Podcasts about united states constitution

donald trump politics law political legal 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 political legal 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 congress madness bank iran nasa world war ii horses jerusalem myth launch mayors supreme court broadway jews hong kong union sweden discovery atlantic principles manhattan navy martin luther king jr senate cia period soldiers good friday wikipedia governor academy awards adams alpha 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 world health organization amendment north dakota riots gospel of john rwanda hardy ludwig van beethoven croatia black americans corps wuhan signature unesco haitian motto leipzig tito state department disease control wien artemis politico seventh hun confederate robberies franklin delano roosevelt ludwig sars cov god bless scholars bolt weighing yankee coincidence francis ford coppola henry ford jackie chan john wayne virgil albania russell crowe national football league benito mussolini truman maj allied harriet tubman deutsche bank south pacific okinawa moon landing cortez book of mormon pearce yugoslavia united states navy billie holiday emancipation ketanji brown jackson rush hour suffolk metz artemis ii ford motor company dag pistol ipswich latter day saints f bomb barnum indian americans andrew jackson pizzagate cato burundi jared kushner bismarck everglades attila births joseph smith genghis khan golgotha woodrow wilson 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 occam booker t washington northwest territories adventist jerry brown ulysses grant aeneas iran contra strange fruit missouri river hecate james garner rfc tutsi cebu thomas hardy mandan william wordsworth yamato ravi shankar electorate daniel ellsberg novus saxony hinkley ringling bros central intelligence aeneid thomas d 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 allen dulles dag hammarskj uss theodore roosevelt marjory stoneman douglas bailey circus tuskegee institute observances dick turpin great seal oliver cowdery walter winchell nile valley american jazz majestic theatre die tonight innana brockley uss lexington third symphony henry hathaway mary thompson barwell belit 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".

Legal News for Fri 3/20 - Court Blocks HHS Anti-trans Care Move, States Sue over Media Merger, VAT Outsourcing in the Netherlands and Rulemaking Dynamics Revealed

