle from the Commerce Clause, suggesting that in granting Congress power over interstate commerce, the Constitution implicitly restricts states from passing legislation that interferes with or discriminates against interstate commerce. This doctrine plays a critical role in maintaining an open national market, free from parochial state interests. Cases like Cooley v Board of Wardens of Port of Philadelphia (1852) and South Dakota v Wayfair, Inc. (2018) illustrate the Court's approach to balancing state interests against the need for a uniform national economy. Wayfair, in particular, marked a significant shift, allowing states to require out-of-state sellers to collect and remit sales tax, reflecting the realities of the modern digital economy. Intergovernmental Immunities. Intergovernmental immunities encompass doctrines that prevent the federal and state governments from encroaching on each other's essential functions. This concept, though not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, is derived from the federal structure itself. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

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.

Federalism: An Overview. 1. Defining Federalism. Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a central (national) government and regional (state) governments. Each level of government has its own set of powers and responsibilities. Significance: Federalism aims to balance the authority of the national government with the autonomy of individual states, fostering a cooperative and decentralized governance structure. Example: The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce, while states have the authority to establish and enforce laws within their borders. Powers of the Federal Government. 1. Enumerated Powers. The Constitution grants specific powers to the federal government, known as enumerated powers. These include the power to coin money, regulate commerce, declare war, and establish post offices. Significance: Enumerated powers delineate the areas in which the federal government has authority, creating a framework for its actions. Example: The federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce has been invoked in cases involving national economic policies. 2. Implied Powers. Implied powers are not explicitly stated in the Constitution but are considered necessary for the federal government to carry out its enumerated powers effectively. These powers are derived from the necessary and proper clause. Significance: Implied powers allow the federal government flexibility in addressing new challenges and situations that may not have been foreseen by the framers. Example: The establishment of a national bank, as justified by Congress in McCulloch v Maryland (1819), illustrates the application of implied powers. Powers Reserved to the States. 1. Reserved Powers. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. These reserved powers encompass areas such as education, criminal law, and regulation of intrastate commerce. Significance: Reserved powers highlight the autonomy of states in managing internal affairs and tailoring policies to local needs. Example: State laws regarding education standards and curriculum exemplify the exercise of reserved powers. 2. Concurrent Powers. Some powers are shared by both the federal government and the states, known as concurrent powers. These include the power to tax, maintain courts, and establish and enforce laws. Significance: Concurrent powers reflect the cooperative nature of the federal system, allowing both levels of government to act in certain domains. Example: Both federal and state governments have the authority to levy taxes, with each level contributing to the overall tax structure. Intergovernmental Relations. 1. Cooperative Federalism. Cooperative federalism refers to a model of intergovernmental relations in which the federal government and states work together to address complex issues. This often involves shared funding and joint programs. Significance: Cooperative federalism recognizes that challenges such as economic crises and public health require collaborative efforts between different levels of government. Example: Programs like Medicaid, which involve both federal and state funding, exemplify cooperative federalism. 2. Coercive Federalism. Coercive federalism occurs when the federal government imposes its will on the states through mandates or conditions attached to funding. Significance: Coercive federalism raises questions about the balance between federal and state authority, particularly when conditions may infringe on state prerogatives. Example: Requirements attached to federal education funding that mandate specific policies or standards illustrate coercive federalism. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

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

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

Hour 1 * Fox News Melt Down Continues: Jesse Watters will replace Tucker Carlson in the 8 pm prime time slot – Laura Ingraham moves to 7:00 – Sean Hannity remains at 9:00 pm. * Guest: Former Ravalli County, Montana Sheriff jay Printz. * Today marks the  26th year anniversary of Printz / Mack VS. US – The monumental Supreme Court case that restored the Tenth Amendment. * The Greatest 10th Amendment Decision Ever Rendered: Will Citizens Back Their County Sheriff? * The FBI went after both Printz and Mack! * Archives of the  Simulcast of the Sheriff Mack show and Liberty RoundTable Live can be found in Video at BrightEON.tv and Audio at LovingLiberty.net Hour 2 * Our Two Hour Special Historic Interview Continued! * Guest: Former Ravalli County, Montana Sheriff jay Printz. * Guest: Richard Mack Founder and President of CSPOA – A partnership between citizens and local law enforcement, especially sheriffs. Mack encourages those not in law enforcement to stand with their sheriffs. – CSPOA.org * Today marks the  26th year anniversary of Printz / Mack VS. US – The monumental Supreme Court case that restored the Tenth Amendment. * The Greatest 10th Amendment Decision Ever Rendered: Will Citizens Back Their County Sheriff? * Let's discuss the simple fact that the Second Amendment protects a ‘well-regulated militia'! --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/loving-liberty/support

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...

