The Constitution Study podcast: Recent Episodes
Paul Engel: Author, speaker and podcaster
Join a group of Everyday Americans as we learn to read and study the Constitution, and teach the rising generation to live free.
Who decides who can carry a firearm on your property and under what conditions? Does the Second Amendment presume permission or restriction? According to the Hawaiian legislature, they decide who carries and presumes restriction.
We all walk around with tracking devices on, cellphones. While these devices report our location on an almost second by second basis, what are the rules law enforcement has to follow to search that data?
I've heard a lot of people talking about the Monsanto case and the claims that one of their products, Roundup, may cause cancer. However, the case before the Supreme Court was much more unique, involving state's rights, intrastate commerce, and the limits of federal law and regulation.
In one of the most anticipated opinions of this Supreme Court Term, Trump v. Barbara questions whether an Executive Order with language that mirrors the Constitution is actually constitutional. I believe that history will remember this opinion as one of the dumbest of any Supreme Court in history.
During the debates about the ratification of the Constitution, one of the questions involved the need for a Bill of Rights. One of the arguments against such a document was the idea that some may consider the listing of rights in the Constitution as permission to regulate those rights. We find an example of just such attempt to regulate rights in the Supreme Court case United States v. Hemani. Specifically, can the federal government deny your right to keep and bear arms if you use your liberty to use marijuana.
Today, July 4th 2026, is the semiquincentennial, the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Two hundred and fifty years is certainly an anniversary worth celebrating. Sadly, in our exuberance to celebrate, many have also shown their ignorance both of the document and our history. Today, in honor of the semiquincentennial, I want to look at both the history and the document that was such a turning point in our history.
Most of us probably remember the TV Game Show "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader", where contestants attempted to answer fifth grade questions for prizes. The answers given were often hilarious. What if they weren't fifth grade questions, but civics questions? Would that answer the American people give still be funny?
The Constitution delegates to Congress the power to regulate commerce "among the several States". What makes commerce not just commerce interstate? That's part of the question the Supreme Court was asked to answer in the case Flowers v. Brock.
Racism is wrong. At least that's what I've been told my entire life. But if racism is wrong, why do so many people demand we make decisions based on race? Is an election fair if the people are vote are racially chosen? If it was wrong for people to be denied the representation because of their race, why is it OK for them to deny representation to others for the same reason? Is choosing representation based on race is wrong? That is the question presented to the Supreme Court in the case LOUISIANA v. CALLAIS ET AL.
When is the use of lethal force legal in the United State? In every state of the union, lethal force can be used to protect an innocent part from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. But is that the only time? A recently signed bill in Tennessee defines other situations where deadly force can lawfully be used within the state.
George Washington warned us that political parties bring their own frightful despotism. From gerrymandering to primaries, We the People have allowed political parties to not only rule our elections, but to poison our interactions with their venom and hatred. Will we continue to let these private organizations drag the United States into the ash heap of history?
Contrary to what the Supreme Court believed in both the Roe and Dobbs decision, the question of abortion has not been settled in the United States. The case of First Choice v. New Jersey shows just how far some states will go to oppose the pro-life movement.
In 2015 the Supreme Court decided in the case Obergefell v. Hodges, that the Fourteenth Amendment protected the right for homosexuals to get marriage. In 2026 the State of Tennessee is working on legislation that points out that private groups are organizations are not bound by the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore by Obergefell.
In the recent case Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court was asked if Colorado's "Conversion Therapy" law violated the Ms. Chiles right to free speech. As is so often the case, the court agreed that the law violated Ms. Chiles free speech rights, just for the wrong reasons.
Ronald Reagan once said that "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." Is this the generation when that finally happens? You may think I'm being hyperbolic, but I think the evidence supports the possibility that this is true.
Does anyone who is born on our land automatically receive citizenship? Not according to the Fourteenth Amendment, but that hasn't stopped the courts from messing this up. Which is exactly what I expect from the Supreme Court in the case Trump v. Barbara.
Congress gets to set Election Day, at least for federal offices. But is Election Day defined as the day the votes are cast, or the day they are counted? That is the question in the case Watson v. RNC.
You've probably heard of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. But does the Constitution allow a county to take and sell someones land to make a profit? That is the main question in the case Pung v Isabella County.
California has been violating parent's rights for years. While a recent Supreme Court case has been hailed as a win for the good guys, it is just a small step restoring the role of parents in the lives of their children.
