Podcasts about united states constitution

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 15, 2026 8:12

This Day in Legal History: Magna Carta Sealed at RunnymedeOn this day in 1215, in a meadow at Runnymede on the south bank of the Thames, King John of England affixed his seal to a document the rebellious English barons had drafted, in which the king conceded a series of limits on his own royal authority. We call it Magna Carta — the Great Charter. The immediate political context was a baronial revolt against John's tax exactions for his disastrous French wars, and most of the sixty-three chapters as drafted in 1215 are concerned with the highly specific grievances of a feudal aristocracy: scutage, wardship, the inheritance fees of widows, the freedom of the church, the standardization of weights and measures in the king's markets. The two chapters that the centuries have remembered are 39 and 40. Chapter 39 says that no free man shall be taken or imprisoned or dispossessed except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. Chapter 40 says that to no one will the king sell, deny, or delay right or justice. The Charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III within ten weeks of sealing — the pope held that John, as a vassal of the Holy See, could not be bound by a treaty extracted under duress — and the country immediately collapsed into the First Barons' War. But John died in October 1216, his nine-year-old son Henry III's regents reissued the Charter as a tactical concession the next month, it was reissued again in 1217 and 1225, and by the late thirteenth century the 1225 version had been confirmed by successive kings as a foundational statute of the realm. Edward Coke, writing in the seventeenth century, transformed Chapter 39's “law of the land” into the doctrine of due process, and the founding generation of the American Republic picked up Coke's reading and wrote it directly into the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The phrase “due process of law” in those amendments is the most consequential American inheritance from the Runnymede document. The principle the barons were trying to extract from a beleaguered king — that the law constrains the sovereign too — is the substrate on which everything we recognize as constitutionalism is built. Eight hundred and eleven years on, the principle is still the work.The Rhode Island travel-ban lawsuit we covered on June 8 took a sharp turn on Friday. Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., of the District of Rhode Island held a status conference in Dorcas International Institute v. USCIS at which he was openly frustrated with the Justice Department for failing to immediately implement his June 5 vacatur of the four USCIS benefit-freeze policies for nationals of the thirty-nine travel-ban countries. The judge's message, in plain terms, was that vacatur under the Administrative Procedure Act is self-executing — the moment the order was entered, the policies ceased to exist, and the agency was obligated to resume processing affirmative benefits, asylum claims, and adjudicator-instruction reviews on the prior pre-freeze basis. The Trump administration, after the hearing, told the court it would comply, restart adjudications, and clear the backlog. It also did what defendants typically do when they have lost on the merits and lost again on compliance: it filed a notice of appeal with the First Circuit and asked the appellate court to stay the vacatur pending appeal. That is the live question now. The First Circuit's stay analysis runs through the standard Nken v. Holder factors — likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest — and the administration's strongest argument on each is going to be familiar: the executive needs administrative breathing room to implement a travel ban, mass restoration of adjudications creates national-security risk, the harm to applicants is reversible if their adjudications are paused for a few more weeks. The plaintiffs' strongest counterarguments are also familiar: the policies were unlawful when adopted and the agency had no business adopting them, the harm to applicants from continued delay is concrete and accruing daily, and the First Circuit is not in the business of staying vacaturs of unlawful agency action in order to let the agency continue acting unlawfully. Watch the First Circuit's calendar this week. The stay motion is the next inflection point.Trump officials agree to resume asylum processing after being scolded by judge | The Washington PostGoogle filed suit on Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against a China-based cybercrime network it calls the “Outsider Enterprise,” alleging that the network's members used Google's Gemini large-language model to generate the code, copy, and templates for a phishing-as-a-service platform that has built more than nine thousand fraudulent websites and sent two and a half million scam text messages in the two weeks ending June 1 alone. The complaint is significant for two reasons. First, it is, to Google's knowledge, the first time the company has affirmatively sued threat actors for using its own generative-AI product as the input to a scaled criminal operation, as distinct from the more usual posture of suing scammers who impersonate Google brands. The legal theories are a mix of Lanham Act false-designation-of-origin and trademark-infringement counts, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act counts based on Outsider's unauthorized access to Google services, breach-of-contract counts on the Gemini terms of service, and a RICO count. Second, the factual record will be a road map for the next decade of AI-misuse litigation. The complaint describes Telegram channels in which Outsider members trade prompts that get Gemini to write phishing code, a library of two hundred and ninety prebuilt templates impersonating brands ranging from the U.S. Postal Service to state DMVs to E-ZPass, and an FBI estimate that the broader campaign Outsider participates in has stolen roughly 3.87 million card numbers and caused $1.9 billion in losses since July 2023. The remedy Google is seeking is a permanent injunction shutting the operation down, plus domain seizures and account terminations across Google's services and at major U.S. carriers, which Google says it has been coordinating with the FBI, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon. The deeper legal question the case may end up clarifying is whether and to what extent platforms can use private civil suits as the front-line enforcement mechanism against AI-augmented criminal activity that the public criminal-justice system has had trouble keeping up with.Google sues Chinese cybercrime ring that weaponized Gemini AI for phishing scams | TechCrunchA federal district judge in Washington on Friday issued a preliminary injunction barring the Trump administration from continuing to implement Executive Order 14253, the order under which the National Park Service had been scrubbing exhibits, signage, and online materials at sites administered by the Department of the Interior. The judge gave the administration three weeks to restore the materials it had already removed. The order at issue, signed in March, directed federal cultural agencies to identify and remove content that, in the executive's view, reflected “improper, divisive, or anti-American ideology” or “partisan” framing. In the months that followed, the National Park Service had taken down or altered displays addressing slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, the internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War, climate change, and the histories of Native American dispossession at sites including the Stonewall National Monument, Independence Hall, and the Manzanar National Historic Site. The case is American Historical Association v. Department of the Interior, brought by historians' professional associations and a coalition of plaintiffs that includes affected park employees and visitor-experience contractors. The legal theory pleaded was multi-strand: First Amendment viewpoint discrimination as applied to government speech that has taken on a public-forum character, Administrative Procedure Act challenges on the ground that the agency failed to provide a reasoned basis for the removals and failed to consider statutory commands under the Organic Act of 1916, and a Federal Records Act challenge to the destruction of materials that constituted federal records. The judge held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the First Amendment claim and the APA claim, found irreparable harm in the ongoing loss of public access to the underlying historical materials, and found that the public interest was best served by restoration. The administration is widely expected to appeal to the D.C. Circuit. In the meantime, the three-week restoration clock is running.Judge blocks Trump national parks order, calling it “censorship” | The Washington Post 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

american new york ai donald trump english google china washington england french war chinese judge ring fbi world war ii native americans parks rico telegram interior rhode island gemini outsiders coke blocks att orders verizon apa first amendment executive orders circuit holder sues charter justice department t mobile mcconnell civil rights movement phishing thames national park service japanese americans postal service district court magna carta southern district united states constitution king john holy see fourteenth amendment gemini ai american republic uscis independence hall american historical association xenophobic legalnews computer fraud ez pass abuse act administrative procedure act henry iii first circuit dmvs runnymede pope innocent iii lanham act great charter

Public Nuisance

The Shaun Thompson Show

Play Episode Listen Later May 29, 2026 105:16

Shaun has proudly been called one by Democrats. PLUS, Kenneth Rapoza, analyst at the Coalition for a Prosperous America, tells Shaun that after President Trump's meeting with Xi Jinping, America has the upper hand. And Martin Mawyer, president of Christian Action Network, discusses the oppressive political systems of Sharia popping up all over the United States and if the United States Constitution is strong enough to stand up to it. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

united states america donald trump public democrats coalition xi jinping united states constitution nuisance prosperous america

Legal News for Fri 5/29 - SCOTUS Mississippi Batson Claim, Fertitta Buys Caesars, HHS NSA Arbitration Revamp and WABC Calls out FCC

god church freedom politics religion saints covenant constitution doctrine church history us constitution sections joseph smith united states constitution history matters scott woodward

Play Episode Listen Later May 29, 2026 7:55

This Day in Legal History: Rhode Island Ratifies the Constitution, 1790On this day in 1790, Rhode Island became the thirteenth and final original state to ratify the United States Constitution, doing so by a margin of 34 to 32 at a convention in Newport. Rhode Island's hesitation had been considerable: the state refused to send delegates to the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, and twice rejected ratification in popular referenda — a curiously democratic method for refusing to join a constitutional union founded in part on the premise that pure direct democracy is dangerous. The state's small-farmer and debtor classes, the same constituencies that had backed the paper-money policies that horrified Madison, were deeply suspicious of a strong federal government that would constrain state-issued currency, ban impairment of debt contracts (Article I, Section 10), and override state-level debtor protections.Ratification finally came under the gun: Congress, frustrated by the foot-dragging, was openly threatening to treat Rhode Island as a foreign nation for tariff purposes, which would have devastated the Providence merchants. The convention's narrow margin reflected a hostile deal more than a meeting of constitutional minds.Importantly, Rhode Island's ratification was conditioned on a lengthy list of proposed amendments — many of them mirroring the Bill of Rights that James Madison had already shepherded through Congress in September 1789 and that would be ratified in December 1791. With Rhode Island in, the original Union was at last complete, and the practical question of whether the new federal government could function with one stubborn holdout fell away. The episode is a useful reminder that the constitutional founding was not so much a singular moment as a slow, contested, occasionally coerced bargain — one that ended in Newport on a humid Saturday in May.The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed down a narrow 5-4 ruling in Pitchford v. Cain, reviving a Mississippi death row inmate's challenge to the prosecutor's race-based use of peremptory strikes at his 2006 capital trial. Justice Kavanaugh, writing for a majority that included Chief Justice Roberts plus Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, held that the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably applied Batson v. Kentucky's three-step framework for challenges to peremptory strikes.The Court found the trial judge accepted the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations without giving defense counsel a meaningful opportunity to argue that those reasons were pretextual, and the state appellate court compounded the error by treating that omission as a waiver. The prosecutor, Doug Evans, used four of his twelve strikes to remove four of the five Black prospective jurors, leaving a jury of eleven white jurors and one Black juror in a Mississippi county that was then roughly 40 percent Black.The Court leaned heavily on its 2019 Flowers v. Mississippi decision, which involved the same prosecutor and the same trial judge and had already found Evans's pattern of striking Black jurors discriminatory. Federal habeas relief was appropriate because the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's deferential “no fair-minded jurist could agree” standard cannot rescue a state-court ruling that simply skips Batson's third step. Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Alito, Thomas, and Barrett, arguing the record showed counsel chose silence rather than being denied an opportunity. The case now returns to the Fifth Circuit for further proceedings.Justices Revive Mississippi Death Row Inmate's Batson Claim | Law360Caesars Entertainment agreed Thursday to be acquired by Tilman Fertitta's privately-held Fertitta Entertainment in an all-cash deal valued at roughly $17.6 billion, including the assumption of approximately $11.9 billion of Caesars' outstanding debt. Shareholders will receive $31 per share, a 49 percent premium over Caesars' unaffected share price as of February 25, and the company will be delisted from Nasdaq upon closing. The agreement includes a go-shop period running through approximately July 11 — a Delaware deal-protection mechanism that lets the target board solicit competing bids without triggering a termination fee, and that helps insulate the sale process from a Revlon-flavored fiduciary-duty challenge by signaling the board actively tested the market after signing.Latham & Watkins and Skadden are representing Caesars (the latter on antitrust), White & Case is advising Fertitta, and Freshfields is counseling the Carano family, which holds a roughly 5 percent stake and will roll part of its equity into the combined entity. The combined company would control more than 60 casino resorts and over 200 retail sports betting locations under the William Hill brand. Antitrust review will be the inflection point given the overlap on the Las Vegas Strip — where Caesars operates eight properties — and across digital betting. Funding will come from Fertitta equity and committed debt financing arranged by a syndicate of ten banks.4 Firms Steer Fertitta's $17.6B Caesars Entertainment Buy | Law360The Department of Health and Human Services on Thursday finalized a long-awaited overhaul of the federal Independent Dispute Resolution process under the No Surprises Act of 2021, the statute that pulls most out-of-network billing fights out of the patient's hands and into a baseball-style arbitration between provider and payer. The headline change slashes the per-party administrative fee from $115 to $15 per case, undoing a sharp 2023 hike that providers had successfully challenged in the Eastern District of Texas as having been adopted without notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.The rule also expands batching, so economically similar items and services can be bundled into a single arbitration, which the agency says will cut transaction costs and ease the chronic IDR backlog. HHS is also rolling out a centralized federal dispute portal and a payer registry intended to fix the persistent problem of providers being unable to identify which entity is actually on the hook in any given case. Reactions from physician and radiology groups have been mixed, with broad support for the fee cut but lingering concern that the qualifying payment amount methodology — the benchmark arbitrators must consider — still tilts the field toward insurers. APA Section 706 challenges to portions of the earlier IDR framework remain pending in the Fifth Circuit.US HHS finalizes rule to streamline dispute resolution under No Surprises Act | ReutersABC's New York affiliate WABC-TV filed an objection with the FCC on Thursday, calling Chairman Brendan Carr's April order requiring early license renewals for all eight ABC-owned stations an “unconstitutional” act of viewpoint-based retaliation barred by the First Amendment. WABC submitted its renewal under protest, arguing the agency has not demanded simultaneous early renewals from a commonly owned station group in more than fifty years and that the Media Bureau's stated rationale — possible violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and the FCC's nondiscrimination rules — is pretext for punishing disfavored editorial speech.The doctrinal hook is the Bantam Books line of cases through last term's NRA v. Vullo, which holds that government officials cannot use the implicit threat of regulatory sanction to coerce private intermediaries into suppressing protected expression. The order followed a separate FCC inquiry into whether “The View” has been violating the agency's equal-time rule for political candidates, and came against the backdrop of repeated White House demands that Disney fire Jimmy Kimmel. Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez has openly urged Disney not to “flinch.”On the same day, the FCC issued a broader notice warning all broadcasters that licenses could be reviewed early if stations are deemed to be failing their statutory public-interest obligation — a posture that drops the question of broadcast licensing back into Red Lion-era First Amendment territory.FCC Targeting ABC Licenses To Punish Speech, Station Says | Law360 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