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...

Is America a democracy? Is America a republic? Is America Atlantis? Is Atlantis underneath the pyramids? Of all the rights protected by the Constitution, there is only ONE THING that is guaranteed. People love saying "We're a republic" and "We're not a democracy, we're a republic." Both of those statements are WRONG! And that's not my opinion (my opinion doesn't matter), that's the plain text of the Constitution! Do y'all know how much freer we'd be if people actually READ the Constitution they claim to revere and actually READ the Federalist Papers they snatch quotations from? Imagine everybody knowing what the Constitution means by "a republican form of government." What is a republic? I lose MY MIND (I know, not a great loss) when people call the United States a "nation," too. That's another thing that we aren't. Nope. Not a nation. It's so easy to know these things if people knew what the word "Congress" means, if they read Federalist No. 39, 45, and 46. The problem, of course, is that from the time you are four or five years old, you're taught that the United States is "one nation" and the flag stands for "the republic." And guess what: NOT TRUE! And guess what else: I clear all of it up by drinking from the sources and leaving the mucky downstream water for other podcasts. If we knew the true intended constitutional relationship between the states and the federal government, we would be so much freer and so much more peaceful. But, maybe there are people that don't want us peaceful and free. Hmmmm. Join me as we explore the concept of a republican form of government guaranteed to each state and the crucial role the Federalist Papers played in defining the United States as a confederation of sovereign republics rather than a consolidated nation. As we journey through these sources, we'll uncover the vision of the Founding Fathers and the rationale behind ensuring the sovereignty of the states. We'll discuss how the Founders carefully crafted the Constitution, incorporating mechanisms to safeguard individual liberties and limit the power of the federal government. Central to this idea is the guarantee in Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, which mandates that every state be provided a republican form of government. Drawing upon the wisdom of James Madison in the Federalist Papers, I'll explore their arguments against a consolidated national government. These influential essays were instrumental in shaping public opinion and securing the ratification of the Constitution. I'll highlight key Federalist Papers, such as numbers 10, and 39, that discuss the importance of maintaining a confederation of sovereign republics to prevent tyranny and protect the diverse interests of individual states. I'll address debates surrounding the balance of power between the states and the federal government and the ignorance about the power and purpose of the Tenth Amendment. And what about the GUARANTEE? Why is that guarantee not being enforced by the states? Probably because no one knows what it even means anymore because for the most part people don't get taught the truth about the Constitution and the history of the Founding of the United States. OOH! Which reminds me: "For" or "of." You should comment whether your pocket Constitution has "For" or "of" on the cover. And if you don't think "for" or "of" matters, let me ask you this: would you rather have a million dollars FOR you or a million dollars OF you? Think about it. It matters and it's just so infuriating because these publishers -- and the dadgum NATIONAL ARCHIVES could just look down to the last line of the Preamble and find the correct word! C'mon! And, I mean, do you know another podcast where James Madison shows up just to hang out and talk and just chill? No. You don't. I have him on exclusive contract. He gets a little annoyed that I touch his ponytail, but I mean, it's a dude with a ponytail. And he's 272 years old. You'd touch it, too! Like, share, and subscribe to my channel to stay informed and engage in stimulating discussions about the ideas that form the foundation of our country and Western civilization! Nobody has signed up for a rap battle. I don't know why people are so afraid of my freestyle skillz. Yeah, I spelled it with a z because that's how FRESH my freestyle rhymes are! I wonder if anybody would be interested in a little personal library? You see, if you get this far you'll know that whoever becomes the 1,000 subscriber will get a starter library of Founders Recipe books from me as a gift. The easy way to make sure it is you is to get everybody you know to subscribe and make sure it's someone YOU recommended becomes the 1,000th subscriber.