Lebene Konan sued the Euless, Texas post office for what she claimed were there intentional failure to deliver mail to rental property she owned. The Supreme Court just said she didn't have the right to sue.
In 1988, Congress passed the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The logic behind this law was the belief that vaccines were so important to public health that holding vaccine manufacturers accountable for any injuries caused by the products was not possible. To end this unconstitutional law, Rand Paul has introduced Senate Bill 3853, the End the Vaccine Carveout Act.
For decades, otherwise lawful gun owners have been denied their rights under the Second Amendment due to a federal law. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals just decided a case claiming that law unconstitutional as applied to a Mr. Hembree.
After only approximately three and a half months, the Supreme Court issued their opinion in the Trump Tariff case. The speed, and the fact that opinion was released so early in the court's term, should indicate both how urgent the case was, and how impactful.
The Hawaiian legislature passed Act 191 in an attempt to prohibit "materially deceptive media" that would harm the "reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate in an election". This seems like an infringement on free speech. Thankfully the District Court for the District of Hawaii agreed.
How far can a state go to regulate the right to bear arms? Can a state override a person's property rights? Can Hawaii proactively prohibit lawful gun owners from carrying on private property without owners prior consent? That is the question in the Supreme Court case Wolford v. Lopez.
We've all heard of the Nanny State, when government stops representing the people and tries to parent them. While there have been many attempts over the years for states to take over the parenting role of children, all with good intentions of course. However they never seem to learn that when the state tries to act as the parent, they not only fail, but often abuse the very children they claim to protect.
In a recent press release, the House Oversight Committee voted to advance two resolutions to hold "President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with duly issued subpoenas." The question is, were those subpoenas lawful?
Two cases came before the Supreme Court for oral arguments asking the same basic question. Can states prohibit men from participating in women's sports?
More than half of the states in the union allow constitutional carry, the right to carry a firearm without a permit or license. While Tennessee claims to have constitutional carry, their constitution places a but in that. A recent case in Tennessee Chancery Court asks whether two laws restricting someone's ability to bear arms is constitutional or not.
Copyrights and patents are important protections for inventors, authors, and all sorts of creators. In the case Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, I'm reminded of the response Willie Sutton gave when asked why he robbed banks. "Because that's where the money is." Because this case seems more like a copyright shakedown than the protection of copyrights.
When a government agency searches without a reason it's called "fishing". When the the Attorney General of New Jersey issued a subpoena demanding the names, addresses, and phone numbers of their donors, that wasn't just fishing, it was searching for a white whale.
I've talked before about the unitary executive. However, a recent case before the Supreme Court brings into question not only whether or not the President has the power to fire employees in the executive branch, but the very structure of the federal government.
Concealed carry reciprocity is frequently a hot-button issue both in the Second Amendment community and those who oppose it. Once again Congress is attempting to resolve the issue via legislation, and The National Fraternal Order of Police is opposing it. Let's look at both sides of this story.
Love them or hate them, President Trump's tariffs have not only been a talking point, but have had an impact on most Americans. The question before SCOTUS in this case is whether or not the President has the power to create these tariffs in the first place.
In response to the COVID-19 vaccine mandates, several states passed legislation to put a halt to such practices. For example Idaho recently passed the Medical Freedom Act. The question is, does this legislation protect medical freedom or is it just another example of government overreach.
When I hear people talk about freedom, there seem to be two different general ideas, freedom from something and freedom to do something. It reminds me of my days in Information Technology, when people described "free" open source software as "Free speech, not free beer!" When we talk about freedom today, are we talking about free speech or free beer?
Back in June I wrote about the oral arguments in Mexico's law suit against American gun manufacturers and distributors. While the court overall came to the expected decision, I think it's still worth some time digging into the logic and reasoning of the justices.
Most of us believe that our state legislatures are making our laws. But what if that is only partially true? What if a third-party was making the laws for your state? Would you be OK with that? Would you be concerned to find out that two private entities are making the laws your state uses regarding commerce?
There has been a lot of questions lately about the powers of the President. Can a President fire a member of an independent agency? Does the President have to spend money appropriated by Congress? Is it legal for the President to send the National Guard to our cities. Most of these questions can be answered by understanding a single constitutional point, the unitary executive.
When it comes to freedom of speech, there are two things that generate a fair amount of controversy. First is yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater and second is burning the United States flag. Recently, Donald Trump issued an Executive Order about flag burning. So let's take a look at the order and some of the history around flag burning.