new york texas black health disney white house congress abc kentucky court supreme court union rights mississippi reactions federal funding flowers constitution claim evans providence delaware rhode island buys scotus jimmy kimmel nasdaq first amendment fcc human services brett kavanaugh newport nra antitrust james madison hhs revamp arbitration samuel alito john roberts shareholders neil gorsuch caesars united states constitution las vegas strip kagan eastern district revlon fifth circuit idr wabc batson william hill carano ratification red lion antiterrorism no surprises act skadden tilman fertitta legalnews pitchford doug evans administrative procedure act fertitta freshfields bantam books communications act white case latham watkins mississippi supreme court wabc tv philadelphia convention effective death penalty act

Patrick Henry

featured Wiki of the Day

Play Episode Listen Later May 29, 2026 3:31

fWotD Episode 3311: Patrick Henry Welcome to featured Wiki of the Day, your daily dose of knowledge from Wikipedia's finest articles.The featured article for Friday, 29 May 2026, is Patrick Henry.Patrick Henry (May 29, 1736 [O. S. May 18, 1736] – June 6, 1799) was an American politician, planter and orator who declared to the Second Virginia Convention (1775): "Give me liberty or give me death!" A Founding Father, he served as the first and sixth post-colonial governor of Virginia, from 1776 to 1779 and from 1784 to 1786.A native of Hanover County, Virginia, Henry was primarily educated at home. After an unsuccessful venture running a store, as well as assisting his father-in-law at Hanover Tavern, he became a lawyer through self-study. Beginning his practice in 1760, Henry soon became prominent through his victory in the Parson's Cause against the Anglican clergy. He was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses, where he quickly became notable for his inflammatory rhetoric against the Stamp Act 1765.In 1774, Henry served as a delegate to the First Continental Congress where he signed the Petition to the King, which he helped to draft, and the Continental Association. He gained further popularity among the people of Virginia, both through his oratory at the convention and by marching troops towards the colonial capital of Williamsburg after the Gunpowder Incident until the munitions seized by the royal government were paid for. Henry urged independence, and when the Fifth Virginia Convention endorsed this in 1776, he served on the committee charged with drafting the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the original Virginia Constitution. Henry was promptly elected governor under the new charter and served a total of five one-year terms.After leaving the governorship in 1779, Henry served in the Virginia House of Delegates until he began his last two terms as governor in 1784. The actions of the national government under the Articles of Confederation made Henry fear a strong federal government, and he declined appointment as a delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention. He actively opposed the ratification of the United States Constitution, both fearing a powerful central government and because there was as yet no Bill of Rights. He returned to the practice of law in his final years, declining several offices under the federal government. A slaveholder throughout his adult life, he hoped to see the institution end but had no plan beyond ending the importation of slaves. Henry is remembered for his oratory and as an enthusiastic promoter of the fight for independence.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:13 UTC on Friday, 29 May 2026.For the full current version of the article, see Patrick Henry on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Bluesky at @wikioftheday.com.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm neural Aria.

american education rights wikipedia blue sky corner delegates petition founding fathers wiki anglican williamsburg confederation utc united states constitution parson constitutional convention patrick henry curmudgeon virginia house stamp act first continental congress burgesses hanover county virginia constitution

206 - U.S. Constitution is Critical to Freedom Everywhere I Church History Matters I Religion & Politics

Church History Matters

Play Episode Listen Later May 26, 2026 68:31

In this episode of Church History Matters, hosts Scott Woodward and Casey Griffiths explore the Latter-day Saint perspective on the divinely inspired nature of the United States Constitution as taught in the Doctrine and Covenants. What did Joseph Smith and early Church leaders think about the Constitution? What does it mean that God “established” the Constitution? Why is it applicable to all nations? And how should modern disciples understand these revelations today? Together, Scott and Casey dive into key passages from the Doctrine and Covenants, including Sections 98 and 101, while unpacking the historical context surrounding religious liberty, agency, and the role of constitutional government in God's plan. They also address common misunderstandings, modern political assumptions, and how faithful Saints can approach these teachings with both conviction and nuance. Whether you're interested in Church history, constitutional principles, or restored doctrine, this episode offers thoughtful insights into one of the most discussed themes in Latter-day Saint scripture.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia Case Dropped AND the Rule of Law Wins!

donald trump politics law legal political court democrats substack garcia progressive liberal dropped judicial justice department rule of law united states constitution salvadoran abrego

Play Episode Listen Later May 25, 2026 15:49

A federal judge has thrown out the Trump administration's criminal, immigrant-smuggling case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, ruling that the prosecution was “vindictive” retaliation against the Salvadoran immigrant for winning a high-profile challenge to his deportation from the U.S. “The evidence before this Court sadly reflects an abuse of prosecuting power,” U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw wrote Friday as he granted Abrego Garcia's request to dismiss the case. Glenn says: not only did Abrego Garcia win - the rule of law, and the United States Constitution also won as well.Find Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia Case Dropped AND the Rule of Law Wins!

donald trump politics law legal political court democrats substack garcia progressive liberal dropped judicial justice department rule of law united states constitution salvadoran abrego

Play Episode Listen Later May 25, 2026 15:49

A federal judge has thrown out the Trump administration's criminal, immigrant-smuggling case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, ruling that the prosecution was “vindictive” retaliation against the Salvadoran immigrant for winning a high-profile challenge to his deportation from the U.S. “The evidence before this Court sadly reflects an abuse of prosecuting power,” U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw wrote Friday as he granted Abrego Garcia's request to dismiss the case. Glenn says: not only did Abrego Garcia win - the rule of law, and the United States Constitution also won as well.Find Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Legal News for Tues 5/19 - Title IX at Supreme Court, Mangione Backpack Evidence Partially Out, MAHA Vaccine BS Losses, and Gas Tax Holidays are Bad Policy

The Truth with Lisa Boothe

Play Episode Listen Later May 19, 2026 7:17

This Day in Legal History: 27th AmendmentOn May 19, 1992, the 27th Amendment to the United States Constitution was officially published in the Federal Register, ending one of the longest and oddest ratification stories in American legal history. The amendment provides that any law changing the compensation of members of Congress cannot take effect until after an election for the House of Representatives has taken place. Put more simply, Congress may vote to change its own pay, but it cannot make that change immediate. The rule gives voters a chance to respond before the pay change takes effect.What makes the 27th Amendment unusual is not only what it says, but how long it took to become law. It was originally proposed by James Madison in 1789 as part of the same set of amendments that produced the Bill of Rights. Most of those amendments were ratified quickly, but this one lingered for more than two centuries. Because Congress had not set a ratification deadline, the amendment remained legally available for state approval. In the 1980s, a renewed ratification campaign helped bring it back to public attention. Michigan became the 38th state to ratify it in May 1992, giving it the three-fourths approval required by Article V of the Constitution.The amendment's publication in the Federal Register on May 19 marked the formal public recognition that it had become part of the Constitution. Its ratification raised a serious legal question about whether an amendment proposed in the 18th century could still be valid in the 20th century. The answer, at least for amendments without a deadline, was yes. The 27th Amendment stands as a reminder that constitutional change can move slowly, sometimes across generations, and still become binding law.The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about whether Title IX's protections against sex discrimination in federally funded education programs extend to employees, including college professors and coaches. The case was brought by former Augusta University professor Thomas Crowther and former Georgia Tech women's basketball coach MaChelle Joseph, both of whom lost their jobs after workplace-conduct investigations. Crowther claimed Augusta University retaliated against him and discriminated against him based on sex after it suspended him and declined to renew his contract. Joseph argued that Georgia Tech fired her in retaliation for her complaints about unequal treatment of women's athletics and female athletes. Their cases reached the Eleventh Circuit together, where the court ruled that Title IX clearly protects students, but that its application to employees is less certain. That ruling placed the Eleventh Circuit on one side of a broader circuit split.The Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits have taken a narrower view of Title IX employment claims, while the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits have allowed employees to bring certain Title IX claims. The solicitor general agreed with the Eleventh Circuit's narrower reading but urged the Supreme Court to take the case because lower courts are divided. The case gives the justices a chance to decide whether professors, coaches, and other school employees can use Title IX directly to sue for workplace sex discrimination or retaliation.High Court To Examine Title IX Protections For Coaches, Profs - Law360A New York state judge partially granted Luigi Mangione's request to keep certain evidence out of his upcoming murder trial. Mangione is accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel in December 2024 and has pleaded not guilty. Justice Gregory Carro ruled that police unlawfully searched Mangione's backpack during his arrest in Pennsylvania without a warrant. Because of that, some items found during the first search, including a loaded handgun magazine, a cellphone, and a computer chip, will be suppressed. But the judge allowed other evidence from a later police-station search of the backpack, including a gun, silencer, USB drive, and red notebook.Carro also rejected Mangione's effort to suppress his initial statements to police, finding that they were not obtained through an illegal interrogation. The ruling gives the defense a partial win, but prosecutors say they still have substantial evidence tying Mangione to the shooting, including DNA, fingerprints, video footage, and other items. Mangione's state trial is scheduled to begin on September 8 and is expected to last about six weeks. He also faces separate federal charges, though earlier rulings in that case removed the possibility of the death penalty.Judge grants accused CEO killer Mangione's bid to suppress evidence due to unlawful search | ReutersState lawmakers have rejected dozens of anti-vaccine bills backed by Make America Healthy Again supporters, showing limits to the movement's influence in state legislatures. The bills sought to roll back or end policies such as school vaccination requirements, but public health groups and medical associations mounted successful opposition campaigns. Groups including American Families for Vaccines and the American Academy of Pediatrics argued that vaccine mandates remain broadly supported and are important for public health. Their strategy focused especially on Republican-controlled states, where advocates used polling and personal appeals to persuade lawmakers that opposing vaccines could be both medically risky and politically unpopular. Anti-vaccine proposals increased this year because MAHA-aligned groups coordinated efforts across multiple states. Still, bills failed in places including Idaho, West Virginia, Tennessee, South Dakota, Florida, and Iowa. The debate is unfolding as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime vaccine skeptic, has taken steps against mandatory immunization policies, though some changes have been paused in litigation. Both sides expect the issue to continue, with anti-vaccine advocates encouraged by hearings and organizing momentum, while public health advocates say more legislation is likely to appear in future sessions.US states reject anti-vaccine bills as public health groups fight MAHA | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that a federal gas tax holiday would be a poor answer to rising gas prices because it would do little for household affordability while further weakening transportation funding. Gas prices are being driven by forces Congress cannot easily fix by statute, including conflict involving Iran and instability around the Strait of Hormuz.Lawmakers are nevertheless showing bipartisan interest in suspending the federal gas tax, including President Donald Trump, Sen. Josh Hawley, and House Speaker Mike Johnson. The political appeal is clear because gas prices are highly visible and give lawmakers a simple way to say they are responding to voters' economic pain. But the federal gas tax has been frozen at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993, even as infrastructure costs have continued to rise. Suspending it would take revenue away from the Highway Trust Fund, which helps pay for highways, roads, bridges, and mass transit.The column argues that Congress should separate the problem of household hardship from the problem of transportation finance. Instead of cutting the gas tax, lawmakers could provide targeted help through refundable credits, direct payments, commuter assistance, or flexible transportation support for low- and moderate-income households.If Congress insists on a gas tax holiday, it should at least pair it with an immediate dedicated backfill and longer-term reforms such as indexing the gas tax to inflation, adopting mileage-based fees, or modernizing road-use charges. The larger point is that high gas prices are real, but a gas tax holiday is a badly targeted discount financed by a transportation system that is already financially strained. 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