We're taking a break from releasing new episodes for four weeks this summer. This week, we dug into our vault and are re-releasing our episode on federalism! In this episode, we breakdown the meaning of federalism and the evolution of it within our country. Don't worry! We'll be back in action with new episodes soon. Original Air Date: January 17th, 2023 Let's connect: United SHE Stands InstagramReferences:A User's Guide to Democracy: How America Works by Nick Capodice and Hannah McCarthyCivics 101 Podcast, Starter Kit: FederalismOxford Languages (languages.oup.com)Federalism (wikipedia.org)Tenth Amendment (constitution.congress.gov)Article I (constitution.congress.gov)If you purchase from any links to resources or products, the show may make a small commission.

On Thursday, June 15, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Haaland v. Brackeen. The case was primarily concerned with the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), a federal law enacted in 1978 that governs state-level adoption and foster care cases involving Native American children. Among other provisions, the ICWA gives tribal governments jurisdiction over the adoption of Native American children who reside on a reservation or have certain tribal connections.In a 7-2 decision, the Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's finding that the ICWA is constitutional, rejected petitioners' Tenth Amendment argument, and found that petitioners lacked the standing required for other challenges made. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion for the Court; Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions; Justices Thomas and Alito filed dissenting opinions. Please join us as Jennifer Weddle discusses the Court's findings.

* Our Two Hour Special Historic Interview Continued! * Guest: Former Ravalli County, Montana Sheriff jay Printz. * Guest: Richard Mack Founder and President of CSPOA - A partnership between citizens and local law enforcement, especially sheriffs. Mack encourages those not in law enforcement to stand with their sheriffs. - CSPOA.org * Today marks the  26th year anniversary of Printz / Mack VS. US - The monumental Supreme Court case that restored the Tenth Amendment. * The Greatest 10th Amendment Decision Ever Rendered: Will Citizens Back Their County Sheriff? * Let's discuss the simple fact that the Second Amendment protects a ‘well-regulated militia'!

* Fox News Melt Down Continues: Jesse Watters will replace Tucker Carlson in the 8 pm prime time slot - Laura Ingraham moves to 7:00 - Sean Hannity remains at 9:00 pm. * Guest: Former Ravalli County, Montana Sheriff jay Printz. * Today marks the  26th year anniversary of Printz / Mack VS. US - The monumental Supreme Court case that restored the Tenth Amendment. * The Greatest 10th Amendment Decision Ever Rendered: Will Citizens Back Their County Sheriff? * The FBI went after both Printz and Mack! * Archives of the  Simulcast of the Sheriff Mack show and Liberty RoundTable Live can be found in Video at BrightEON.tv and Audio at LovingLiberty.net

Does the Indian Child Welfare Act's (ICWA) preference for Native over non-Native homes when placing Native American foster children violate the anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment? The majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Haaland v. Brackeen (June 15, 2023)  

Press Conference: Navajo Nation's Response to Supreme Court Decision in Haaland v. Brackeen WINDOW ROCK, Arizona -- Monday, June 19, the Navajo Nation will host a press conference to discuss its reaction to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Haaland v. Brackeen affirming the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act. The Nation's panel will include Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren, Speaker of the 25th Navajo Nation Council Crystalyne Curley, Navajo Nation Attorney General Ethel Branch, and Navajo Nation Division of Social Services Executive Director Thomas Cody. Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act in 1978 after many years of overreach by state child welfare services and state family courts in breaking up Native families and facilitating adoptions of Native children by non-Indians. Under ICWA, Congress mandated minimum protections of Indian children and families to maintain a child's cultural connections to their Indian family and Indigenous Nation. ICWA also created preferences if an Indian child's extended family, a family of that child's Indigenous Nation, or another Indigenous Nation, were available as a foster or adoptive home. The Navajo Nation intervened in the case as a party to defend ICWA from attack by the Brackeen family, who adopted one Navajo child, and seeks to adopt a second Navajo child, despite the Nation's identification of Navajo families willing and able to care for the children. The Nation collaborated with other tribal nations in filing a joint brief before the Court urging it to uphold ICWA as a vital statute protecting the sovereignty and cultural integrity of Indian tribes. In the Supreme Court's June 15, 2023, opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and six other justices agreed that Congress had the constitutional authority to pass ICWA under the Indian Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. They also held ICWA does not violate the anti-commandeering doctrine arising from the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. In doing so, the Court has honored fundamental principles of Federal Indian Law and Constitutional Law. The press conference will take place Monday, June 19 at 10 a.m. Mountain Standard Time at the offices of Dickinson Wright, 1850 N Central Ave, Phoenix Conference Room, Concourse level, Phoenix, AZ 85004, and via Zoom. The Navajo Nation remains committed to defending ICWA and the rights of Indian children, as well as the inherent sovereign authority of Indigenous Nations.