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 20, 2026 10:08

We've launched a new project: FRTracker.app. It's a platform designed to help track what's happening across the regulatory state—rulemakings, agency actions, and the steady flow of activity coming out of administrative agencies.The goal is straightforward: make it easier to see what's changing, when it's changing, and why it matters.If you're an attorney, journalist, or researcher working in this space, we'd encourage you to take a look. And as always, feedback is not just welcome—it's essential. The website is FRTracker.app and we look forward to hearing from you or, if all is in order, your finding a way to make use of it in your practice area or work. Thanks so much!This Day in Legal History: First Official Meeting of the US Republican PartyOn March 20, 1854, the newly formed Republican Party held its first official meeting in Ripon, Wisconsin, marking a pivotal moment in American legal and political history. The party emerged in direct response to the passage of the Kansas–Nebraska Act, a controversial law that allowed new territories to decide the legality of slavery through popular sovereignty. This legislative shift effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise, which had previously set geographic limits on slavery's expansion.The outrage among anti-slavery activists, lawyers, and former members of existing parties led to a rapid political realignment. Legal debates at the time centered on Congress's authority over the territories and whether slavery could be restricted as a matter of federal law. These were not abstract questions—they went directly to the structure of the Constitution and the balance of power between federal authority and local control.The formation of the Republican Party reflected a growing belief that existing legal frameworks had failed to contain the spread of slavery. Within a few years, the party would become a major political force, culminating in the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. By his reelection campaign in 1864, however, Lincoln ran under the banner of the National Union Party, a wartime coalition of Republicans and pro-Union Democrats.That shift did not necessarily reflect a rejection of the Republican Party itself, but it did signal unease with factionalism and the limits of party identity during a constitutional crisis. The rebranding was a strategic and legal-political move: to broaden support for the Union, stabilize governance, and frame the election as a referendum on national survival rather than partisan ideology.The legal disputes surrounding slavery, territorial governance, and federal authority would ultimately be resolved not just through legislation or court decisions, but through war and constitutional amendment. The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution would later eliminate slavery nationwide, fundamentally reshaping American law.What began as a meeting in a small Wisconsin town became a turning point in the legal history of the United States, illustrating how statutory change can rapidly destabilize existing legal and political orders.A federal judge in Oregon ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services cannot enforce a policy aimed at restricting gender-affirming care for minors, siding with 21 states and the District of Columbia. The challenged policy, issued by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., declared such care unsafe and ineffective and warned that providers could lose access to Medicare and Medicaid funding. The states argued the policy was unlawful because it bypassed required rulemaking procedures and interfered with their authority to regulate medical practice.Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai granted summary judgment to the states and rejected the federal government's attempt to dismiss the case. While the court has not yet issued a full written opinion, it signaled that the policy will be formally invalidated, with further briefing ordered on the scope of relief. The states emphasized that the policy placed healthcare providers in a difficult position by threatening funding while conflicting with state laws that protect access to gender-affirming care.The federal government argued the policy was merely advisory and not subject to judicial review, but the court was not persuaded. State attorneys general described the ruling as a rejection of federal overreach and an affirmation that such healthcare remains lawful. The decision preserves access to care for transgender minors in the plaintiff states, at least for now.This case turns in part on whether the HHS policy qualifies as a “final agency action” that must go through notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA. The states argued that even if labeled as guidance, the policy had real legal consequences—namely, threatening loss of federal funding—making it effectively binding. Courts often look beyond labels to the practical effect of agency actions, and here the judge appeared to agree that the policy could not avoid APA requirements simply by being framed as a statement rather than a formal rule. This issue, central to the dispute, frequently arises in challenges to modern administrative action.HHS Can't Block Trans Care Under Kennedy Edict, Court Says - Law360A coalition of eight states has sued to block Nexstar Media Group's $6.2 billion acquisition of Tegna, even after the deal received approval from both the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission. The states argue the merger would create excessive concentration in local television markets, giving the combined company control over stations reaching roughly 80% of U.S. households. They contend this market power would allow Nexstar to raise prices for cable and satellite providers and reduce competition for broadcast content.The lawsuit also raises concerns about the impact on local journalism, with state enforcers warning that consolidation could lead to newsroom cuts and less coverage of local issues. DirecTV filed a parallel challenge, similarly arguing that the deal would increase costs, reduce competition, and lead to more frequent service disruptions.Despite these objections, the FCC approved the merger with conditions, including the divestiture of several stations and commitments related to pricing and local news. Nexstar defended the deal as necessary to sustain local broadcasting and improve its ability to deliver journalism at scale.The case highlights a growing divide between federal regulators and state enforcers, with states increasingly willing to challenge mergers even after federal clearance. It also reflects broader concerns about consolidation in media markets and its downstream effects on both pricing and the availability of local news.States Sue To Block $6.2B Tegna Acquisition Despite Feds' OK - Law360In this piece I wrote for Forbes, I look at the Netherlands' decision to outsource the core infrastructure of its value-added tax (VAT) system to the U.S.-based company FAST Enterprises. This is not just a software contract—FAST is responsible for operating, maintaining, and running key components of the Dutch VAT system remotely. Given that VAT generates roughly €1.5 billion per week in revenue, the arrangement creates a situation where a critical stream of government funding depends, at least in part, on a system controlled outside the country.I explain that this introduces a new kind of risk: technical dependency can quickly become financial dependency. If VAT collection is disrupted for any reason, the government cannot simply pause operations—it must borrow, and markets may react immediately. That turns what appears to be an IT issue into a fiscal and potentially geopolitical one.The broader argument is that this reflects a deeper shift in how states operate. What looks like routine modernization is actually a trade-off between efficiency and control. By adopting what I describe as “VAT-as-a-service,” the Netherlands has effectively externalized part of its tax infrastructure, raising questions about who ultimately controls a core sovereign function.I also place this in a geopolitical context, noting that reliance on foreign-operated infrastructure can create indirect leverage, even without any explicit “off switch.” The concern is less about intentional disruption and more about exposure—legal, regulatory, or systemic—that comes with cross-border dependence.Finally, I argue that this is not just a Dutch issue but a European trend, as governments increasingly rely on private and often non-domestic vendors for critical systems. The key takeaway is that tax infrastructure decisions should be evaluated not just on cost and efficiency, but on sovereignty, jurisdiction, and contingency planning.Dutch VAT-As-A-Service And The Quiet Outsourcing Of Tax SovereigntyApologies for a double dose of me today – I wrote a piece for Yale's Journal of Regulation Notice & Comment blog examining how regulatory obligations change during notice-and-comment rulemaking. The core argument is that most analyses look at the wrong unit—entire rules—when the real substance of regulation lies in the individual obligations imposed on regulated parties. By breaking rules down into sentence-level commands, the analysis tracks what actually happens to those obligations from proposal to final rule.The data shows that only about one-third of proposed obligations survive into final rules in a recognizable form, while most are eliminated altogether. Agencies are far more likely to remove obligations than to revise them, suggesting that rulemaking operates less like incremental editing and more like a filtering process. At the same time, final rules frequently introduce entirely new obligations that were not present in the proposal.When obligations do carry over, their core legal force—whether something is required, prohibited, or permitted—almost never changes. This indicates that survival tends to preserve substance, even as most proposed provisions disappear. The analysis also finds significant variation across agencies, with some making minimal changes and others heavily restructuring their rules.The findings challenge the assumption that proposed rules are reliable previews of final regulatory requirements. Instead, they suggest that stakeholders may be commenting on provisions that are unlikely to survive, while final rules may include new obligations that were never clearly proposed. This reframes notice-and-comment as a process that selects and reshapes regulatory commands, rather than simply refining them.The key legal insight is that the notice-and-comment process may not function primarily as iterative refinement, but as a filtering system that determines which obligations survive into binding law. This matters because administrative law doctrine assumes that public comments help shape final rules through feedback on proposed text. If most obligations are discarded rather than revised, it raises questions about whether the process provides meaningful notice of what will ultimately bind regulated parties. That directly challenges conventional assumptions about how rulemaking works in practice.Only One-Third of Proposed Regulatory Obligations Survive to the Final Rule, by Andrew Leahey - Yale Journal on Regulation 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

united states american health media state care european oregon forbes wisconsin congress legal journal court union states republicans netherlands revealed columbia dutch trans constitution yale medicare dynamics abraham lincoln blocks courts medicaid outsourcing republican party apa merger human services fcc agencies hhs vat directv united states constitution federal communications commission nexstar ripon final rule legalnews rulemaking thirteenth amendment tegna missouri compromise kansas nebraska act nexstar media group union democrats

Legal News for Mon 3/16 - "Made in America" and the FTC, Maduro Fight Over Defense Funding, Judge Blocks Jerome Powell Subpoenas and Who Will Repair the Courthouse?