The Truth with Lisa Boothe: Supreme Court Redistricting Ruling Could Reshape the 2026 Midterms

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 30, 2026 17:27 Transcription Available

What does the Supreme Court’s latest ruling on redistricting mean for the future of American elections? On this episode of The Truth with Lisa Boothe, Lisa is joined by Zack Smith of the The Heritage Foundation to break down the Court’s major decision striking down Louisiana’s second majority-Black congressional district as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. They unpack the clash between the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, what this means for redistricting battles in states like Texas, California, Virginia, and Florida, and how it could impact congressional control in the upcoming midterms. Plus, they discuss the growing legal war over political vs. racial gerrymandering, the role of census data, and why this decision could trigger a nationwide redistricting domino effect. Is this a win for equal protection under the Constitution—or the beginning of a new political arms race?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

american california texas black truth court supreme court louisiana constitution midterms ruling heritage foundation reshape redistricting voting rights act united states constitution fourteenth amendment zack smith lisa boothe

Legal News for Tues 4/28 - TX Redistricting Implemented, Maduro Legal Fees Fight and IRS-Trump Tax Settlement Propriety

America, Pray Now Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 28, 2026 6:51

This Day in Legal History: Maryland Ratifies the ConstitutionOn April 28, 1788, Maryland became the seventh state to ratify the United States Constitution. The state's ratifying convention met in Annapolis from April 21 to April 28, ending with Maryland's formal approval of the new federal charter. This was a major legal step because Article VII of the Constitution required ratification by nine states before the Constitution could take effect. Maryland's vote therefore brought the country within two states of replacing the Articles of Confederation with a stronger national government.The decision also mattered because Maryland occupied an important position between northern and southern states, giving its approval broader political weight. Unlike some states where ratification debates were bitter and closely divided, Maryland approved the Constitution by a wide margin. Its delegates accepted the proposed structure of separated powers, a bicameral Congress, a single executive, and a federal judiciary. They also accepted the Constitution's grant of greater national authority, including the power to tax, regulate interstate commerce, and enforce federal law. For supporters of ratification, Maryland's approval showed that the Constitution was gaining momentum beyond the earliest Federalist strongholds. For opponents, it underscored how quickly the new framework was becoming a legal and political reality.Maryland's ratification did not itself put the Constitution into force, but it helped make that outcome increasingly likely. By June 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify, satisfying Article VII and allowing the new constitutional government to begin. Maryland's April 28 vote thus stands as one of the key legal milestones in the transition from confederation to constitutional union.The U.S. Supreme Court formally reinstated a Texas congressional map that could help Republicans gain seats in the U.S. House in the 2026 midterm elections. The ruling made official an earlier interim decision from December, when the Court allowed Texas to use the map while the litigation continued. The map had been approved by the Republican-controlled Texas legislature in August 2025 and signed by Governor Greg Abbott.Reuters reports that the map could shift as many as five Democratic-held House seats toward Republicans. A lower court had previously blocked the map after finding that it was likely racially discriminatory and potentially violated constitutional protections. The Supreme Court reversed that lower court decision, with the three liberal justices dissenting. The case comes amid a broader fight over mid-decade redistricting, in which both Republican- and Democratic-led states have redrawn maps outside the usual once-a-decade cycle for partisan advantage. California, for example, was allowed by the Supreme Court in February to use a new map designed to benefit Democrats after the Texas redistricting effort. The stakes are high because Republicans hold narrow majorities in Congress, and a shift in either chamber could affect President Trump's legislative agenda and congressional oversight. The ruling does not end the larger national debate over when redistricting crosses the line from lawful political mapmaking into unconstitutional discrimination.US Supreme Court formally reinstates pro-Republican Texas voting map | ReutersThe United States has agreed to adjust its Venezuela sanctions so the Venezuelan government can pay for Nicolás Maduro's defense lawyer in his U.S. drug trafficking case. Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were taken from Caracas by U.S. special forces on January 3, brought to New York, and charged with offenses including narcoterrorism conspiracy. Both have pleaded not guilty and are being held in Brooklyn while awaiting trial. Maduro's lawyer, Barry Pollack, had asked U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein to dismiss the case, arguing that sanctions blocking Venezuela from paying legal fees interfered with Maduro's constitutional right to the lawyer of his choice. The defense said neither Maduro nor Flores could afford private counsel without Venezuelan government support. Prosecutors argued that the sanctions served national security and foreign policy interests, and that courts should not force the Treasury Department to change sanctions because foreign policy belongs mainly to the executive branch.Judge Hellerstein appeared unwilling to dismiss the case, but he also questioned whether blocking payment was justified when Maduro and Flores were already in U.S. custody and U.S.-Venezuela relations had improved after Maduro's ouster. The government's decision to allow the payments removes a procedural obstacle that could have complicated or delayed the prosecution. The case remains politically charged, with U.S. officials accusing Maduro of corruption and drug trafficking, while Maduro denies the allegations and says they are a pretext for U.S. control over Venezuela's oil resources. The dispute shows how sanctions, criminal prosecution, and constitutional criminal procedure can collide when a foreign former leader is brought into a U.S. courtroom.US to let Venezuela pay Maduro's lawyer in drug trafficking case | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that the IRS's potential settlement with President Donald Trump and his family over leaked tax data presents a legitimacy problem as much as a legal one. The agency may be able to resolve the case through ordinary settlement procedures, but this is not an ordinary plaintiff: Trump is the head of the executive branch that ultimately oversees the IRS. That creates a serious perception risk, because the public may view the dispute as the administration negotiating with itself. The column argues that any settlement should be tied clearly to remedies available under Section 7431 of the Internal Revenue Code, which governs civil damages for unauthorized tax disclosures. It also stresses that similarly situated taxpayers affected by the same IRS contractor's leak should be treated consistently, or at least that any differences in treatment should be publicly explained.The concern is that a major payout to Trump or his family could appear to create a two-tier tax system, even if the technical legal process is defensible. I compare the risk to the Teapot Dome scandal, where public confidence suffered because people believed insiders were benefiting from a different set of rules. The column also points to another high-profile tax leak case involving a billionaire, where the resolution focused on apology, acknowledgment of policy failures, and stronger data safeguards rather than a massive damages award. That prior case provides a useful benchmark, even though not every case must settle the same way. To protect credibility, I argue that DOJ recusal, an independent arbiter, or similar safeguards may be necessary so the process has visible independence. The larger point is that the IRS depends heavily on voluntary compliance, and voluntary compliance depends on taxpayers believing the system is fair. If the agency appears to give special treatment to the most powerful taxpayer in the country, the long-term cost may be far greater than any settlement amount. 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