Does the Indian Child Welfare Act's (ICWA) preference for Native over non-Native homes when placing Native American foster children violate the anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment? The majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Haaland v. Brackeen (June 15, 2023) Music by Epidemic Sound Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.  

On this day, June 8, in legal history James Madison first proposed the Bill of Rights. On June 8, 1789, James Madison presented the proposed Bill of Rights to the House of Representatives. Initially, Madison included more amendments than what eventually made it into the final version. The House agreed on a Bill of Rights with 17 amendments, but later the Senate consolidated them to 12. Ultimately, in December 1791, 10 out of the 12 amendments were approved by the states, becoming the Bill of Rights. One of the rejected amendments, regarding congressional pay, was later ratified as the 27th Amendment in 1992. Madison also suggested a two-part Preamble for the Constitution, incorporating part of Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. However, this proposal was not adopted.Madison emphasized the need to assert the equal rights of conscience, freedom of the press, and trial by jury in criminal cases for all states. Madison also wanted to clarify the distinct roles of each branch of government, ensuring they did not encroach upon one another's powers. However, these provisions did not pass the congressional review process.Madison's proposed Article VII, highlighting the separation of powers, did not make it into the Constitution. However, the second part of that article survived as the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. Additionally, Madison's version of the Second Amendment recognized the right to bear arms in the context of a well-regulated militia.Madison desired to interweave the Bill of Rights within the Constitution, but this idea faced resistance due to concerns of appearing to rewrite the Constitution. Consequently, the Bill of Rights was appended at the end of the document. Despite these alterations, many of Madison's core ideas were incorporated into the ratified version of the Bill of Rights. Madison aimed to bolster the rights of the people and earn their confidence by protecting them against government encroachments.On this day: James Madison introduces the Bill of Rights | Constitution CenterCooley LLP, a Silicon Valley-based law firm, has asked some incoming first-year associates to delay their start dates for another year, offering them a $100,000 stipend in return. The firm reached out to incoming corporate associates, providing them with three options. They can defer their start dates and receive a stipend, stick to their original January start dates in the corporate group, or switch to another practice area with more available work. These measures are being taken to reduce the size of Cooley's incoming corporate class due to a slowdown in demand. The firm had already postponed the start date for its first-year class from November to January 2024. Cooley laid off 150 attorneys and staff in late 2022 as a necessary response to decreased workload. Despite being a top recruiter during the pandemic, the firm is now facing reduced demand for corporate and deals work, leading to the need for workforce adjustments. Fenwick & West, another law firm, has also decided to postpone the start date for its first-year corporate and technology transactions associates to January 16, 2024.Cooley to Delay Some First-Year Associate Start Dates by YearBack-to-back legal industry news. Law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell is implementing a four-day office work-week for its lawyers, joining a trend of firms adopting more in-person work policies as the pandemic recedes. Starting after Labor Day, the firm will require its U.S. lawyers and business services professionals to work in the office from Monday through Thursday. As always, the claim is the move is aimed at facilitating mentorship, training, and relationship-building opportunities that are believed to be more effective in an in-person environment – none of these announcements ever admit it's just to bring associates to heel. Davis Polk will also introduce a new remote day "bank" that allows employees to choose 16 days per year to work from home. Other law firms, such as Skadden and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, have also made adjustments to their work policies, with some offering more flexibility for remote work.Law firm Davis Polk adopts four-day office work-week, joining Skadden | ReutersFlorida Governor Ron DeSantis has signed a new privacy law, S.B. 262, aimed at giving consumers more control over their data and addressing concerns about tech giants' alleged censorship of conservative views. The law, known as the "Digital Bill of Rights," includes provisions common to other state privacy laws, granting consumers rights over their data collection, storage, and sharing.However, it also requires search engines to disclose whether political ideology influences search results and prohibits government-mandated content moderation on social media platforms. The law provides additional protections for children under 18 years old. Florida is the ninth state to enact comprehensive privacy legislation, and it targets only the largest tech companies, subjecting them to significant fines. The law will take effect in stages, with the social media moderation section starting this July and the bulk of provisions going into effect on July 1, 2024. Consumer advocacy group Consumer Reports has called for stronger measures in the law, citing limited applicability and potential loopholes that could leave personal information unprotected. The law applies to companies with more than $1 billion in gross annual revenue and over half of their revenue coming from online ads. It also covers companies operating smart speakers and those running app stores with at least 250,000 available applications. Violations of the law could result in penalties exceeding the maximum fines imposed by other state privacy laws. The attorney general will have sole enforcement power and can seek civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation, which may be tripled under certain circumstances. Consumers will have the right to access, correct, and delete their data, as well as opt out of processing for targeted advertising or profiling purposes. Businesses will be required to reasonably secure consumer data and conduct assessments to evaluate data collection risks and benefits. The law also prohibits state and local government entities from requesting the removal of content or accounts on social media platforms based on "unfair censorship" concerns.DeSantis Takes Swing at Big Tech in New Florida Privacy Law (1)Federal prosecutors have informed former U.S. President Donald Trump's attorneys that he is the target of an investigation into his handling of classified materials, according to a person familiar with the matter. The notification from the Justice Department does not necessarily mean Trump will be charged but gives him an opportunity to present his own evidence before a grand jury. The news comes just days after Trump's attorneys met with Justice Department officials to discuss the case. Trump's legal team was notified on Monday, although the timing of such notifications does not indicate when charges might be brought. Trump, who is currently campaigning for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, has dismissed the investigations as politically motivated. One federal grand jury is investigating Trump's retention of classified materials after leaving the White House, while another criminal investigation is focused on alleged efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. In August 2022, investigators seized around 13,000 documents from Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate, some of which were marked as classified. Trump's legal troubles have expanded, including a civil lawsuit in which he was ordered to pay damages for sexual abuse and defamation, as well as a criminal investigation in Georgia related to his efforts to reverse the 2020 election results.Trump lawyers notified that he is the target of classified documents probeA Hollywood actor is the latest January 6th rioter arrested – I guess you can tell by the way I'm introducing this you're not going to have heard of them.Jay Johnston, an actor known for his roles in TV shows like "Arrested Development" and "Bob's Burgers," has been arrested for his involvement in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot. Johnston is the latest individual to be charged in connection with the incident, which aimed to keep Donald Trump in the White House. He was charged with various offenses, including interfering with law enforcement officers, entering a restricted building, disorderly conduct, and impeding passage through Capitol grounds. Johnston surrendered to the FBI in Los Angeles, where he resides. An FBI affidavit stated that he was seen wielding a stolen U.S. Capitol Police riot shield and participating in the mob that clashed with officers near a tunnel leading into the Capitol building. Online amateur investigators reportedly identified Johnston from FBI-released images seeking public assistance in identifying participants in the riot. Trump had encouraged his supporters to disrupt the certification of Joe Biden's electoral victory. Johnston has appeared in numerous films and TV shows, often playing law enforcement roles, and he voiced a character in the animated series "Bob's Burgers" until he was reportedly banned from the show following his association with the Capitol mob.Hollywood actor becomes latest arrested in Jan 6 Capitol assault | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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