Road Warrior Radio with Chris Hinkley

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 16, 2026 7:56

This Day in Legal History: Mississippi Ratifies 13th AmendmentOn March 16, 1995, Mississippi took an unusual step in American constitutional history by formally ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The amendment, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime, had already become part of the Constitution in 1865 after the required number of states approved it. Mississippi, however, had originally rejected the amendment during the Reconstruction era. For more than a century afterward, the state never revisited the issue, leaving it as one of the few states that had not formally ratified the amendment.Although Mississippi's approval in 1995 had no legal effect on the validity of the amendment, it carried symbolic weight. Lawmakers described the vote as an effort to acknowledge and correct a lingering historical omission. The action highlighted how the constitutional amendment process operates: once three-fourths of the states ratify an amendment, it becomes law for the entire nation, regardless of whether every state agrees. In other words, Mississippi had been bound by the Thirteenth Amendment for 130 years before its legislature finally endorsed it.The event also reflected a broader trend in which states reconsider and symbolically ratify long-standing constitutional amendments they once opposed. Such actions often serve educational or reconciliatory purposes rather than legal ones. Mississippi's vote functioned as a public acknowledgment of the amendment's moral and constitutional importance. The late ratification became a reminder that constitutional history does not always end when an amendment is adopted. Instead, the meaning and recognition of constitutional change can continue to evolve long after the law itself is settled.President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to strengthen enforcement of “Made in America” labeling, particularly for products sold online. The order instructs the FTC to prioritize cases against companies that falsely claim their goods are made in the United States. According to the administration, many online sellers market products as American-made even when significant parts or manufacturing occur overseas. The order emphasizes that consumers should be able to rely on clear and accurate country-of-origin claims when shopping.To address the issue, the FTC has been directed to consider new regulations requiring online retailers to verify that products advertised as “Made in the USA” actually meet legal standards. If sellers fail to confirm those claims, the order states the conduct could violate the Federal Trade Commission Act. Federal agencies responsible for country-of-origin labeling are also instructed to coordinate with the FTC to ensure consistent guidance for businesses. In addition, agencies involved in federal procurement must review origin claims for goods purchased through government contracts. Vendors that misrepresent product origins could be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice.The order comes amid growing litigation over allegedly misleading “Made in America” marketing. Several companies have faced lawsuits claiming their branding implies domestic production even when manufacturing occurs abroad. Examples include disputes involving a coffee company accused of implying its products were American-made and lawsuits challenging origin claims for household products like aluminum foil and kitchenware. These cases highlight the legal risks companies face when marketing goods as domestically produced without meeting regulatory standards.Trump Executive Order Targets ‘Made In America' Labeling - Law360U.S. prosecutors are defending a decision to block Venezuelan government funds from being used to pay for the legal defense of former Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro in his U.S. criminal case. Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, are facing federal charges in New York related to drug trafficking and have pleaded not guilty while awaiting trial in custody.Maduro's lawyer asked a federal judge to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the U.S. Treasury Department improperly revoked an earlier sanctions exemption that would have allowed the Venezuelan government to cover his legal fees. According to the defense, Venezuelan law and tradition require the state to pay for the president's legal expenses, and blocking those funds interferes with Maduro's Sixth Amendment right to counsel.Federal prosecutors responded that the exemption allowing government funds was granted by mistake and later corrected. They argued that Maduro should not benefit from Venezuelan state money because the United States has not recognized him as the legitimate leader of Venezuela for years. Prosecutors also emphasized that he and Flores remain free to use their personal funds to hire lawyers.The dispute highlights how U.S. sanctions and foreign policy can intersect with criminal proceedings in American courts. A federal judge in Manhattan is expected to address the legal funding issue during an upcoming court hearing.US prosecutors defend block on Venezuelan state funds for Maduro's defense | ReutersA federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked two grand jury subpoenas connected to a Justice Department investigation of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. The subpoenas sought records about a costly renovation of the Federal Reserve's headquarters and Powell's testimony to Congress about the project. Prosecutors had opened the investigation to examine whether Powell misled lawmakers regarding the renovation's rising price tag.U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg granted the Federal Reserve Board's request to quash the subpoenas, concluding that prosecutors issued them for an improper purpose. The judge determined there was strong evidence the investigation was intended to pressure or harass Powell rather than uncover a legitimate crime. In his ruling, Boasberg noted repeated public attacks on Powell by President Donald Trump and other officials over the Federal Reserve's interest-rate policies. The court found no meaningful evidence that Powell had committed fraud or lied to Congress. The judge also pointed out that construction projects often exceed budgets and that the Fed's inspector general had already reviewed the renovation without identifying wrongdoing.The U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia criticized the decision and announced plans to appeal, arguing that the ruling undermines the grand jury's ability to investigate potential crimes. Meanwhile, the decision has intensified political debate over the independence of the Federal Reserve. Some lawmakers argue the investigation threatens that independence, while others say the probe should continue. The dispute also complicates efforts to confirm a potential successor to Powell as Federal Reserve chair, whose term is set to expire soon.DC Judge Blocks Subpoenas Targeting Fed's Powell - Law360The Trump administration is opposing the federal judiciary's effort to gain independent control over its courthouse buildings, arguing that the judicial branch lacks the expertise to manage large real estate operations. The dispute centers on whether responsibility for courthouse construction, maintenance, and leasing should remain with the General Services Administration (GSA), which has long managed federal buildings for the government.In a letter to the judiciary, GSA Administrator Edward Forst criticized the proposal and warned that giving the courts full authority over their facilities could lead to increased spending and reduced oversight of taxpayer funds. He cited data showing that while the judiciary accounts for a significant share of rent paid to the GSA, courthouse facilities represent an even larger share of federal spending on major building repairs and alterations. Forst said the agency will review courthouse repair and maintenance requests to ensure funds are used appropriately.Judicial officials, however, argue that the current system has left courthouses in poor condition. The Judicial Conference recently asked Congress to allow the judiciary to take over management of certain courthouse properties, citing an estimated $8.3 billion backlog in needed repairs. Court officials say the proposal would begin with a limited transition involving only a small number of districts and major courthouse buildings.The disagreement comes amid broader tensions between the judiciary and the Trump administration. Court leaders have also raised concerns that recent government reorganization and staffing cuts at the GSA have slowed security improvements and building maintenance at courthouses nationwide.Trump administration calls judiciary ‘ill-equipped' to manage its courthouses | 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