America Was Falling Apart—Until This Happened

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 14, 2026 15:48

Have you been concerned about the disunity in our government today? If so, this episode will take you back to a moment in American history when things looked just as divided—and just as uncertain.In 1787, the Constitutional Convention was on the verge of collapse. The states were fractured, tensions were high, and the future of the nation hung in the balance. Then, an unexpected voice rose—Benjamin Franklin, who reminded the delegates of something they had neglected: prayer.What followed shifted the atmosphere and helped change the course of history.Listen as America Pray Now partner, Lise Pampaloni, shares this powerful and often overlooked moment—and why its message still matters for our nation today.-------America Pray Now publishes a magazine on prayer that is free of charge and can be delivered directly to your home. You can sign up for this magazine on our website at americapraynow.comIn addition to our weekly podcast, we meet in 17 different cities every month to pray in person. Most of our in-person prayer meetings are in Virginia, and we also have meetings in Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, North Carolina and South Carolina. See our website for times and dates at americapraynow.comEnjoy the Podcast? Let us know! Email us at podcast@americapraynow.com-----------SUMMARYThere are moments in the life of a nation when the ground beneath it shifts and the outcome cannot be predicted. The summer of 1787 was one of those moments. The men gathered in Philadelphia to address the failures of the Articles of Confederation arrived with intelligence, ambition, and competing interests, and by June they were deadlocked. The young United States, still fragile after the Revolution, was operating under a system of government that could not tax, could not settle trade disputes between states, and could not hold the Union together by its own weight. The fear among many was real: without a fundamental change, the republic would not survive.Into that crisis came a gathering of some of the most consequential figures in American history. George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and dozens of other delegates arrived in Philadelphia with the intention of revising what existed. They quickly understood that revision was not enough. What was needed was something entirely new. But the task of designing a government that could satisfy large states and small states, commercial interests and agrarian ones, proved far more difficult than many had anticipated. By the middle of the summer, the convention had stalled. Delegates were threatening to walk out. The effort appeared to be collapsing under the weight of its own divisions.It was at that moment that Benjamin Franklin, eighty-one years old and the most senior figure in the room, rose to speak. He did not do so often. But when he did, the room listened. What Franklin offered that day was not a new political proposal or a revised framework for representation. He offered something far more disarming: humility. He reminded the delegates that in the earliest and most dangerous days of the Revolution, they had prayed. They had asked God for help when the odds were against them. And they had seen that help come. Now, in a room full of educated and accomplished men, they had stopped asking. Franklin stated plainly that he had lived long enough to accumulate one conviction above almost all others: God governs in the affairs of men. He pressed the point with an illustration drawn from Scripture, asking whether an empire could rise without divine aid if even a sparrow does not fall outside of God's notice. His conclusion was direct. The delegates were, in his words, groping in the dark, because they had neglected to seek the light of heaven.Franklin moved that the convention begin each session with prayer. What followed is one of the more honest and instructive footnotes of American history. According to James Madison's own records, the motion was never formally adopted. Practical objections were raised: there was no money to pay a clergyman, and some delegates were reluctant to introduce formal religious observance into the proceedings. The motion did not pass. It was not even voted on.And yet something changed. Historians who have examined this period consistently note that the atmosphere of the convention shifted in the days following Franklin's speech. The tone softened. The stalemate began to break. Within weeks, the delegates found their way to what became known as the Great Compromise, the agreement that established a two-house legislature with proportional representation in the House and equal representation in the Senate. It resolved the central conflict that had paralyzed the convention. Four months after the proceedings began, the United States Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787, and a document was produced that has now endured for nearly two and a half centuries.The founding generation held a wide range of theological views, but many shared a common framework: the belief in Providence, the conviction that God superintends human history. Franklin, whatever his personal theology, spoke the language of that conviction. His argument was not merely religious sentiment. It was a practical observation drawn from experience: that human wisdom, however considerable, is not sufficient for the work of building a nation. This is the same truth recorded in Psalm 127, which states that unless the Lord builds the house, the labor of those who build it is in vain. It is echoed in the biblical invitation to ask God for wisdom and to trust him rather than leaning entirely on human understanding.The weight of this history does not stay in the eighteenth century. The episode connects the story of 1787 directly to the present condition of the United States, which faces divisions that carry a recognizable echo. The political and cultural fractures of today are not identical to those of the Constitutional Convention, but the underlying dynamic is familiar: a nation straining under the pressure of its own disagreements, searching for a way forward that human strategy alone cannot fully provide.Against that backdrop, something is already happening. In South Carolina, a statewide evangelistic gathering called the Charleston Crusade is bringing together churches and believers from more than twenty-five cities. In an unusual step, the state legislature formally recognized the event and issued an invitation for citizens to voluntarily rededicate themselves to God through prayer and moral renewal. This is not a government mandate. It is an invitation. And people are responding. Repentance is occurring. Baptisms are taking place. Communities are humbling themselves together.The parallel is intentional and sober. What Benjamin Franklin called the convention toward in 1787 is what this moment calls the American church toward now. Not the anger of political combat, but the posture of prayer. Not confidence in human frameworks, but dependence on the God who, as Franklin put it, governs in the affairs of men. The same God who brought fractured and divided men in Philadelphia to a place of unity sufficient to produce the Constitution is described here as still present, still listening, and still able to move across a nation willing to ask.What is built to last has never been built by human effort alone. That was true in 1787. It remains true today.

Legal News for Thurs 4/9 - DLA Piper Fired Pregnant Attorney, Court Fight over RFK HHS Gutting, and John Deere's Right to Repair Settlement

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 9, 2026 7:03

This Day in Legal History: Civil Rights Act of 1866On April 9, 1866, the United States Congress took a decisive step in shaping post-Civil War legal order by overriding President Andrew Johnson's veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This marked the first time in American history that a major piece of civil rights legislation became law over a presidential veto. The Act established that all persons born in the United States were citizens, directly challenging the legacy of Dred Scott v. Sandford, which had denied citizenship to African Americans. By affirming equal protection under the law, Congress sought to secure basic civil rights for newly freed individuals in the aftermath of the Civil War. The override demonstrated a powerful assertion of legislative authority during the Reconstruction era.The law also reflected growing tensions between Congress and the executive branch over how to rebuild the nation. Johnson had argued that the Act overstepped federal authority, but Congress rejected that view, signaling a shift toward stronger federal protection of individual rights. This moment helped redefine the balance of power within the federal government. It also underscored the role of Congress in enforcing civil rights when the executive resisted such measures. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 would later serve as a foundation for the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which constitutionalized its key principles.In practical terms, the Act granted citizens the right to make contracts, sue in court, and own property regardless of race. Although enforcement remained uneven, the statute represented a critical legal milestone in the transition from slavery to citizenship. It also set an enduring precedent for future civil rights legislation. The events of April 9, 1866, illustrate how constitutional mechanisms like veto overrides can shape the trajectory of American law.A former DLA Piper associate, Anisha Mehta, testified in federal court that she was unexpectedly fired shortly after announcing her pregnancy, despite receiving positive feedback on her work. She told the jury she handled significant responsibilities, including managing trademark portfolios for major corporate clients, and believed her performance was strong. Mehta said her supervisor initially reacted supportively to her pregnancy but soon raised vague performance concerns that she had not previously encountered. She described feeling shocked and distressed when she was terminated during a call with her supervisor and an HR representative in August 2022.Mehta claims the firm violated federal and New York City laws by discriminating against her based on pregnancy, while DLA Piper maintains she was dismissed for poor performance. She testified that she attempted to challenge the termination and requested to go through a formal evaluation process, but was denied. After her firing, she continued working briefly until her system access was cut off when she declined a severance agreement.Following her termination, Mehta applied to hundreds of jobs while pregnant but struggled to find employment. She eventually secured a position at eBay in 2024, earning significantly less than her prior salary. During cross-examination, the defense highlighted several alleged mistakes, including minor errors in client communications and administrative oversights, to support its claim of poor performance. Mehta acknowledged some errors but characterized them as minor and not indicative of overall poor work.At the center of the case is whether Mehta's termination was motivated by unlawful pregnancy discrimination or legitimate performance concerns. The legal issue involves employment protections under anti-discrimination laws, which prohibit adverse actions based on pregnancy while still allowing employers to terminate at-will employees for lawful reasons.Pregnant DLA Piper Atty Recounts Firing: ‘This Feels Wrong' - Law360A federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that a coalition of states can proceed with their lawsuit challenging a major restructuring of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose denied the federal government's motion to dismiss, finding that the states presented plausible claims under both the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. She also criticized the government for repeating jurisdictional arguments that had already been rejected earlier in the case and by the appellate court.The lawsuit, brought by 19 states and Washington, D.C., challenges a sweeping overhaul that aimed to significantly reduce the agency's workforce and restructure key programs. The states argue that the changes disrupted essential public health services, including disease detection, tobacco control efforts, and lead poisoning prevention. They also claim the restructuring caused missed regulatory deadlines, canceled health initiatives, and confusion around federal grants.Judge DuBose had previously issued a preliminary injunction blocking layoffs, noting that the states demonstrated real and ongoing harm. In this latest ruling, she emphasized that courts have the authority to review and stop government actions that may violate constitutional principles, including separation of powers. The states allege the overhaul exceeded executive authority and violated both statutory requirements and constitutional limits on government power.The federal government argued that the states lacked standing, that the court lacked jurisdiction, and that the agency's actions were lawful internal management decisions. However, the judge rejected these arguments, stating they had already been considered and did not undermine the plausibility of the claims. As a result, the case will move forward, allowing the states to continue challenging the legality of the HHS restructuring.HHS Must Face States' Suit Over RFK's ‘Dramatic Overhaul' - Law360John Deere has agreed to a $99 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit brought by farmers who accused the company of restricting competition in the repair market for its equipment. The farmers alleged that John Deere limited access to necessary diagnostic tools and software, effectively forcing customers to rely on authorized dealers for repairs at higher costs. The company denied wrongdoing but said the agreement resolves the dispute and allows it to move forward.The settlement includes both monetary compensation and significant changes to repair access. Farmers who paid for repairs through authorized dealers since 2018 will be eligible for compensation, with total payouts expected to exceed $100 million with interest. Experts estimated that the alleged overcharges ranged much higher, making the recovery a relatively strong percentage compared to typical antitrust settlements.In addition to financial relief, John Deere agreed to provide independent repair shops and equipment owners with access to diagnostic tools and software over a 10-year period. This change is intended to allow farmers to repair their own equipment or use third-party providers, addressing concerns about restricted competition. Plaintiffs described this as a major shift that breaks down the company's control over the repair market.The lawsuit, filed in 2022, claimed that John Deere monopolized the aftermarket for repairs by designing equipment that required proprietary tools. A federal judge previously allowed the case to proceed, finding sufficient evidence of potential market power. While this settlement resolves the private lawsuit, similar claims brought by the Federal Trade Commission remain ongoing.John Deere Inks $99M Deal In Farmers' Right-To-Repair Suit - Law360 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

That Time Sociopaths Tried to Inception a Fake 14th Amendment History into Legal Scholarship

Opening Arguments

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 8, 2026 71:26

VR27 - This week on Vapid Response Wednesday we take a look at the liars, losers, frauds, and suckers angling for a federal bench who have worked up, developed, and sold the “other side” of the Fourteenth Amendment's simple guarantee of birthright citizenship, which failed so badly in front of the Supreme Court last week. What kinds of people are out there trying to say that “anyone born or naturalized in the United States” doesn't mean exactly what it says? We review and discuss how a Fox News talkshow host, a deeply unserious law professor, and the lawyer most responsible for the events of January 6th, 2021 all did their part to radically reshape the US Constitution and who will benefit from it going forward. Watch this episode on YouTube! The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Library of Congress (1868) “The Birthright Con,” Jamelle Bouie, The New York Times (April 1, 2026) (recommended reading!) “If SCOTUS upholds birthright citizenship it will be at its own peril,” Breccan Thies, The Federalist (April 1, 2026) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

united states history fake supreme court fox news scholarships inception library of congress us constitution sociopaths united states constitution 14th amendment fourteenth amendment jamelle bouie legal scholarship new york times april

Legal News for Weds 4/8 - Trump DOJ Influence, Yale Loses Top Law School Spot, AI Startups Descend on Law Schools

donald trump game of thrones twenty amendment threatens strait hormuz war crimes united states constitution mad king