XRP - Your Vote Killed Crypto - Will XRP Go to Zero or $589 In this video, the question of whether XRP will go to zero or reach $589 is explored in light of recent industry developments. The discussion covers lobbying efforts in the UK and Canada by US regulators, as well as news about Deutsche Bank, India's crypto adoption rate, and the Federal Reserve's recent interest rate hike. Other topics include Fujitsu's interest in crypto trading services, US bank support, and the ongoing SEC case against Ripple and XRP. Charles Hoskinson's comments on the US government's stance on crypto, and Jeremy Hogan's call for US citizens to pay attention to the Tenth Amendment are also discussed. *SUPPORT ON THE CHAIN* JOIN THE CHANNEL https://otc.one/join OTC MERCH https://onthechain.shop BUY US A COFFEE https://otc.one/buy-us-a-coffee Support ON THE CHAIN https://otc.one/support -------------- *ON THE CHAIN* SUBSCRIBE TO THE OTC PODCAST: https://otc.one/podcast Subscribe to our other Youtube Channel: https://otc.one/onthechain On The Web: https://onthechain.io Follow OTC on Twitter: https://otc.one/otc Join On The Chain Community on Twitter https://twitter.com/i/communities/1599435678995062788 Join our FREE Telegram Roundtable channel: https://t.me/onthechain_roundtable -------------- *JEFF* Follow Jeff on Twitter: https://otc.one/jeff -------------- *CHIP* Follow Chip on Twitter: https://otc.one/chip Listen to Chip's music http://nojoyyet.com​ -------------- *DISCLAIMER:* _All opinions expressed by content contributors that appear on OTC are solely expressing their opinions and do not reflect the opinions of OTC, its affiliates, or sponsors. Content contributors may have previously disseminated information on a social media platform, website, or another medium such as a podcast, television, or radio. OTC, Content Contributors, Affiliates, or Sponsors are not obligated to update or correct any information. The content contributors are sharing the information which they believe to be reliable. OTC, its affiliates, or sponsors cannot guarantee the accuracy of the opinion shared, and viewers, readers, and listeners should not rely on it. Opinions expressed are not financial advice. Please consult a licensed financial advisor before making any financial decisions. You must research before you invest in anything. Do not invest based on what someone else is doing or not doing, or based on other people's opinions._ #XRP #Ripple

The Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act was the subject of a state senate hearing Tuesday morning — and testimony was emotional. People recounted how forced removal by private and public child welfare agencies tore apart their families. Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Chairman Faron Jackson Sr. said his two brothers were removed from their home in the 1960s, and not allowed to return until they were 18. His family still feels the effects. “Even today… we kind of feel like strangers when we're together,” he said. The 1978 federal Indian Child Welfare Act aimed to keep native children in native homes. Minnesota's Indian Family Preservation Act, passed in 1985, built on that. But the Supreme Court is currently considering a case challenging the federal law— under the assertion that it violates anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment. “We want to make sure this is codified in our state legislature,” Assistant Senate Majority Leader, DFL Senator Mary Kunesh told host Cathy Wurzer. “We're concerned that if we don't put in these safeguards… that we wouldn't be able to continue to do the work that we need to do to preserve our native families in Minnesota.” She spoke with Wurzer about how the bill would change Minnesota law.

It's 2023 and we're back! In episode 11 of the United SHE Stands podcast, we breakdown the meaning of federalism and the evolution of it within our country. Let's connect: United SHE Stands InstagramReferencesA User's Guide to Democracy: How America Works by Nick Capodice and Hannah McCarthyCivics 101 Podcast, Starter Kit: FederalismOxford Languages (languages.oup.com)Federalism (wikipedia.org)Tenth Amendment (constitution.congress.gov)Article I (constitution.congress.gov)If you purchase from any links to resources or products, the show may make a small commission.

Once again, the Founders are showing off their talent to address complex issues succinctly in the Bill of Rights with the Tenth Amendment.  At just 28 words, the 10th amendment has a profound impact on the side-by-side existence of federal law and state law.  Simply put, powers not delegated federally are reserved to the states.  Paraphrasing Madison assuaging the concerns of the Antifederalists in Federalist No. 45, the constitutional powers of the federal government are “few and defined” while the remaining powers to the states are “numerous and indefinite.”  Thank you for joining our alll-star panel, including the return of Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner, and our special guest, Dr. Jeffrey Sikkenga of The Ashbrook Center at Ashland University, as we wrap up our study of the Bill of Rights.

Congress enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq., "to protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families." 25 U.S.C. 1902. The provisions of 25 U.S.C. 1912 establish minimum federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families, while 25 U.S.C. 1915(a) and (b) establish default preferences for the placement of such children in adoptive or foster homes. The statute also contains several recordkeeping provisions. See 25 U.S.C. 1915(e), 1951(a). Three States and seven individuals brought suit, asserting that these and other ICWA provisions are facially unconstitutional. The district court agreed and granted declaratory relief. The en banc court of appeals rejected most of the plaintiffs' challenges, but affirmed, in some respects by an equally divided vote, the judgment declaring the foregoing provisions invalid. The questions presented are: 1. Whether various provisions of ICWA-namely, the minimum standards of Section 1912(a), (d), (e), and (f); the placement-preference provisions of Section 1915 (a) and (b); and the recordkeeping provisions of Sections 1915(e) and 1951(a)-violate the anticommandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment. 2. Whether the individual plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge ICWA's placement preferences for "other Indian families," 25 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), and for "Indian foster home[s]," 25 U.S.C. 1915(b)(iii). 3. Whether Section 1915(a)(3) and (b)(iii) are rationally related to legitimate governmental interests and therefore consistent with equal protection. CONSOLIDATED WITH 21-377, 21-378 AND 21-380 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-376.html