Road Warrior Radio with Chris Hinkley, March 16, 2026 Hour 1

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 16, 2026 60:00

‘Then they monetize it…’ What happens when quality brands lovingly crafted are then acquired by private equity and venture capital? How has golf changed in recent decades – and beyond – and how might that related to our broader society? And, might Mitzi have an opportunity to meet John Daly? All this and more on today’s Mondays with Mitzi! edition of Road Warrior Radio. Links Discussed Why Mrs. Meyer’s Clean Day Founder Sold Business, Retired Early – Business Insider John Daly (golfer) – Wikipedia Caddyshack – Wikipedia Let’s talk about Erik van Rooyen’s jogger pants at the 2019 British Open Championship Mac Sinise – Shenandoah – YouTube Oh Shenandoah – Wikipedia What Scottie Scheffler told Lee Trevino as a child which has now come true Grammarly: Free AI Writing Assistance Saint Patrick’s Day – Wikipedia On This Day March 2026 Calendar of Public Holidays | Office Holidays Holidays Today and Upcoming Holidays in the United States What day is it today? Important events every day ad-free | United States On This Day – What Happened on March 16 Today in History: March 16, the My Lai massacre in Vietnam | AP News What Happened on March 16 – On This Day What Happened on March 16 | HISTORY March 16 – Wikipedia What Happened On March 16 In History? 16 | March | 2020 | Executed Today Holidays St. Patrick’s Day (tomorrow, Tue, Mar 17) Historical Events 2016 – President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to take the seat of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who had died the previous month. Republicans who controlled the Senate would stick to their pledge to leave the seat empty until after the presidential election; they confirmed Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch in April 2017. 2005 – Actor Robert Blake acquitted: After a three-month-long criminal trial in Los Angeles Superior Court, a jury acquits Robert Blake, star of the 1970s television detective show “Baretta,” of the murder of his 44-year-old wife, Bonny Lee Bakley. 2003 – 23-year-old peace activist Rachel Corrie is crushed to death in Rafah, run over by an Israel Defense Forces bulldozer while trying to obstruct the demolition of a home. 1995 – Mississippi formally ratifies the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, becoming the last state to do so. The Thirteenth Amendment was officially ratified in 1865. 1994 – Figure skater Tonya Harding pleaded guilty in Portland, Oregon, to conspiracy to hinder prosecution for covering up an attack on rival Nancy Kerrigan, avoiding jail but drawing a $100,000 fine and three years of probation. 1988 – Iran–Contra affair: Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North and Vice Admiral John Poindexter are indicted on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States. 1968 – Sen. Robert F. Kennedy of New York announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination. 1968 – General Motors produces its 100 millionth automobile, an Oldsmobile Toronado 1958 – The Ford Motor Company produced its 50 millionth automobile, the Thunderbird, averaging almost a million cars a year since the company's founding. 1903 – Judge Roy Bean dies: Self-proclaimed “law west of the Pecos,” Roy Bean dies in Langtry, Texas. A saloonkeeper and adventurer, Bean's claim to fame rested on the often humorous and sometimes-bizarre rulings he meted out as a justice of the peace in western Texas during the late 19th century. By then, Bean was in his 50s and had already lived a life full of rough adventures. 1867 – Joseph Lister first outlines the discovery of antiseptic surgery in an article in “The Lancet” 1850 – “The Scarlet Letter” is published: Nathaniel Hawthorne's story of adultery and betrayal in colonial America, The Scarlet Letter, is published. 1802 – President Thomas Jefferson signed a measure authorizing the establishment of the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. 37 – Caligula became Roman Emperor after the death of his great uncle, Tiberius. Births 1965 – Mark Carney, Canadian economist and politician, Prime Minister of Canada 1959 – Flavor Flav (William Jonathan Drayton Jr.), Hip-hop artist and reality TV star who co-founded the rap group Public Enemy. Made oversize clock necklaces a fashion statement. 1953 – Richard Stallman, American computer scientist and programmer, launched the GNU Project (Sep 1983), founded the Free Software Foundation (FSF) in October 1985, developed the GNU C Compiler and GNU Emacs, and wrote all versions of the GNU General Public License. 1941 – Bernardo Bertolucci, Italian director and screenwriter (died 2018) 1926 – Jerry Lewis, American actor and comedian (died 2017) 1912 – Pat Nixon, First lady who joined her husband on historic trips to China and the Soviet Union and advocated for volunteerism. (died 1993) 1911 – Josef Mengele, German physician, captain and mass-murderer (died 1979) 1751 – James Madison, drafter of the Constitution, recorder of the Constitutional Convention, author of the Federalist Papers and fourth president of the United States, is born on a plantation in Virginia. At just 5‘4”, James Madison was hardly a commanding presence, but that didn’t stop him from shaping American history. Madison first distinguished himself as a student at the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), where he successfully completed a four-year course of study in two years and, in 1769, helped found the American Whig Society, the second literary and debate society at Princeton (and the world), to rival the previously established Cliosophic Society. (died 1836) Learn more Deaths 1985 – Roger Sessions, American composer, critic, and educator (born 1896) 1975 – T-Bone Walker (Aaron Thibeaux “T-Bone” Walker), American singer-songwriter and guitarist (born 1910) 1971 – Thomas E. Dewey, American lawyer and politician, 47th Governor of New York (born 1902) 1963 – William Beveridge, British economist and Liberal politician who was a progressive, social reformer, and eugenicist who played a central role in designing the British welfare state. (born 1879) 1903 – Roy Bean, self-proclaimed “law west of the Pecos” (born 1825)