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 8, 2026 5:48

This Day in Legal History: Seventeenth Amendment RatifiedOn April 8, 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution became part of the Constitution after receiving the necessary number of state ratifications. This amendment fundamentally changed the method of selecting U.S. senators, shifting the power from state legislatures directly to voters. Prior to its adoption, senators were chosen by state lawmakers, a process that had increasingly drawn criticism for corruption and political deadlock. Reformers argued that legislative selection allowed special interests to exert undue influence over Senate seats. The amendment emerged during the Progressive Era, a period marked by widespread efforts to make government more democratic and transparent. By mandating direct elections, it aimed to increase accountability and restore public trust in the federal government. The change also reduced the frequency of vacancies caused by legislative gridlock in the states. Supporters viewed the amendment as a necessary correction to a system that had strayed from democratic principles. Critics, however, warned that it weakened the role of states within the federal structure. The ratification process itself reflected strong public pressure for reform across many states. Over time, the amendment reshaped the political dynamics of the Senate, making senators more responsive to public opinion. It also aligned the Senate more closely with the House of Representatives in terms of democratic legitimacy. Today, the Seventeenth Amendment remains a cornerstone of how Americans participate in federal elections, illustrating the enduring impact of Progressive Era reforms.Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said that Donald Trump has both the right and responsibility to influence federal investigations, including those involving people Trump views as adversaries. Speaking publicly for the first time since taking the role, Blanche rejected claims that the Justice Department was improperly targeting Trump's opponents. He argued that a president is expected to guide national priorities, even when that includes investigations tied to personal or political conflicts.The Justice Department has recently pursued multiple investigations involving individuals connected to past inquiries into Trump, as well as political opponents and donors. Some of these efforts have faced resistance in court, with judges and grand juries limiting or dismissing certain cases. Blanche pointed to past prosecutions against Trump as justification, saying the president is seeking accountability for what he views as misuse of the legal system.Blanche's appointment followed Trump's firing of former Attorney General Pam Bondi, reportedly due to frustration over the pace and results of investigations. Blanche did not say whether he wants to remain in the role permanently, emphasizing that the decision rests with Trump. He also indicated he would step aside if asked, expressing loyalty to the president.Acting DOJ chief Blanche says Trump has ‘right' to influence investigations | ReutersYale Law School lost its long-held No. 1 position in the latest U.S. News & World Report law school rankings, marking the first time in 36 years it has not topped the list. Stanford Law School now holds the sole No. 1 spot, while Yale is tied for second with University of Chicago Law School. A slight drop in Yale's employment rate for graduates appears to have contributed to the shift, though other metrics like bar passage and LSAT scores remained stable.The rankings also saw broader changes among the traditionally top 14 law schools, known as the “T-14.” University of California, Berkeley School of Law and Georgetown University Law Center both fell out of that group, while Cornell Law School and Vanderbilt University Law School moved up in the rankings. Other schools, including University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and University of Virginia School of Law, saw smaller gains, while Harvard Law School remained steady.These fluctuations reflect changes in the ranking methodology introduced in recent years after several top schools, including Yale and Berkeley, criticized the system. The updated approach relies more heavily on data reported to the American Bar Association, making small differences in employment and bar passage rates more influential.Yale loses longtime No. 1 spot on latest US law school ranking | ReutersAI startups are increasingly targeting law students as part of a broader effort to capture the legal services market. Companies like Harvey AI and Legora are offering free access and training at top law schools, hoping students will continue using their tools once they enter law firms and corporate legal roles. This strategy comes as the legal AI sector expands rapidly, fueled by advances in generative AI since the rise of ChatGPT.These startups compete with established providers like LexisNexis and Westlaw, which have long dominated legal research and are now integrating AI into their platforms. While legacy companies rely on proprietary legal databases, newer entrants build tools on large language models and focus on tasks like drafting, research, and litigation preparation. Some partnerships have even emerged between startups and traditional providers to combine strengths.Law students are already using these tools for exam preparation, memo writing, and simulating legal arguments. Schools and companies also view this exposure as a way to teach both the benefits and risks of AI, including issues like inaccurate or “hallucinated” outputs. The broader goal is to create familiarity early, making future lawyers more likely to adopt these tools in practice.Other legal tech companies, including Clio and Spellbook, are pursuing similar partnerships, expanding access across hundreds of law schools. As competition grows, early access and training are becoming key battlegrounds for shaping the next generation of legal professionals.AI startups court law students in fight for lawyer market | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Mad King Threatens War Crimes

Centered From Reality

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 7, 2026 12:53

In this episode, Alex reacts to Donald Trump's Easter rant referencing the Strait of Hormuz, unpacking the geopolitical implications and the tone of his remarks. Alex draws comparisons to Game of Thrones, suggesting Trump's rhetoric echoes the instability of a “mad king” archetype, fueling concern among critics. The episode also explores growing public chatter around the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution as a framework for addressing presidential fitness. Overall, Alex frames the moment as a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over leadership, rhetoric, and constitutional safeguards.