Constitutional Sheriff Richard Mack reveals the sobering truth that nothing has been done to prevent another stolen election. Author, speaker and former Sheriff Richard Mack has served in a wide variety of roles over the course of his nearly twenty year career in law enforcement, which began in Provo, Utah. After 11 years at Provo PD, Mack decided to return to his childhood turf in Arizona and run for Graham County Sheriff. His campaign took off and he was elected in 1988. During his tenure, federal officers informed the sheriffs of the state that they would be required to enforce the so-called “Brady Bill” and run background checks at their expense under the law. In 1994, Mack and six other sheriffs from across the country, challenged the constitutionality of the Brady Bill and ultimately, fought it all the way to the United States Supreme Court, where they won a monumental decision for freedom. Three years later, in a landmark 5-4 split decision based on the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Mack won his case. He has also been named Elected Official of the Year by the Arizona-New Mexico Coalition of Counties in 1994, received the NRA Law Officer of the Year, inducted into the NRA Hall of Fame, 1995 Cicero Award, Samuel Adams Leadership Award from the Local Sovereignty Coalition, and Gun Owners of America Defender of the Second Amendment Award. He was sheriff for two terms until 1997. Sheriff Mack currently teaches, consults and empowers people around the country and around the world. He started the Constitutional Sheriffs & Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) which educates both citizens as well as sheriffs and other peace officers on the Constitution and their limitations of power, according to the Constitution. www.CSPOA.org * Sheriff Richard Mack Books: Are you a David?, From My Cold Dead Fingers, The County Sheriff: Americas Last Hope. *Please Support the CSPOA by becoming a member. Every penny that you give us will be used to provide more and more materials to travel, speak and train as you have seen us do across the country. *Join The CSPOA Movement Join us on Liberty Monks Live on Monday and Wednesday evenings at 9pm EST. Subscribe to FreedomFirst.TV and use the code "Monks" to receive a 25% discount on your Freedom First TV membership and enjoy full access to the entire archive at Freedom First TV! Please subscribe at www.libertymonks.com to get up to date info on all of our latest episodes! Follow us on our Facebook page Follow us on: Twitter and Gettr See Select Videos on: YouTube Rumble Brighteon Listen on iTunes, Spotify and Anchor

In this episode I discuss the Tenth Amendment and what it means to us. Enjoy

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – This idea that the power of the federal government is limited and enumerated is confirmed by the Tenth Amendment, "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." 

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – This idea that the power of the federal government is limited and enumerated is confirmed by the Tenth Amendment, "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." 

"SEC. 8. ENFORCEMENT. (a) Attorney General.—The Attorney General may commence a civil action on behalf of the United States against any State that violates, or against any government official (including a person described in section 7(c)) that implements or enforces a limitation or requirement that violates, section 4. The court shall hold unlawful and set aside the limitation or requirement if it is in violation of this Act. (b) Private Right Of Action.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Any individual or entity, including any health care provider or patient, adversely affected by an alleged violation of this Act, may commence a civil action against any State that violates, or against any government official (including a person described in section 7(c)) that implements or enforces a limitation or requirement that violates, section 4. The court shall hold unlawful and set aside the limitation or requirement if it is in violation of this Act. (2) HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.—A health care provider may commence an action for relief on its own behalf, on behalf of the provider's staff, and on behalf of the provider's patients who are or may be adversely affected by an alleged violation of this Act. (c) Equitable Relief.—In any action under this section, the court may award appropriate equitable relief, including temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief. (d) Costs.—In any action under this section, the court shall award costs of litigation, as well as reasonable attorney's fees, to any prevailing plaintiff. A plaintiff shall not be liable to a defendant for costs or attorney's fees in any non-frivolous action under this section. (e) Jurisdiction.—The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction over proceedings under this Act and shall exercise the same without regard to whether the party aggrieved shall have exhausted any administrative or other remedies that may be provided for by law. (f) Abrogation Of State Immunity.—Neither a State that enforces or maintains, nor a government official (including a person described in section 7(c)) who is permitted to implement or enforce any limitation or requirement that violates section 4 shall be immune under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or any other source of law, from an action in a Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction challenging that limitation or requirement." https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8296/text?r=1&s=1 --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/antonio-myers4/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/antonio-myers4/support