united states america tv american new york history texas donald trump china college british canadian german new jersey italian oregon barack obama portland republicans mississippi figure senate governor democratic constitution prime minister liberal soviet union calendar hip bean meyer princeton university west point general motors thomas jefferson public enemies lancet james madison ford motor company robert f kennedy merrick garland thunderbird births mark carney jerry lewis neil gorsuch caligula road warrior united states military academy united states constitution john daly tonya harding shenandoah roman emperors antonin scalia constitutional convention nathaniel hawthorne iran contra israel defense forces scarlet letter tiberius t bone josef mengele robert blake nancy kerrigan federalist papers hinkley historical events bernardo bertolucci rooyen pecos richard stallman my lai bonny lee bakley lee trevino baretta thirteenth amendment joseph lister los angeles superior court history march rachel corrie judge roy bean pat nixon upcoming holidays william beveridge thomas e dewey gnu general public license

Legal News for Weds 3/11 - Federal Judiciary Software Upgrade, Bayer Pushes State Limits on Roundup Lawsuits, Judge Weighs Deal to End Turkish Bank Sanctions Case

The Moscow Murders and More

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 11, 2026 7:20

This Day in Legal History: Confederate States ConstitutionOn March 11, 1861, delegates of the newly formed Confederate States adopted the Constitution of the Confederate States of America in Montgomery, Alabama. The document closely resembled the United States Constitution in structure, language, and institutional design, reflecting the Confederacy's claim that it was preserving the original constitutional order rather than rebelling against it. But the similarities masked a fundamental and disturbing difference: the Confederate Constitution explicitly protected and entrenched slavery. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, which used indirect language around the institution, the Confederate document openly required that slavery be recognized and protected in Confederate territories. It also prohibited any law impairing the right of property in enslaved people, making the protection of slavery a central constitutional commitment rather than a political compromise.The constitution also attempted to limit certain federal powers, reflecting long-standing Southern arguments about states' rights and suspicion of centralized authority. For example, it restricted tariffs and internal improvements, policies many Southern leaders believed favored Northern industrial interests. The document also changed the structure of the executive branch by providing for a single six-year presidential term instead of allowing reelection. These provisions were intended to prevent what Confederate leaders viewed as excessive federal power or political manipulation. Despite these structural adjustments, the document largely replicated the American constitutional framework while placing slavery at its legal core.The legal significance of the Confederate Constitution lies in how clearly it reveals the central constitutional dispute of the Civil War era. While defenders of the Confederacy often framed secession as a fight over federalism or states' rights, the constitutional text itself makes clear that preserving slavery was a primary objective. By embedding the protection of slavery directly into its governing charter, the Confederacy transformed the defense of human bondage into a foundational legal principle. The document therefore stands as a stark example of how constitutional law can be used not only to secure liberty, but also to entrench injustice.Federal judicial officials announced plans to speed up development of a new electronic case management system after a major cyber breach exposed weaknesses in the courts' existing technology. The decision was discussed during a closed meeting of the Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary's main policymaking body, held at the U.S. Supreme Court building. Judge Michael Scudder, who leads the conference's information technology committee, said recent cyber intrusions made it clear that modernization can no longer proceed at its previous pace. The breach, disclosed in July 2025, raised concerns that foreign actors may have accessed sensitive materials, including sealed files and information about confidential informants. The incident followed an earlier cybersecurity breach involving the federal courts in 2020.In response, the judiciary plans to begin testing components of the upgraded system in six courts during 2026. Officials hope to begin rolling out parts of the new system to federal district courts nationwide next year. Appellate and bankruptcy courts would receive updates afterward. Judiciary leaders now expect that most of the modernization work could be completed within two to three years, a faster timeline than originally planned. The project also aims to improve the search tools used in PACER, the public database that allows users to access federal court filings. Despite long-standing criticism from lawmakers and transparency advocates, the judiciary does not currently plan to eliminate PACER's user fees. Court officials say those fees provide roughly 85 percent of the funding for the modernization effort.US judiciary to fast-track court records system upgrade after hacking | ReutersFederal and state lawmakers are considering measures that could reshape lawsuits involving the weedkiller Roundup as Bayer continues to face large-scale litigation over the product. In Kansas, legislators debated a bill supported by Bayer that would prevent individuals from suing pesticide manufacturers for failing to warn that their products might cause cancer or other illnesses. The proposal is part of a broader legislative strategy by the company, which has supported similar bills in roughly a dozen states. These efforts come as Bayer prepares a proposed $7.25 billion settlement aimed at resolving most of the roughly 65,000 remaining lawsuits alleging that Roundup caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma.Bayer inherited the litigation when it purchased Monsanto for $63 billion in 2018. Since then, the company has faced extensive legal costs and large verdicts, contributing to significant financial losses. Supporters of the Kansas bill argue that without such protections, pesticide manufacturers might remove widely used products from the market or raise prices, which could affect farmers and agricultural businesses. Critics, however, question the Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that glyphosate—the main ingredient in Roundup—is unlikely to cause cancer and argue the legislation would shield companies from accountability.The debate is occurring alongside other legal developments. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in April about whether federal pesticide law requires Bayer to warn consumers about potential cancer risks. Meanwhile, members of Congress are considering a farm bill provision that would require uniform pesticide labels nationwide, preventing states or local governments from mandating warnings different from those approved by the EPA. A Missouri judge has also given preliminary approval to Bayer's proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement, with a final decision expected later this year.Bayer takes its multi-front battle on pesticide liability to Kansas | ReutersA federal judge in Manhattan is set to review a proposed agreement that would end the U.S. government's criminal prosecution of Turkey's state-owned Halkbank. The case accused the bank of helping Iran bypass U.S. economic sanctions through financial transactions. Prosecutors and the bank reached a deferred prosecution agreement, which would pause the case while the bank demonstrates compliance with new restrictions. Under the proposal, Halkbank must avoid transactions benefiting Iran and hire an independent monitor to review its sanctions and anti-money-laundering controls.The agreement does not require the bank to pay a fine or admit wrongdoing. If Halkbank complies with the conditions, the criminal charges would likely be dismissed after the monitoring period. Prosecutors have asked the judge to pause the proceedings for 90 days so the bank can begin demonstrating compliance. Although judges generally have limited authority to reject deferred prosecution agreements, the court may still review the deal to ensure it follows established legal precedent.The resolution could ease tensions between the United States and Turkey, which had been strained by the case. U.S. officials indicated that resolving the prosecution also carried diplomatic importance during negotiations related to Turkey's role in securing a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in 2025. The announcement of the deal caused Halkbank's share price to rise sharply. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had previously criticized the case as politically motivated.Judge to weigh Halkbank, US prosecutors' resolution to criminal case | 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