Road Warrior Radio with Chris Hinkley, April 7, 2026 Hour 1

Road Warrior Radio with Chris Hinkley

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 7, 2026 60:01

So much of what is happening these days seems utterly nonsensical, from Trump’s war crime and profanity-laced Easter rant, to the whipsaw on Iran. So, is it simply Occam’s razor, or is there more going on here than we’re led to believe? Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it. — President Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People (1913) The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson — and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W. W. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson’s fight with the Bank of the United States — only on a far bigger and broader basis. — President Franklin D. Roosevelt, letter to Col. Edward Mandell House (21 November 1933); as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), pg. 373 I would suggest nothing we’re seeing, including (especially) the seemingly nonsensical, is ‘accidental’ or coincidental. It is PSYOP/PSWAR, a potent toxic mixture of POSIWID and chaos theory designed and intended to rapidly produce maximum chaos resulting in a ‘Clash of Civilizations‘ and The End of History and the Last Man, to ultimately bring about a ‘Novus Ordo Seclorum’1234 a la Genesis 11 → Genesis 6 → culminating in Psalm 2 → Revelation 19. Links Videos / Clips [x] = Played Trump says Americans against war with Iran are ‘foolish’ [x] 2:00–5:15 [x] 8:33–9:12 ‘Apparently I'm an idiot': Three-time Trump voter in Pennsylvania sounds off on Iran war [x] 3:15–3:45 Lucifer Has a NASA Moon Mission named Artemis. Here’s What They’re Hiding. Headlines [x] = Mentioned / Discussed Trump: “A Whole Civilization with Die Tonight” If President Trump carries out his threat to kill the entire civilization of Iran, he will join the ranks of Cato the Elder, Genghis Khan, Cortez, and other villains in history who chose the policy of destroying an entire civilization. Needless to say, this is not what Washington, Madison, Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin had in mind when they founded the US Constitutional Republic. Members of the US government—as well as We the People—should think about the reflections of multiple Roman authors who regarded the total annihilation of Carthage as an outrage and repudiation of Rome's republican values and virtues. In the Aeneid, Virgil frames the Punic Wars as a fateful conflict initiated by the Punic Queen Dido’s curse on Aeneas’s descendants. I interpret this as Virgil's way of condemning the “unspeakable” destruction of Carthage. The American people should be aware of the fact that if our US government does indeed annihilate the Iranian nation forever, it will certainly have a vast array of terrible consequences for us and for all of mankind. Among other disasters, it is likely that millions of Iranians will be forced to flee to other lands, including those of Europe. Many young men who see their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters suffer will be animated with a burning desire for revenge. I anticipate great horrors ahead for all of us. Trump's F-Bomb on Iran Joins America's Rollicking History of Presidential Profanity White House Easter egg roll Monday: How to watch live White House Easter Egg Roll honors America’s egg farmers, says President Trump | Fox News [x] Pentagon's new plans in Iran give Trump a way out of war crime accusations – POLITICO [x] Trump threatens to jail journalist who reported on crew's rescue in Iran if they don't reveal source – POLITICO [x] Iran Says US Airman Rescue May Have Been Cover to ‘Steal Enriched Uranium' Artemis ‘Launch’ April Fool’s Day / Easter – Amazing ‘Coincidence’ [x] [Published April Fool's Day! Same as Artemis II 'launch'] Did Van Allen Belts Stop the Moon Landings? Myth vs Fact – FreeAstroScience [x] Artemis II live updates: Nasa astronauts returning to Earth after seeing parts of Moon ‘no human has ever seen' | The Independent Artemis – Wikipedia “Isis, Astarte, Diana, Hecate, Demeter, Kali, Innana…” & Asteroids | Fixed Stars Are the goddesses Ashteroth, Remphan, Isis, Ishtar, Belit, Anahita, Artemis, and Diana the same goddess with different names? – Quora Pan: The Complete Guide to the Greek God of Nature (2023) The Rest [x] = Mentioned / Discussed [x] Deutsche Bank – Wikipedia [x] Deutsche Bank [00:27, 17 May 2024 revision] – Wikipedia [x] Trump family faces high-stakes testimony in Manhattan fraud trial [x] At Trump Org fraud trial, ex-banker recalls ‘hunting' for Trump's business | Courthouse News Service [x] Finra Suspends Trump's Former Personal Banker – AdvisorHub [x] Rosemary Vrablic – Wikipedia [x] Jared Kushner – Wikipedia The thinly sourced theories about Trump's loans and Justice Kennedy's son (Jul 12, 2018) by Salvador Rizzo | The Washington Post [x] Why Trump Is Mentally Unfit to Be President: Pathology of Narcissism (Apr 5, 2017) by Alex Morris | Rolling Stone [x] Taibbi on the Madness of Donald Trump (Sep 19, 2017) by Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone [x] Donald Trump Is About to Be a Loser, His Lawyers Say (Mar 22, 2023) by Asawin Suebsaeng and Adam Rawnsley | Rolling Stone [x] Donald Trump, Trickster God (Mar 4, 2016) by Corey Pein | The Baffler [x] Kushner and Witkoff – by esc [x] IMEC: Trump's War With Iran Is About Global Trade. Period. [x] What The Iran Attack Is Really All About – Road Warrior Radio [x] Road Warrior Radio with Chris Hinkley, March 10, 2026 Hour 1 – Republic Broadcasting Network [x] Road Warrior Radio with Chris Hinkley, March 10, 2026 Hour 2 – Republic Broadcasting Network On This Day Events April 2026 Calendar of Public Holidays | Office Holidays Holidays and Observances in the United States in 2026 What day is it today? Important events every day ad-free | United States OTD On This Day – What Happened on April 7 Today in History: April 7, Rwandan genocide begins | AP News What Happened on April 7 – On This Day What Happened on April 7 | HISTORY April 7 – Wikipedia What Happened On April 7 In History? 07 | April | 2020 | Executed Today Holidays National Beer Day (United States) Historical Events 2022 – The Senate confirmed Ketanji Brown Jackson – “Pizzagate” judge who was unable to define ‘woman' – to the Supreme Court, securing her place as the court's first Black female justice. 2021 – COVID-19 shenanigans: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announces that the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant has become the dominant strain of COVID-19 in the United States. 2020 – COVID-19 shenanigans: China ends its lockdown in Wuhan. 2020 – COVID-19 shenanigans: Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly resigns for his handling of the COVID-19 ‘pandemic’ on USS Theodore Roosevelt and the dismissal of Brett Crozier. 1994 – A day after the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi died in a missile attack on their aircraft, the moderate Hutu prime minister of Rwanda, Agathe Uwilingiyimana, and her husband were killed by Rwandan soldiers; in the 100 days that followed, Hutu extremists slaughtered hundreds of thousands of minority Tutsi and Hutu moderates. 1990 – John Poindexter is convicted for his role in the Iran–Contra affair. In 1991 the convictions are reversed on appeal. 1984 – The Census Bureau reported that Los Angeles had overtaken Chicago as the nation's “second city” in terms of population. 1980 – During the Iran hostage crisis, the United States severs relations with Iran. 1970 – John Wayne wins Best Actor Oscar: The legendary actor John Wayne wins his first—and only—acting Academy Award, for his star turn in the director Henry Hathaway's Western True Grit. Known for his tough, rugged, uniquely American screen persona, Wayne appeared in some 150 movies over the course of his long and storied career. 1969 – The internet is born: With the publication of RFC 1, The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) awarded a contract to build a precursor of today’s world wide web to BBN Technologies. The date is widely considered as the internet’s symbolic birthday. 1968 – Riots continue in over 100 US cities following the Apr 4 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. 1966 – The U.S. Navy recovered a hydrogen bomb that the U.S. Air Force had lost in the Mediterranean Sea off Spain following a B-52 crash. 1964 – IBM announces the System/360. 1963 – Tito is made president of Yugoslavia for life: A new Yugoslav constitution proclaims Tito the president for life of the newly named Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Formerly known as Josip Broz, Tito was born to a large peasant family in Croatia in 1892. 1961 – JFK lobbies Congress to help save historic sites in Egypt: President John F. Kennedy sends a letter to Congress in which he recommends the U.S. participate in an international campaign to preserve ancient temples and historic monuments in the Nile Valley of Egypt. The campaign, initiated by UNESCO, was designed to save sites threatened by the construction of the Aswan High Dam. 1954 – Domino Theory: President Dwight D. Eisenhower coined one of the most famous Cold War phrases, held a news conference in which he outlined the concept of the “domino theory” as he spoke of the importance of containing the spread of communism in Indochina, saying, “You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly.” 1953 – Sweden's Dag Hammarskjöld elected U.N. head: By a vote of 57 to 1, Dag Hammarskjöld is elected secretary-general of the United Nations. The son of Hjalmar Hammarskjöld, a former prime minister of Sweden, Dag joined Sweden's foreign ministry in 1947, and in 1951 formally entered the cabinet as deputy foreign minister. 1950 – President Truman receives NSC-68 report, calling for “containing” Soviet expansion: President Harry S. Truman receives National Security Council Paper Number 68 (NSC-68). The report was a group effort, created with input from the Defense Department, the State Department, the CIA, and other interested agencies; NSC-68 formed the basis for America's Cold War policy for the next two decades. 1949 – Tony-winning musical South Pacific opens on Broadway: The Rodgers and Hammerstein musical South Pacific opens at the Majestic Theatre on Broadway in New York City. The romantic musical about World War II, which touches on controversial racial themes, goes on to run for almost five years, becoming one of the most popular musicals of the 1950s. 1948 – World Health Organization established: The WHO, a privately funded United Nations agency front organization, ostensibly concerned with fighting disease and epidemics worldwide, building up national health services, and improving health education in its 194 member states. 1945 – World War II: The Imperial Japanese Navy battleship Yamato, one of the two largest ever constructed, is sunk by United States Navy aircraft during Operation Ten-Go, in Japan's first major counteroffensive in the struggle for Okinawa. Weighing 72,800 tons and outfitted with nine 18.1-inch guns, the battleship Yamato was Japan's only hope of destroying the Allied fleet off the coast of Okinawa. 1943 – The National Football League makes helmets mandatory. 1943 – Holocaust in Ukraine: In Terebovlia, Germans order 1,100 Jews to undress and march through the city to the nearby village of Plebanivka, where they are shot and buried in ditches. 1940 – Tuskegee Institute founder Booker T. Washington becomes the first Black American to be honored with a postage stamp. It will take nearly four decades for a Black woman to receive a similar honor: Harriet Tubman in 1978. 1939 – Benito Mussolini invades Albania, declares an Italian protectorate over Albania and forces King Zog I into exile. 1933 – National Beer Day: Prohibition in the United States is repealed for beer of no more than 3.2% alcohol by weight, eight months before the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Now celebrated as National Beer Day in the United States.) 1927 – First long-distance television transmission: an image of Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover is sent from Washington, D.C. to NYC by AT&T 1922 – Teapot Dome Scandal: Interior Secretary Albert B. Fall signed a secret deal to lease U.S. Navy petroleum reserves in Wyoming and California to his friends, oilmen Harry F. Sinclair and Edward L. Doheny, in exchange for cash gifts; Fall would eventually be sentenced to prison on bribery and conspiracy charges in what became known as the Teapot Dome Scandal. 1868 – Thomas D’Arcy McGee, one of the Canadian Fathers of Confederation is assassinated by the Irish, in one of the few Canadian political assassinations, and the only one of a federal politician. 1862 – American Civil War: Battle of Shiloh concludes: Two days of heavy fighting conclude near Pittsburgh Landing in western Tennessee. Union forces led by Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and Maj. Gen. Don Carlos Buell are victorious after the Confederate attack stalled on April 6, and fresh Yankee troops drove the Confederates from the field on April 7. 1832 – The Man Who Sold His Wife: Most modern readers believe Thomas Hardy was plunging into deep fiction when he wrote about a man selling his wife. He wasn’t. Nagging wives needed to be careful in 19th Century England, for, as Hardy recounted in The Mayor of Casterbridge, her husband might put her up for sale. That's just what happened on this day to Mary Thompson, according to a local newspaper report. 1829 – Joseph Smith, Jr., founder of the Latter Day Saint cult, commences translation of the Book of Mormon, with Oliver Cowdery as his scribe. 1827 – First friction match sold: English chemist John Walker produced and sold the first operable matches. They were soon banned in France and Germany because burning fragments would sometimes fall to the floor and start fires. 1805 – German composer Ludwig van Beethoven premieres his Third Symphony, at the Theater an der Wien in Vienna 1805 – Lewis and Clark depart Fort Mandan: After a long winter, the Lewis and Clark expedition departs its camp among the Mandan tribe and resumes its journey West. The Corps of Discovery had begun its voyage the previous spring, and it arrived at the large Mandan and Minnetaree villages along the upper Missouri River (north of present-day Bismarck, North Dakota) in late October. 1798 – The Mississippi Territory is organized from disputed territory claimed by both the United States and the Spanish Empire. It is expanded in 1804 and again in 1812. 1788 – American Pioneers to the Northwest Territory arrive at the confluence of the Ohio and Muskingum rivers, establishing Marietta, Ohio, as the first permanent American settlement of the new United States in the Northwest Territory, and opening the westward expansion of the new country. 1776 – Captain John Barry and the USS Lexington captures the Edward. 1739 – Dick Turpin is executed in England for horse stealing 1724 – Johann Sebastian Bach’s St. John Passion premiered: St. John’s Passion premieres on Good Friday at St. Nicholas Church in Leipzig, Electorate of Saxony (now Germany). The sacred oratorio is the oldest extant Passion by the German composer. The highly popular work is a dramatization of the final days of Jesus Christ, according to the Gospel of John. 1521 – Ferdinand Magellan arrives at Cebu. 529 – First draft of Corpus Juris Civilis or the Justinian Code (a fundamental work in jurisprudence) is issued by Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian I 451 – Attila the Hun captures Metz in France, killing most of its inhabitants and burning the town. 30 – Scholars estimate for the crucifixion of Jesus by Roman troops at the behest of Jewish leadership (Caiaphas the high priest, chief priests, scribes, elders) on Golgotha outside Jerusalem [or April 3] Births 1964 – Russell Crowe, New Zealand/Australian actor, singer, producer 1954 – Jackie Chan, Hong Kong-born actor and director noted for acrobatic stunt work in hits like “The Young Master” and the “Rush Hour” series. 1939 – Francis Ford Coppola, American director, producer, screenwriter 1938 – Jerry Brown, American lawyer and politician, 34th and 39th Governor of California 1931 – Daniel Ellsberg, American activist and author (died 2023) 1928 – James Garner, American actor, singer, and producer (died 2014) 1920 – Ravi Shankar, Indian/American sitar player, composer (died 2012) 1915 – Billie Holiday, American Jazz singer-songwriter, actress whose soulful intensity earned her the nickname “Lady Day.” Signature hits like “Strange Fruit” and “God Bless the Child.” (died 1959) 1897 – Walter Winchell, American journalist and radio host (died 1972) 1893 – Allen Dulles, American lawyer and diplomat, 5th Director of Central Intelligence (died 1969) 1890 – Marjory Stoneman Douglas, journalist, conservationist, activist best known for her advocacy for the preservation of Florida’s Everglades region. (died 1998) 1860 – Will Keith Kellogg, American businessman, ardent eugenicist, Seventh-day Adventist cult member, founded the Kellogg Company (died 1951) 1772 – Charles Fourier, French philosopher, communist (died 1837) 1770 – William Wordsworth, English poet (died 1850) Deaths 1947 – Henry Ford, American businessman, founded the Ford Motor Company (born 1863) 1928 – Alexander Bogdanov, Russian physician, philosopher, and author (born 1873) 1891 – P. T. Barnum, American businessman, co-founded Ringling Bros., Barnum & Bailey Circus (born 1810) 1804 – Toussaint Louverture, Haitian general (born 1743) 1733 – Samuel Partridge, very stupid and unconcern'd From the New England Weekly Journal, July 23, 1733 — a three-month-old news item (part of a roundup of dated minor dispatches) that had to cross the Atlantic from the mother country. Ipswich, April 7. Last Saturday Samuel Partridge was executed here, for robbing Mr. Barwell of Brockley in this City, of 31l, 10s., a Horse, and other Things, in Company with another Person not yet taken. He said he was born at Debden in Suffolk, that he was about 22 years of Age, and was brought up in Husbandry; he appeared to be very illiterate, for he could neither read nor write, and was entirely ignorant of the first Principles of Christianity. He denied the Fact for which he suffered, and said he was perswaded to own the Robbery by a Soldier that was in Halsted Bridewell with him, he telling him, that if he confessed the Fact he would come off very well; and that he advised him to say, that he had made use of a Bolt instead of a Pistol, and that he had hid it in a certain Place, where it was found according to his Direction. At the Place of Execution he seemed very stupid and unconcern'd; only, as directed, he called on God for Mercy when he was turned off. Elon Musk Tweets ‘Novus Ordo Seclorum' After Donald Trump Wins Reelection. MAGA Is The Pied Piper – winepressnews.com ↩ Novus Ordo Seclorum – History of Motto on Great Seal’s Unfinished Pyramid ↩ Novus ordo seclorum – Wikipedia ↩ Annuit cœptis – Wikipedia ↩

covid-19 united states america god jesus christ american director california history black new york city donald trump chicago europe english earth china los angeles washington france england japan fall passion americans child french germany canadian west nature christianity government ohio system german russian moon italian spain tennessee pennsylvania revelation psalm jewish theater irish rome madness congress bank iran nasa world war ii horses jerusalem myth launch mayors supreme court broadway hong kong jews union sweden discovery atlantic manhattan principles navy martin luther king jr senate cia period soldiers good friday wikipedia governor academy awards alpha adams air force united nations prevention direction secretary losers twenty clash john f kennedy ibm holocaust cold war wyoming col hiding iranians pentagon elder april fools administration execution deaths centers calendar soviet needless amendment world health organization north dakota riots gospel of john rwanda hardy ludwig van beethoven croatia black americans corps wuhan signature haitian unesco motto artemis leipzig tito state department disease control wien politico seventh hun robberies confederate ludwig franklin delano roosevelt sars cov god bless scholars bolt weighing yankee coincidence francis ford coppola henry ford albania jackie chan john wayne virgil russell crowe benito mussolini truman national football league maj allied harriet tubman south pacific deutsche bank okinawa cortez moon landing book of mormon pearce yugoslavia united states navy billie holiday emancipation ketanji brown jackson rush hour suffolk artemis ii metz ford motor company dag pistol ipswich barnum f bomb andrew jackson latter day saints indian americans pizzagate jared kushner cato burundi bismarck everglades attila births joseph smith genghis khan woodrow wilson golgotha mediterranean sea harry s truman civilizations census bureau rwandan carthage kushner confederation last man defense department johann sebastian bach caiaphas road warrior united states constitution john walker ishtar greek gods nagging nsc hammerstein booker t washington occam northwest territories adventist jerry brown aeneas ulysses grant iran contra strange fruit missouri river james garner hecate rfc tutsi mandan thomas hardy cebu electorate william wordsworth yamato ravi shankar daniel ellsberg novus saxony hinkley ringling bros central intelligence thomas d aeneid husbandry indochina yugoslav hutu national beer day justice kennedy lady day taibbi spanish empire acting secretary anahita ferdinand magellan toussaint louverture astarte century england kellogg company punic wars dag hammarskj allen dulles uss theodore roosevelt marjory stoneman douglas observances bailey circus tuskegee institute dick turpin great seal oliver cowdery die tonight nile valley walter winchell american jazz majestic theatre innana uss lexington brockley henry hathaway third symphony mary thompson belit barwell asawin suebsaeng muskingum alexander bogdanov new zealand australian republic broadcasting network josip broz will keith kellogg western true grit