Like any other profession, there are good law enforcement officers, and bad law enforcement officers. While I believe that most LEOs are good men and women, doing a difficult and dangerous job, often with little respect because of the actions of bad LEOs. For years, courts have been protecting these bad officers through their rules and doctrines. A recent Supreme Court case finds that one of those rules violates the Constitution of the United States.
Donald Trump's recent executive order declaring a crime emergency in Washington, D.C. has created quite an uproar, both for and against it. While there have been many claims on both sides, what I haven't seen, except for my radio program, is a real constitutional analysis of his actions. With his recent announcement post about sending National Guard troops to Chicago, I think it's time we do that type of analysis.
Benjamin Franklin wrote “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” What does it say about the American people who seem willing to give up their right to control their government in exchange for Internet access?
As a society, we’ve decided that certain things like alcohol, tobacco, and pornography are not safe for minors. When I buy wine at the grocery store, I have to show my ID to verify my age. Take a look at my picture on the website and you’ll see I’m well over the age where I can purchase alcohol, but I’m still asked to verify my age. That’s because my rights end when it infringes on the rights of another. However, the Free Speech Coalition thinks an adult’s “right” to access pornography without age verification trumps the safety of minors. That is the basis of the case Free Speech Coalition, Inc., et el. v. Paxton, Attorney General Of Texas, which the Supreme Court decided this past term.
Congress created Medicaid in 1965 to subsidize state healthcare system for people unable to afford healthcare. South Carolina has a law the prohibits public funds being used for abortion. For this reason, South Carolina disqualified Planned Parenthood from participating in the state’s Medicaid system. It should be no surprise that Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued. The Supreme Court’s decision may surprise you.
Back in March, the Supreme Court argued the case Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc., et al. v. Wisconsin Labor And Industry Review Commission et al. I reviewed those arguments in my article Are You Religious Enough? In June, the court released its decision, and thankfully, the court came to what I believe is the correct decision. That's not to say they came to the conclusion for the right reasons.
Which came first, the states or the federal government? A better question should be who created whom? Did the federal government create the states? No, the states created the federal government when they ratified the Constitution. So if the states are the "parents" of the federal government, why are they not sovereign over it? One state legislature tried to pass legislation to reassert their position as sovereign over the federal government. Sadly, that measure did not pass... yet.
SCOTUS, supreme court, HHS, health insurance, obama care, health and human services, HHS, There is a quote pretty much sums up a recent Supreme Court decision regarding your healthcare. Oh what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to deceive -- Sir Walter Scott In the case Kennedy v Braidwood Management, inc. we see the tangled web the United States has woven when it practiced to deceive by claiming the power to regulate what is covered by your health insurance.
Earlier this year I wrote about the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the case Mahmoud V. Taylor. The case had to do with a parent's right to opt their children out of content in public school they found objectionable, and the Supreme Court was asked if the plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction preventing the school from teaching their children objectionable content until the court had decided the case. On June 27, 2025, the court published its decision.
All of western culture is at war. The fundamental point of conflict is whether a person's "gender" is determined by biology or psychology, reality or wishes. One of the latest battles in this war is the Supreme Court case _United States v. Skrmetti._In this case Mr. Skrmetti, as Attorney General of the State of Tennessee, is defending the state's law that prohibits the use of so-called "gender-affirming" care for minors. The answer the court came to will surprise some and infuriate others.
In the "Rock, Paper, Scissors" of our federal government, who wins? Does a federal court always get what it wants, or are there limitations? While hearing cases on the question of "birthright citizenship", several District Courts claimed the power to rule over the President. I don't remember seeing that in the Constitution. Now, the Supreme Court has weighed in, deciding in the case Trump v. Casa that lower courts are not all powerful after all.
There has been a lot of talk about due process lately, but little of it seems to be informed by proof or evidence. Five of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights are called the “Due Process Amendments”. With a little bit of research, we can not only be sure of what due process is, but how the Constitution protects our rights to it.
Next year with be the 250th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Over the next 365 days I expect to see plenty of opportunities to remember the date. I want to start by remembering the reason why we declared independence in the first place.
When is discrimination not discrimination? While the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals would have you think that reverse discrimination is not only legal, but OK. However, discrimination is discrimination, even when it’s used in an attempt to right some past wrong.
Imagine being awakened from a sound sleep by a group of armed men bashing in your door. Come to find out, it’s the FBI. Oh yeah, and they have the wrong house. After the trauma, not to mention the damage to your house, at the very least you can sue for a redress of these grievances, right? That is the question before the Supreme Court in the case Martin v. United States.