united states america american israel alabama judge congress bank iran turkey court supreme court missouri kansas manhattan civil war southern federal limits constitution hamas critics montgomery northern turkish epa lawsuits officials confederate sanctions prosecutors bayer weighs pushes roundup monsanto confederacy environmental protection agency judiciary hodgkin united states constitution weds pacer appellate confederate states legalnews federal judiciary turkish president recep tayyip erdo halkbank judicial conference software upgrade

Bryan Kohberger And His 4th Amendment Rights

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 6, 2026 14:33 Transcription Available

There have been plenty of questions surrounding the constitutionality of the investigation into Bryan Kohberger, and especially surrounding how evidence was collected and tested at the scene of the crime and then in Pennsylvania.In this epsiode, we discuss the 4th Amendment and how it relates to Bryan Kohberger and his trial moving forward.The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is as follows:"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."(commercial at 9:29)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:How DNA and Cell Phone Evidence in Idaho Murders Complied With the Fourth Amendment | The Heritage FoundationBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

news dna pennsylvania true crime bill gates epstein breaking news jeffrey epstein amendment oath ghislaine maxwell warrants prince andrew united states constitution fourth amendment bryan kohberger amendment rights 4th amendment

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

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

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

Legal News for Weds 3/4 - Epstein Testimony Request for Gates, DOJ Reversal in EO Law Firm Litigation, Abbott's Premature Infant Formula Trial and CA's SALT Workaround