Legal News for Weds 4/1 - Judge Halts WH Ballroom, SCOTUS Weighs Birthright Citizenship, Court Rejects IRS Church Endorsement Deal

Parsing Immigration Policy

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 1, 2026 6:10

This Day in Legal History: Constitutional Reform Act of 2005On April 1, 2005, a major shift in the structure of the United Kingdom's legal system began with the passage of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. This legislation fundamentally reshaped the relationship between the judiciary and the other branches of government. Before the Act, the highest court functions were carried out by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, blending judicial and legislative roles in a way that raised concerns about separation of powers. The reform sought to modernize the constitution by clearly distinguishing judicial authority from Parliament. It also redefined the role of the Lord Chancellor, stripping away many of that office's judicial and legislative functions to reduce institutional overlap.One of the most important outcomes of the Act was the creation of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which would eventually take over as the country's highest appellate court. Although the Court did not begin hearing cases until 2009, the legal foundation for its existence was firmly established on this date. The reform also created a new Judicial Appointments Commission, designed to make the process of selecting judges more transparent and independent from political influence. By doing so, the Act aimed to strengthen public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.The legislation reflected broader constitutional trends toward accountability and institutional clarity in democratic systems. It also aligned the UK more closely with other nations that maintain a clear separation between judicial and legislative bodies. Critics at the time questioned whether the changes were necessary in a system that had long functioned without a formal written constitution. Supporters, however, argued that the reforms were overdue and essential for maintaining the rule of law in a modern state. Over time, the changes introduced by the Act have become a defining feature of the UK's constitutional framework, shaping how justice is administered at the highest level.A federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked plans by Donald Trump to build a large ballroom on the White House grounds, granting a preliminary injunction requested by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Judge Richard J. Leon concluded that the nonprofit is likely to succeed on its claim that the administration acted beyond its legal authority. He emphasized that Congress had not approved the project and that no statute gives the president power to construct new buildings on White House grounds without authorization. The court relied in part on the Constitution's Property Clause, which gives Congress control over federal land. The judge rejected the administration's argument that existing statutes or agencies, such as the National Park Service, provided sufficient authority. He also criticized the government for shifting explanations about which entity was responsible for the project.The lawsuit stems from the administration's decision to demolish the historic East Wing and move forward with construction without completing required reviews. These include environmental assessments, planning approvals, and congressional authorization. The court found that the potential harm to the White House's historical and cultural value justified immediate intervention. The judge also dismissed claims that delaying construction would create national security risks, calling those arguments unpersuasive. Although the project was described as privately funded, the court said that funding sources do not override statutory limits. As a result, construction must stop unless Congress explicitly approves the project. The judge temporarily paused enforcement of the injunction to allow the government time to appeal.‘Construction Has To Stop!': Judge Blocks Trump's Ballroom - Law360Judge orders Trump to halt $400 million White House ballroom project, for now | ReutersThe Supreme Court of the United States is considering whether Donald Trump can restrict birthright citizenship through an executive order, a move that could significantly change how citizenship is granted in the United States. The policy would deny citizenship to children born on U.S. soil if their parents are neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents. Lower courts blocked the order, finding it likely violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and existing federal law. The justices are now reviewing that decision on appeal, with a ruling expected later this year.At the center of the dispute is the meaning of the Citizenship Clause, which has long been interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly all people born in the United States. The Trump administration argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” excludes children of undocumented immigrants or those in the country temporarily. Opponents contend this interpretation contradicts over a century of legal precedent, including United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship for children of foreign nationals.The case could have far-reaching consequences, potentially affecting hundreds of thousands of births each year and requiring families to prove a child's eligibility for citizenship. It also reflects broader debates over immigration policy and constitutional interpretation. The Supreme Court's decision will determine whether the longstanding understanding of birthright citizenship remains intact or is significantly narrowed.US Supreme Court considers Trump's effort to limit birthright citizenship | ReutersA federal judge refused to approve a proposed agreement that would have allowed churches to endorse political candidates without losing their tax-exempt status. Judge J. Campbell Barker ruled that he did not have jurisdiction to sign off on the deal between the Internal Revenue Service and several religious groups. The agreement sought to carve out an exception to the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits nonprofits from supporting political candidates.The judge based his decision on the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, a law that generally prevents courts from interfering with tax collection. He reasoned that approving the agreement would effectively limit how much tax the government could collect, placing the case outside the court's authority. The proposed settlement had been designed to resolve a lawsuit brought by religious broadcasters and churches challenging the Johnson Amendment.Supporters of the ruling argued it preserves the long-standing separation between political campaigning and tax-exempt religious activity. Opponents, including the groups that brought the lawsuit, said they plan to appeal and believe an exception should be allowed for religious speech. The dispute reflects a broader legal and political debate over the balance between free exercise of religion and restrictions tied to nonprofit tax benefits.US judge rejects IRS pact allowing churches to endorse political candidates | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Supreme Court to Hear Major Birthright Citizenship Case

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 26, 2026 44:44

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear one of the most significant immigration cases in decades, a new podcast from the Center for Immigration Studies explores who is entitled to American citizenship at birth and which branch of government has the authority to define it.On April 1, the Court will hear Trump v. Barbara, a case challenging Executive Order 14160, which seeks to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily.In this episode, Hans von Spakovsky, Legal Fellow at Advancing American Freedom, and Andrew Arthur, the Center's Fellow in Law and Policy, examine the central constitutional question: what does the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution actually mean?They argue that the framers intended citizenship to depend on political allegiance, not simply place of birth, pointing to early interpretations and contrasting them with the broader reading adopted in the late nineteenth century in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.The Court could affirm current interpretation of doctrine, defer to executive interpretation, or return the issue to Congress.“This will be one of the most consequential decisions in years,” von Spakovsky notes.In the closing commentary, Mark Krikorian, executive director and podcast host, highlights a separate upcoming Supreme Court case involving Temporary Protected Status (TPS), where the statute states clearly that there is no judicial review of TPS designations. What are the limits to judicial review and will the judiciary allow the executive to carry out immigration law as written by Congress?HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsHans von Spakovsky is a Legal Fellow at Advancing American Freedom. Andrew Arthur is a Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedBirthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th AmendmentThe Best Aspects of the ‘Birthright Citizenship' DebateBirths to Illegal Immigrants and Long-Term Temporary VisitorsThe Supreme Court Takes Up a Vital, Slam-Dunk Immigration Case [TPS]Intro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Unbiased University: Everything You Need to Know About the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Amendments to the United States Constitution

united states university rights constitution amendment seventh ninth eighth amendments united states constitution unbiased

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 5, 2026 48:37

UNBIASED University is in session! While Jordan is on maternity leave, she's breaking down the most critical aspects of the United States government — the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the three branches of the federal government, presidential elections, the evolution of political parties, and more. In this episode of UNBIASED Politics, we continue the UNBIASED University series by examining the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. These amendments focus on the rights of individuals within the legal system and the balance of power between the federal government, the states, and the people. What protections exist in civil trials, what limits does the Constitution place on punishments, and how does the Constitution address rights that are not specifically listed? We break down the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases, the prohibition against excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment, the recognition that unenumerated rights may still exist, and the principle that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. This episode provides a clear, nonpartisan overview of how these often less-discussed amendments continue to shape constitutional law and federalism today. Intro (0:00) 7th Amendment (3:48) 8th Amendment (11:37) 9th Amendment (~28:41) 10th Amendment (~35:33) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠FREE NEWSLETTER⁠. ⁠Watch⁠ this episode on YouTube. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Constitution 101: The Progressive Rejection of the Founding

Hillsdale College Podcast Network Superfeed

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 4, 2026 42:42

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss the progressive view of government before introducing Ronald J. Pestritto. The United States Constitution was designed to secure the natural rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Signed by Constitutional Convention delegates on September 17, 1787—Constitution Day—it was ratified by the American people and remains the most enduring and successful constitution in history. In this twelve-lecture course, students will examine the political theory of the American Founding and subsequent challenges to that theory throughout American history. Topics covered in this course include: the natural rights theory of the Founding, the meaning of the Declaration and the Constitution, the crisis of the Civil War, the Progressive rejection of the Founding, and the nature and form of modern liberalism. Progressives rejected the timeless principles of the American Founding and instead argued that the ends of government ought to be relative to historical circumstances. They viewed the Constitution as a “living” document, which could be transformed to meet the exigencies of the modern age.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

american civil war rejection constitution progressive declaration signed founding declaration of independence progressives united states constitution constitutional convention constitution day american founding ronald j pestritto

Constitution 101: The Progressive Rejection of the Founding

The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 4, 2026 42:42

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss the progressive view of government before introducing Ronald J. Pestritto. The United States Constitution was designed to secure the natural rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Signed by Constitutional Convention delegates on September 17, 1787—Constitution Day—it was ratified by the American people and remains the most enduring and successful constitution in history. In this twelve-lecture course, students will examine the political theory of the American Founding and subsequent challenges to that theory throughout American history. Topics covered in this course include: the natural rights theory of the Founding, the meaning of the Declaration and the Constitution, the crisis of the Civil War, the Progressive rejection of the Founding, and the nature and form of modern liberalism. Progressives rejected the timeless principles of the American Founding and instead argued that the ends of government ought to be relative to historical circumstances. They viewed the Constitution as a “living” document, which could be transformed to meet the exigencies of the modern age.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

american civil war rejection constitution progressive declaration signed founding declaration of independence progressives united states constitution constitutional convention constitution day american founding ronald j pestritto

Unbiased University: Everything You Need to Know About the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments to the United States Constitution

donald trump resolutions congress iran middle east democrats democratic pursuing congressional united states constitution tim kaine war powers resolution

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 2, 2026 54:36

UNBIASED University is in session! While Jordan is on maternity leave, she's breaking down the most critical aspects of the United States government — the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the three branches of the federal government, presidential elections, the evolution of political parties, and more. In this episode of UNBIASED Politics, we continue the UNBIASED University series by breaking down the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the amendments that establish many of the core protections individuals have within the criminal justice system. What limits does the Constitution place on government searches and seizures, what rights protect individuals during questioning and prosecution, and what guarantees ensure a fair trial? We discuss the protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right against self-incrimination, the guarantees of due process, and the rights to legal counsel, a speedy and public trial, and an impartial jury. Through historical context and legal principles, this episode provides a clear, nonpartisan overview of the constitutional safeguards designed to balance law enforcement power with individual rights. Intro (0:00) 4th Amendment (4:46) 5th Amendment (~26:59) 6th Amendment (~44:15) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠FREE NEWSLETTER⁠. ⁠Watch⁠ this episode on YouTube. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

united states university rights constitution amendment amendments united states constitution unbiased sixth amendments

Why Tim Kaine is pursuing a war powers resolution – again

Consider This from NPR

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 26, 2026 8:56

With the U.S. military amassing in the Middle East ahead of possible strikes in Iran, a Democratic lawmaker explains his effort to limit the president.The United States Constitution empowers Congress, not the president, to declare war.That hasn't stopped plenty of presidents from commanding military combat.It didn't stop President Trump from ordering airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites last year – and building up the U.S. military in the Middle East while he mulls further action this year.So far in this Trump administration, efforts to reclaim that Congressional authority have failed.Sen. Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, explains why he is still pursuing a war powers resolution.For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Email us at considerthis@npr.org.This episode was produced by Alejandra Marquez Janse and Karen Zamora, with audio engineering by Ted Mebane. It was edited by Patrick Jarenwattananon and Courtney Dorning. Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun.To manage podcast ad preferences, review the links below:See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Unbiased University: Everything You Need to Know About the First, Second, and Third Amendments to the United States Constitution