If you rent rather than own your home, you may be tempted to skip over this article. I suggest you don’t, because the underlying question of ownership leading to control goes far beyond land.
Birthright citizenship has been a very hot topic for the last few years. When Donald Trump signed an executive order that quoted both the Constitution of the United States and federal law, claiming that would be the policy of the United States, that triggered mulitiple lawsuits. Now, three of those suits have been combined into one and oral arguments were heard at the Supreme Court.
Cities and states have been trying to put gun manufacturers out of business for decades with frivolous lawsuits, blaming them for the criminal use of their products. This got to be such a problem that Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Now Mexico has joined the fight, blaming Smith & Wesson for their drug cartel problems.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – Declaration of Independence You may be wondering, why am I quoting the Declaration of Independence for a holiday other than Independence Day? Because, one of our nation’s most important holidays is often treated as nothing more than the beginning of summer. That does a disservice to all who have sacrificed so much for the government to secure our rights.
It took more than 20 years, but the REAL ID Act of 2005 is finally being enforced. While several people have talked about the requirements for a REAL ID, and whether or not they even need one, I haven't heard anyone ask one very important question, is it legal?
It took more than 20 years, but the REAL ID Act of 2005 is finally being enforced. While several people have talked about the requirements for a REAL ID, and whether or not they even need one, I haven't heard anyone ask one very important question, is it legal?
The State of Wisconsin exempts religious organizations from their unemployment tax system. Even though everyone agrees that Catholic Charities is controlled by a church, Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Catholic Charities is not “operated primarily for religious purposes”, and therefore does not qualify for the exemption. Catholic Charities appealed to the Supreme Court to ask if that decision violated the First Amendment.
How many of you know about the Johnson Amendment? If you’ve ever donated to a church or other charity, you’ve been impacted by this amendment. This limitation on freedom of speech has been in effect for over 70 years. And now, the House of Representatives is trying to remedy this infringement.
There will always be tension between our desire for privacy and safety. We're all for privacy, until we find that an invasion of said privacy could have stopped some terrible event. But are we willing to trade our privacy for safety? “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” --Benjamin Franklin In the case of SCHOLL and BEDNARZ v. Illinois State Police the privacy question revolves around automatic license place readers (ALPRs) and what makes a search reasonable.
I don’t know which of the three branches of government does the most to infringe on your rights. Take, for example, the recent Supreme Court decision in the case Bondi v. Vanderstok, where Mr. Vanderstok challenged the recent regulation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives redefining weapons parts kits as firearms. It seems the Supreme Court has a hard time reading either the law or the Constitution.
Imagine you are stopped by law enforcement. Maybe you were doing something wrong, maybe not. At this point, when you are in the custody of law enforcement, whose safety matters more, yours or the officers? In the 2017 Fourth Circuit case United States v. Robinson, while not specifically put this way, the question came up, does officer safety trump your right against unreasonable search and seizure, even your own safety?
As a lifelong gun owner, I understand the awesome responsibility of owning a weapon. After getting my concealed carry license many years ago, I came to understand the greater responsibility of having a deadly weapon on my person. But as a constitutional scholar, I’ve come to realize just how badly states are infringing on our rights, simply because we decide to exercise one of them. Today, I want to talk about “duty to inform” laws. After all, if the presence of a firearm is a threat to officer safety, than the officer’s firearm is a threat to my safety.
Ibriam Kendi is often quoted as saying “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” But is that true? Above the main entrance to the Supreme Court is a promise chiseled into the marble façade, “equal justice under law”. How can we have equal justice under law if one side is always discriminating against another? Enter the case of Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth Services, where Marlean Ames claims she was discriminated in her job because of her sexual orientation. What makes this case uniques is, Ms. Ames is heterosexual, and the Sixth Circuit claimed that ment she had a higher burden of proof than a homosexual.
Free speech jurisprudence has rested on shaky ground for decades in this country. Looking back at cases like Hill v. Colorado, Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health has left a confusing and contradictory morass of precedence, most if not all of it contradicting the Constitution of the United States. With the recent case Coalition Life v. City of Carbondale, Illinois, the court had the opportunity to set the record straight once and for all. Instead, the court whiffed, and declined to even head the case.
In poker there’s a move called “Buying the pot”. This is when one person makes a very large bet in an attempt to discourage others from continuing the hand. But what if we’re not talking poker? What if we’re talking permit fees for the use of your own land? That is exactly what George Sheetz sued the County of El Dorado California for.