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 4, 2026 10:19

This Day in Legal History: Lincoln's Second InauguralOn March 4, 1865, Abraham Lincoln delivered his Second Inaugural Address as he began his second term as President of the United States. The speech came during the final weeks of the Civil War, when Union victory was increasingly likely but the country remained deeply divided. Instead of celebrating the nearing end of the war, Lincoln used the moment to reflect on the deeper causes of the conflict. He identified slavery as the central issue that had brought the nation into war, describing it as both a legal institution and a moral injustice embedded in American law for generations. Lincoln noted that both the North and South had participated in a system that allowed slavery to endure within the nation's constitutional framework.In one of the address's most striking passages, Lincoln suggested that the war itself might be understood as divine judgment for the nation's long tolerance of slavery. He observed that slavery had existed in the Americas for centuries and reflected on the possibility that the immense suffering of the war was a form of punishment for that history. Lincoln famously stated that if divine providence willed that the war continue “until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword,” then such judgment might still be just. This reflection framed the war not simply as a political conflict but as a reckoning with a deeply rooted legal and moral wrong.Lincoln's remarks also pointed toward the constitutional transformation already underway through the pending Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Congress had passed the amendment earlier in 1865, and it awaited ratification by the states. If adopted, it would permanently abolish slavery across the United States and fundamentally alter the constitutional order. Lincoln's speech emphasized that the war's conclusion would also mark a legal turning point, ending a constitutional system that had protected slavery. At the same time, he called for reconciliation in rebuilding the nation, urging the country to move forward “with malice toward none.” Only months later, the Civil War ended and the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in December 1865, permanently outlawing slavery in the United States.The House Oversight Committee has asked several high-profile figures to testify about their connections to Jeffrey Epstein as part of a broader investigation into how the federal government handled the case. Those requested to appear include departing Goldman Sachs Chief Legal Officer Kathryn Ruemmler, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, and Apollo Global Management co-founder Leon Black.The request to Ruemmler comes shortly after she announced plans to step down from Goldman Sachs and after Justice Department records brought renewed attention to her past communications with Epstein. Emails show that she sought career advice from him while exploring a move from Latham & Watkins to Facebook in 2018 and referred to him in messages as “Uncle Jeffrey.” The correspondence also mentioned gifts she received from him. Reports previously revealed that the two had numerous meetings during the 2010s, years after Epstein had served a prison sentence related to prostitution offenses involving minors.The committee's inquiry focuses on whether Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell used relationships with influential individuals to gain protection or influence while operating their sex-trafficking scheme. Lawmakers are also examining the federal government's handling of the investigation and the circumstances surrounding Epstein's death in a Manhattan federal jail in 2019.Along with Ruemmler, Gates and Black received similar requests for testimony. Gates has indicated he is willing to cooperate and answer questions from the committee. Black, meanwhile, is also facing a proposed class action accusing Apollo and its leadership of misleading investors about their connections to Epstein, allegations the firm has publicly denied.Other individuals asked to appear include Epstein's former assistants, political adviser Doug Band, and Gateway co-founder Ted Waitt. The committee has already interviewed several prominent figures, including former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as it continues reviewing the scope of Epstein's network and the government's response to his crimes.Goldman's Departing CLO, Gates Asked To Testify On Epstein - Law360 UKThe Justice Department quickly reversed course in an ongoing legal fight over executive orders issued by President Donald Trump targeting several prominent law firms. Late Monday, government lawyers told a federal appeals court they planned to drop their appeal after multiple federal judges ruled the orders unconstitutional. But the next day the department asked the court for permission to withdraw that dismissal request and continue defending the orders.The executive orders targeted firms including Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey, and Jenner & Block. The measures sought to restrict the firms' security clearances, government contracts, and access to federal buildings, citing concerns about their clients and hiring practices. The firms challenged the orders in court, arguing they were unconstitutional retaliation against legal advocates.Federal judges consistently sided with the firms, with one ruling describing the order against Perkins Coie as an unprecedented attack on the legal system. After those rulings, the Justice Department initially appeared ready to abandon the appeal. Its sudden reversal, however, would allow the administration to continue fighting the cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.The law firms criticized the shift, saying the government offered no explanation for changing its position so quickly. They reiterated their commitment to challenging what they view as an unconstitutional attempt to punish law firms for representing disfavored clients. Civil liberties advocates echoed that criticism, arguing the orders represent a misuse of presidential power.The litigation highlights a broader dispute over the limits of executive authority and the independence of the legal profession. As the appeals process continues, the courts will ultimately decide whether the executive orders can survive constitutional scrutiny.BREAKING: DOJ Nixes Plan To Drop Law Firm EO Appeals In About-Face - Law360In quick reversal, DOJ seeks to continue Trump's battle with law firmsA trial beginning in Chicago will examine claims that baby formula made by Abbott Laboratories caused premature infants to develop a serious and potentially deadly intestinal condition known as necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). The case consolidates lawsuits from four families whose premature children were born in Chicago-area hospitals between 2012 and 2019 and later developed the disease. Although the infants survived, the lawsuits say several required surgery and continue to face long-term health complications.The case is part of a much larger wave of litigation against Abbott and Mead Johnson, the manufacturer of Enfamil. Nearly 1,000 lawsuits have been filed across the country alleging that the companies failed to warn doctors that cow's milk-based formulas used in hospitals may increase the risk of NEC in premature infants. Many of those cases are consolidated in federal court in Illinois, while others are pending in state courts.Abbott denies that its formulas cause the disease and maintains that the products are medically necessary when mothers cannot produce enough breast milk. The company and other researchers point to evidence suggesting that the higher risk of NEC is linked to the absence of breast milk rather than exposure to formula itself.Previous trials involving similar claims have produced mixed results. Some juries have awarded large verdicts to families, including multimillion-dollar judgments against both Abbott and Mead Johnson, though those decisions are currently under appeal. Other cases have resulted in defense wins or retrials, and several potential bellwether cases in federal court have been dismissed.The Chicago trial, which begins with jury selection, is expected to last several weeks and could influence how the remaining lawsuits move forward. With hundreds of similar claims still pending, the outcome may play an important role in shaping the broader litigation over infant formula and NEC.Abbott set to face trial over claims premature infant formula caused deadly disease | ReutersIn this week's column, I look at a new California proposal that attempts to sidestep the federal cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions by reclassifying vehicle sales taxes as licensing fees. The idea is simple: if the charge is treated as a property-style fee instead of a sales tax, it could fall into a category that allows taxpayers to make greater use of their federal SALT deduction. Supporters frame the proposal as middle-class tax relief and a way to reduce the amount of federal revenue flowing out of California. But while the policy is clever, its practical benefits would be limited and uneven.The proposal follows a familiar strategy used since the 2017 tax law capped SALT deductions: when one type of tax becomes less deductible, lawmakers try to redesign the tax structure so the revenue flows through a category that remains deductible. California's approach focuses on vehicle purchases, where sales taxes are currently difficult to deduct for many residents. By redefining those charges as licensing fees, lawmakers hope taxpayers could claim them alongside property taxes under the federal deduction cap.In practice, though, most lower-income taxpayers wouldn't benefit at all. Many households take the standard deduction rather than itemizing, especially after recent tax reforms increased its size. For those taxpayers, changing the label on a vehicle tax doesn't meaningfully change their federal tax bill. Even for many itemizers, the savings would likely be small.The proposal mainly helps a narrow band of higher-earning taxpayers—people with substantial state and property taxes who are still just below the federal SALT cap. For them, a vehicle purchase could generate a deductible amount that meaningfully lowers their federal tax liability. But that advantage grows with the price of the car and the taxpayer's marginal tax rate, which means the largest benefits flow to relatively affluent households.If the goal is truly middle-class relief, a more direct approach would likely work better. For example, a refundable state tax credit tied to vehicle purchases could help working families without depending on federal deduction rules or itemization. Another long-term option would be shifting some of California's tax burden from individuals to businesses, since certain business-level taxes remain deductible federally.California's proposal shows the creativity that the SALT deduction cap has sparked among state policymakers. The real question, however, is whether clever tax reclassification is the right tool—or whether more straightforward policies aimed directly at middle-income taxpayers would produce fairer and more predictable results.California SALT Deduction Proposal Is More Clever Than Helpful 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

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

Know Your Numbers with Chris McCormack

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

The Real History of U.S. Taxes They Didn't Teach You (with Historian Bill Federer)