Hillsdale College Podcast Network Superfeed

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 26, 2026 48:04

UNBIASED University is officially in session! While Jordan is on maternity leave, she's breaking down the most critical aspects of the United States government — the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the three branches of the federal government, presidential elections, the evolution of political parties, and more. In this episode of UNBIASED Politics, we continue the UNBIASED University series by breaking down the First, Second, and Third Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. What protections do these amendments actually guarantee, and how have their meanings evolved over time? We explain the freedoms of speech, religion, the press, assembly, and petition, the right to keep and bear arms, and the historical context behind the rarely discussed Third Amendment's protection against the forced quartering of soldiers. Along the way, we explore the historical origins of these rights, the major Supreme Court decisions that have shaped how they are interpreted today, and the ongoing legal and political debates surrounding them. Whether you're looking to better understand your constitutional freedoms or simply want a clear, nonpartisan refresher on the Bill of Rights, this episode provides a straightforward guide to the first three amendments. SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠FREE NEWSLETTER⁠. ⁠Watch⁠ this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on ⁠Instagram⁠ and ⁠TikTok⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

united states university supreme court rights constitution amendments united states constitution unbiased first second third amendment

Constitution 101: Secession and Civil War

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 25, 2026 38:02

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss executive authority and secession before introducing Kevin Portteus. The United States Constitution was designed to secure the natural rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Signed by Constitutional Convention delegates on September 17, 1787—Constitution Day—it was ratified by the American people and remains the most enduring and successful constitution in history. In this twelve-lecture course, students will examine the political theory of the American Founding and subsequent challenges to that theory throughout American history. Topics covered in this course include: the natural rights theory of the Founding, the meaning of the Declaration and the Constitution, the crisis of the Civil War, the Progressive rejection of the Founding, and the nature and form of modern liberalism. The South’s justification for secession was based on an erroneous reading of the Constitution. Whereas the South claimed a legal right to secede, Lincoln opposed what he called an illegal insurrection and sought to secure a “new birth of freedom” in America.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

america american south civil war constitution progressive declaration signed founding declaration of independence united states constitution secession constitutional convention constitution day american founding

Constitution 101: Secession and Civil War

The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 25, 2026 38:02

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss executive authority and secession before introducing Kevin Portteus. The United States Constitution was designed to secure the natural rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Signed by Constitutional Convention delegates on September 17, 1787—Constitution Day—it was ratified by the American people and remains the most enduring and successful constitution in history. In this twelve-lecture course, students will examine the political theory of the American Founding and subsequent challenges to that theory throughout American history. Topics covered in this course include: the natural rights theory of the Founding, the meaning of the Declaration and the Constitution, the crisis of the Civil War, the Progressive rejection of the Founding, and the nature and form of modern liberalism. The South’s justification for secession was based on an erroneous reading of the Constitution. Whereas the South claimed a legal right to secede, Lincoln opposed what he called an illegal insurrection and sought to secure a “new birth of freedom” in America.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

america american south civil war constitution progressive declaration signed founding declaration of independence united states constitution secession constitutional convention constitution day american founding

Unbiased University: Everything You Need to Know About the United States Constitution

united states american university tiktok rights constitution united states constitution unbiased

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 23, 2026 46:59

UNBIASED University is officially in session! While Jordan is on maternity leave, she's breaking down the most critical aspects of the United States government — the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the three branches of the federal government, presidential elections, the evolution of political parties, and more. In this episode of UNBIASED Politics, we take a deep dive into the foundation of the United States: the Constitution. What exactly does the Constitution do, why was it written, and how has its meaning evolved over time? We break down the core principles that shape the American system of government, including federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and individual rights, while also exploring the historical debates that shaped the document. Whether you're brushing up on the basics or looking for a clearer understanding of how constitutional law affects everyday life, this episode provides a clear, nonpartisan guide to the document that governs it all. SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠FREE NEWSLETTER⁠. ⁠Watch⁠ this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on ⁠Instagram⁠ and ⁠TikTok⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

John Witherspoon: The Man Who Taught a Republic How to Think

The P.A.S. Report Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 19, 2026 20:51

Before the Constitution was written, John Witherspoon was shaping the minds that would build it. Who was John Witherspoon and how did he influence James Madison and the Constitution? Discover how this forgotten Founder helped define America's moral and constitutional DNA, and taught a Republic how to think. This episode of the America's Founding Series explores how John Witherspoon's philosophy of "self-evident truths," moral realism, and human nature influenced James Madison and the structure of the United States Constitution. At a time when civilizational seriousness feels in short supply, Witherspoon's ideas about education, virtue, and limited government reveal why the survival of a republic begins in the classroom. It's time for a MATA moment – Make Americans Think Again – by looking at the Witherspoon model that we've abandoned. What You'll Learn Why John Witherspoon's teachings shaped James Madison and Federalist 51 The true meaning of "self-evident truths" in the Declaration of Independence How Scottish Common Sense philosophy grounded America's natural rights framework Why the doctrine of human fallibility led to checks and balances What modern leadership can learn from Witherspoon's model of education and statesmanship If the West is struggling with strategic and moral drift, the solution may lie in rediscovering the intellectual foundation laid by John Witherspoon.

Slaying 73: BTVS S4E21 “Primeval”

House Podcastica: A Game of Thrones Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 18, 2026 119:47

Reposted from Still Slaying: A Buffy-verse podcast which you can find at Still Slaying: a Buffy-verse podcast | Podcastica. Fun, in-depth talk about great TV. “Xander, just because this is never gonna work there's no need to be negative.” Penny and Sam dive into this plot and action heavy episode that wraps up most of Season 4's stories. The conversation ranges from sadly relevant world events from the turn of the millennium, to sarcasm, favorite words, fascism, Andor, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Privacy Laws, the outrageous cost of higher education, hangovers, bodily autonomy, heroism, extreme makeovers, Sinners, cults, Pluribus, the human need for community, the One Ring, Riley's emotional journey, and military culture. Next time, we'll be covering Buffy the Vampire Slayer, season 4, episode 22, “Restless.” Keep Slaying! News Links/Referenced Links Original Trailer/WB Promo: BTVS “Primeval” Original Promo Blade VS Buffy (Marvel VS Buffy the Vampire Slayer) | DEATH BATTLE! —---------------------------------------- Viewing Order Buffy 4x22 - Restless Angel 1x20 - War Zone Angel 1x21 - Blind Date Angel 1x22 - To Shanshu in LA BONUS: Blade Join the conversation! You can email or send a voice message to stillslayingfeedback@gmail.com, or join us at facebook.com/groups/podcastica and Still Slaying A Buffy-verse Podcast where we put up comment posts for each episode we cover. Join the Zedhead community - https://www.patreon.com/jasoncabassi Theme Music:℗ CC-BY 2020 Quesbe | Lucie G. MorillonGoopsy | Drum and Bass | Free CC-BY Music By Quesbe is licensed under a Creative Commons License. #buffythevampireslayer #btvs #buffyverse #stillslaying #podcastica #spuffy #slaythepatriarchy #femisim Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

tv fun sinners andor buffy the vampire slayer restless slaying united states constitution pluribus one ring fourth amendment privacy laws primeval reposted btvs podcastica to shanshu

Constitution 101: Slavery and the Roots of the Secession Crisis

Hillsdale College Podcast Network Superfeed

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 18, 2026 37:09

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss whether or not the American Founding supported slavery before introducing Kevin Portteus. The United States Constitution was designed to secure the natural rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Signed by Constitutional Convention delegates on September 17, 1787—Constitution Day—it was ratified by the American people and remains the most enduring and successful constitution in history. In this twelve-lecture course, students will examine the political theory of the American Founding and subsequent challenges to that theory throughout American history. Topics covered in this course include: the natural rights theory of the Founding, the meaning of the Declaration and the Constitution, the crisis of the Civil War, the Progressive rejection of the Founding, and the nature and form of modern liberalism. Contrary to the Founders’ guiding principle of equality and their hopes for eventual abolition, slavery not only survived but spread and became entrenched in the South. Subsequently, a new ideology arose in defense of slavery, which rejected the principles of the Founding and fueled the sectional crisis that led to the Civil War.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

With Trump's Crimes, SCOTUS's Illegitimacy, and Congress's Surrender - It's Time for a Constitutional Do-Over

house congress senate failed hundreds congressional collectively united states congress united states constitution constitutional amendments

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 4, 2026 39:35

So friends, can I ask you a question? Does it feel like it might be time to start talking about a constitutional do-over?We have a corrupt and criminal president who feels completely unconstrained by the United States Constitution. As but one example: he has abused the constitutional pardon power beyond anybody's wildest imagination. We have a majority on the Supreme Court that feels completely unconstrained by the expressed language of the Constitution. As but one example, the Constitution provides that the president shall take care that the laws of the nation be faithfully executed. Yet the Supreme Court - a majority of the justices - interpreted that very language, that solemn duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, as indicating that a president has complete leeway to violate all the laws of our nation, victimizing wide swaths of the American population, and he has complete immunity from prosecutionThen we have Congress - one political party that has just laid down and let a tyrant in the oval office walk all over them - completely abandoning their status as a coequal branch of government.So let me ask you again friends: do you think it's time we talked about a constitutional do-over? Well, that's what I just talked about with my friend, law professor, and constitutional scholar Kim Wehle. Kim authored a great new piece - you can find it on Substack appropriately titled, "Is it time to start thinking about a constitutional do-over". And given that our Constitution is plainly not up to the task of governing in these dangerous and lawless times, I think the answer to that question is not just yes but hell yes! Link to Kim's piece: https://open.substack.com/pub/kimwehl...Find Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Failed Constitutional Amendments

Citation Needed

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 14, 2026 41:14

Hundreds of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution are introduced during each session of the United States Congress. From 1789 through January 3, 2025, approximately 11,985 measures have been proposed to amend the United States Constitution.[1] Collectively, members of the House and Senate typically propose around 200 amendments during each two-year term of Congress.[2] Most, however, never get out of the Congressional committees in which they were proposed. Only a fraction of those actually receive enough support to win Congressional approval to go through the constitutional ratification process. Some proposed amendments are introduced over and over again in different sessions of Congress. It is also common for a number of identical resolutions to be offered on issues that have widespread public and congressional support

Trump's Abuse of the Rule of Law Part 3

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 6, 2026 26:26

We are living in the age of Trump-induced darkness: an executive branch that damn-near every day demonstrates a disdain for the rule of law and the United States Constitution. But there are so many points of light on the legal front.Glenn recently had the pleasure of sitting down with the Culpeper County Democratic Committee to discuss the legal issues of the day. This is part three of a three-part series of his extended chat with the Culpeper Dems, focusing on how Trump and Pam Bondi are misusing the power of the Department of Justice and abusing the rule of law, and how Trump and Pete Hegseth are misusing the power of the military and abusing our military members. Glenn finishes by discussing the many nonprofit organizations that are fighting in court every day for our rights and how they are true points of light giving hope in the darkness of Trumplandia. Thank you to Team Justice member Leo for video and editing work on this project. Find Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

donald trump politics law legal political democrats abuse substack progressive liberal judicial justice department pete hegseth pam bondi rule of law united states constitution trumplandia

Trump's Abuse of the Rule of Law Part 2