Today's bonus show is a conversation with US Congressman Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) from Georgia's 11th Congressional district. The Congressman has been in the crosshairs of the January 6th Committee hearings since the beginning of 2022. In the midst of the run-ups to the primaries in Georgia, they put out a press release all but condemning the Congressman for hosting a reconnaissance tour of the Capitol on January 5, 2021. Congressman Loudermilk refuted the accusation and thought that would be the end of it. After all, the Capitol was locked down and guarded. Then the committee released a further statement saying they had images of him conducting the tour and needed him to testify before the Committee. For those who may not know, the Capitol Complex consists of 22 buildings interconnected above and below ground. It's where congressional offices are located throughout along with artwork, artifacts and historical items. The “recon” tour turned out to be a tour of the office where the Congressman works and was for constituents from his own district who were visiting the nation's Capitol. After weeks of smears from the January 6th Committee, the Capitol Police released a statement stating they had reviewed all of the video footage and found no cause for concern. They went so far as to say they are trained to know what to look for in people who are attempting to gain intelligence anywhere in the complex and found nothing at all at play with the Congressman. But, that wasn't good enough for the Committee, who then released on social media another smear, this time with still pictures showing people in the group taking pictures. They alleged it proved they were taking pictures of stairwells and security checkpoints. What they didn't do is show an angle reflecting what was really being photographed. Much like the rest of the J6 hearing, it was edited, taken out of context and presented in a way to reflect their narrative, but not the truth. We then talked about some of the fantastic rulings from the Supreme Court over the last two weeks. We have seen huge wins for the First Amendment, the Second Amendment and the Tenth Amendment. These wins were also for our Constitution, which was being followed as originally intended. The Left is losing their minds over a court doing exactly what it is supposed to do and not their bidding. That is not how our government was designed. The SCOTUS is not supposed to be subservient to the other two branches, but an equal player. We close with hopes the pendulum is swinging back toward an adherence to the Constitution, which would help heal much of the divide that exists in this nation. Americans need to educate themselves on our founding documents and, more importantly, educate themselves before choosing candidates to represent them in the government. We can get back to the greatness of our representative Republic if we all make a point of choosing people who revere the Constitution AS IS and not what they want to pretend it to be. Take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, GETTR and TRUTH Social by searching for The Alan Sanders Show.

The unbearable lightness of Geraldo, The Democrat Party's 'Dirty Hands', The Democrats' Capricious Energy Policy Has Been a Disaster, Democrat Admits Senate Gun-Control Plan ‘Just the Beginning', Professor invokes Tenth Amendment to infringe on Second.

PETA rebuts California woman who won't allow pro-gun supporters to adopt pets, America's crisis is a lack of fathers, Woke Los Angeles DA George Gascón has police officers' blood on his hands, Professor invokes Tenth Amendment to infringe on Second, Matthew McConaughey hires DC lobbyists to push gun control.    Lock N Load is presented by; Guns.com https://www.guns.com/ And by; 2nd Hour Aero Precision https://aeroprecisionusa.com     And by; Modern Gun School https://mgs.edu  Ace Firearms http://www.acefirearms.com DeSantis Holsters https://www.desantisholster.com Staccato http://staccato2011.com Spikes Tactical https://www.spikestactical.com Chambers Custom https://chamberscustom.com C&H Precision https://chpws.com

In American political discourse, states' rights are political powers held for the state governments rather than the federal government according to the United States Constitution, reflecting especially the enumerated powers of Congress and the Tenth Amendment.  We are joined by author and candidate Catherine Fleming Bruce.Find us on YouTube at www.youtube.com/digonamerica★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

This week The V Team talks about the race for Trump's endorsement, AG Marshall refuses to say "duly-elected president," Tenth Amendment bill, no marijuana for mamas, future COVID-19 treatment unsure, House passes bill to end shackling, gaming is dead, bon

The Tenth Amendment is about much more than just delegated and reserved powers. It reaffirms some of the most important principles of the Revolution. Sovereignty - final authority - of the People of the Several States. And the right of the people to resist when the government usurps power not delegated to it. The post 10th Amendment: From Sovereignty to Resistance first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.