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 26, 2026 53:38

In this powerful episode of the Know Your Numbers, REI Podcast, Chris McCormack sits down with historian Bill Federer to unpack the dramatic shift in U.S. government funding — from tariff-based revenue to the modern income tax system.You'll discover:How the British East India Company and the Stamp Act helped spark the American RevolutionWhy tariffs once funded nearly 90% of the federal governmentHow the American Civil War triggered the first income taxWhat the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution changed foreverWhy World War II expanded taxes to nearly every AmericanHow policies from the New Deal to the Great Society shaped today's tax and spending systemThis conversation connects taxation, war, debt, entrepreneurship, and America's economic future — challenging you to think differently about money, government power, and opportunity.If you care about business, investing, economic history, or the future of America's tax system — this episode is a must-listen.Tune in for more insights on tax strategy, real estate investing, and building wealth the smart way.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••To connect with Bill, visit his Social Media Platforms:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WilliamJFederer/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/the_americanminute/?hl=enLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/william-federer-981b1a17Website: https://americanminute.com/••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••➤➤➤ To become a client, schedule a call with our team➤➤ https://www.betterbooksaccounting.co/contact••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••Connect with Chris McCormack on Social MediaFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/chrismccormackcpaLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrismccormackcpaInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/chrismccormackcpaJoin our Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/6384369318328034→ → → SUBSCRIBE TO BETTER BOOKS' YOUTUBE CHANNEL NOW ← ← ← https://www.youtube.com/@chrismccormackcpaThe Know Your Numbers REI podcast is for general information purposes only and is not intended to provide, and should not be relied on for, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Information on the podcast may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. No reader, user, or listener of this podcast should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on this podcast without first seeking legal and tax advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. Only your individual attorney and tax advisor can provide assurances that the information contained herein – and your interpretation of it – is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation. Use of, and access to, this podcast or any of the links or resources contained or mentioned within the podcast show and show notes do not create a relationship between the reader, user, or listener and podcast hosts, contributors, or guests.

america teach taxes historians amendment new deal roger federer american civil war united states constitution know your numbers real history great society stamp act british east india company bill federer chris mccormack

Constitution 101: Secession and Civil War

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

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.

Constitution 101: Secession and Civil War

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

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.

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

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.

Constitution 101: Slavery and the Roots of the Secession Crisis

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.

Constitution 101: Property, Morality, and Religion

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 11, 2026 34:29

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss whether or not the government should legislate morality before introducing Thomas West. 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. While the first purpose of government is to protect citizens from foreign and domestic threats, it must also undertake other essential actions in order to secure natural rights. These include the protection of property rights, the defense of religious liberty, and the promotion of the moral character necessary to sustain free government.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

american religion civil war property constitution progressive morality declaration signed founding declaration of independence united states constitution constitutional convention constitution day american founding thomas west

Constitution 101: Property, Morality, and Religion

american constitution progressive amendments united states constitution

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 11, 2026 34:29

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss whether or not the government should legislate morality before introducing Thomas West. 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. While the first purpose of government is to protect citizens from foreign and domestic threats, it must also undertake other essential actions in order to secure natural rights. These include the protection of property rights, the defense of religious liberty, and the promotion of the moral character necessary to sustain free government.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

american religion civil war property constitution progressive morality declaration signed founding declaration of independence united states constitution constitutional convention constitution day american founding thomas west

Changing the Constitution | The Progressive Amendments

15-Minute History

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 9, 2026 15:08

American progressives at the turn of the 20th century saw major flaws in the United States Constitution and worked to correct them through the process of amendments. Each one was the subject of debate and controversy, and all four made measurable changes to American society (though one can debate the merits of some). Join us for this survey of the four progressive amendments--as well as a funny story from Jon's classroom--and tune in next week for our discussion about how these amendments shaped the future course of American history.

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

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.

Constitution 101: Consent of the Governed and the Separation of Powers

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 4, 2026 43:46

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss the difference between democracy and republicanism 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. The Framers understood that the “latent causes of faction . . . are sown in the nature of man.” Consequently, the Constitution establishes a number of institutional mechanisms such as representation and separation of powers to control the effects of faction. In so doing, the Constitution improved upon previous models of republican government.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

american civil war constitution progressive consent declaration signed founding declaration of independence united states constitution governed constitutional convention framers constitution day separation of powers american founding ronald j pestritto

Constitution 101: Consent of the Governed and the Separation of Powers

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 4, 2026 43:46

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss the difference between democracy and republicanism 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. The Framers understood that the “latent causes of faction . . . are sown in the nature of man.” Consequently, the Constitution establishes a number of institutional mechanisms such as representation and separation of powers to control the effects of faction. In so doing, the Constitution improved upon previous models of republican government.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

american civil war constitution progressive consent declaration signed founding declaration of independence united states constitution governed constitutional convention framers constitution day separation of powers american founding ronald j pestritto

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

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.

Constitution 101: Majority Tyranny and the Necessity of the Union

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 28, 2026 40:28

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss how The Federalist influenced the Constitutional Convention 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. The Articles of Confederation was America’s first attempt at establishing a national union. However, in many of the states, unchecked legislative majorities frequently trampled on the natural rights of minorities and disregarded the nearly powerless federal government. This experience of unstable and unjust government led to calls for a firmer union.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

america american union civil war constitution progressive necessity declaration signed founding tyranny majority declaration of independence federalist confederation united states constitution constitutional convention constitution day american founding ronald j pestritto

Constitution 101: Majority Tyranny and the Necessity of the Union

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

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 28, 2026 40:28

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss how The Federalist influenced the Constitutional Convention 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. The Articles of Confederation was America’s first attempt at establishing a national union. However, in many of the states, unchecked legislative majorities frequently trampled on the natural rights of minorities and disregarded the nearly powerless federal government. This experience of unstable and unjust government led to calls for a firmer union.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

america american union civil war constitution progressive necessity declaration signed founding tyranny majority declaration of independence federalist confederation united states constitution constitutional convention constitution day american founding ronald j pestritto

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 political legal 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