There are certain things in life with a minimum age limit like driving, drinking alcohol, and even voting, but is there a minimum age limit for your constitutionally protected rights? That was the question Caleb Reese and others wanted asked, when they filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regarding 18 USC §§922(b)(1) and (c)(1), which prohibit the selling of handguns to 18-20 year old adults.
I doubt it would surprise you that I watch a fair amount of videos that involve interactions with the police. One question that comes up is when is an officers attempt to search of detain someone reasonable? One of the cases attorneys frequent refer to is Pennsylvania v. Mimms. So I decided it was worth some time reviewing that case.
One of the executive orders Donald Trump signed on his first day in office ordered federal departments and agencies to not issue any citizenship documents to anyone born in the United States to a mother who was either illegally or temporarily in the United States unless the father was a citizen. It should surprise no one that this order stirred up controversy. Of the several lawsuits that have been filed I have found one thing in common, an inability to read the law.
When the government, in the form of the police, damage your property, who pays for it? In the case of VIcki Baker v. City of McKinney, TX the police had to damage her property to apprehend a fleeing felon. However, when the city refused to pay for the damages, Ms. Baker sued. The District Court found for her, but the Circuit Court overturned. When she asked the Supreme Court to review, they declined certiorari. Two justices expressed concern about the prospect of the government damaging homes without paying compensation.
Who decides what is appropriate for public libraries? That is at the heart of the case Fayetteville Public Library et. al. v. Crawford County, Arkansas et. al. The representatives of the people of Arkansas passed a law, Arkansas Act 372, which both established a crime of furnishing a harmful item to a minor and established guidelines for selection, relocation, and retention of such materials. A group of libraries, librarians, and related organizations sue Arkansas 28 prosecuting attorneys in the federal District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction, preventing the law from going into effect. Or does it?
There were plenty of infringement on people’s rights during the COVID scamdemic, and censorship was rampant. Not only did we have members of our own government colluding to censor information they didn’t like, but we’ve had professional associations joining in. Worst of all, the so-called medical professionals seemed to be at the forefront, violating the central tenant of the hippocratic oath, “First, do no harm”.
There are a lot of things I'd like to see done better in this country. On that list, education is right up near the top. But is it right to break the law to improve education? That's the question I asked myself when I read the text of H.R. 5349, The "Crucial Communism Teaching Act’’. You see, while teaching the truth about communism's history is important, should this bill pass Congress and be signed, it cannot be the supreme law of the land, because it was not made pursuant to the Constitution of the United States.
For many, New Year's Eve is a time for drinking and partying, which frequently makes New Year's Day a time for dealing with a hang over. For others, New Years is a time for making resolutions, promises to ourselves to be better. I rarely drink, so hang overs are not a problem for me. I also do not make New Year's resolutions, not because I don't think there are ways I can be better, but because I don't wait until the New Year to act on them. That said, a new year is a good time to look at where we are and make plans for the future.
There are many things most Americans will take for granted this Christmas Holiday. For example, even that fact that it is a holiday is something most of us don’t even think about. Let’s take a look at this federal holiday in America.
One of the reasons I like answering questions is they prompt me to look at things I hadn't thought about before. Take for example the recent request I had to review the Federal Tort Claims Procedure. While I review lawsuits regularly here, I'd never taken the time to look at this particular legislation.
I don't believe a serious study of the Constitution can be made without looking at the public debates over the documents. After the Constitutional Convention sent the proposed constitution to the states for ratification, a great debate was had over its pros and cons. Supporters of the document as proposed, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, published essays in New York State newspapers under the pseudonym Publius. These essays are collectively known as the Federalist Papers. Meanwhile, several authors published articles and essays opposing, or at least cautioning a rush to adopt the proposed Constitution, under many pseudonyms. In this article, we'll look at the first papers from each group. Both Federalist #1 and Antifederalist #1 deal with the same topic, should the states ratify the newly proposed Constitution?
How much pollution is too much? We all want clean air and water, but we still want our cars and flush toilets as well. The question in San Francisco v. EPA is how specific does the EPA need to be when it tells cities how much waste they can discharge into our nation’s waterways. From a constitutional standpoint, this case is not about waste water, but whether or not executive agencies have to follow the laws as written.
Most of us have had the experience of pickup up the mail, only to get that pit in our stomach, maybe utter a small curse or two, and immediately being thinking of ways to get out of it. The piece of mail that has caused these reactions is a jury summons. Almost no one looks forward to jury duty, and the efforts to get out of it are legendary. Which makes me wonder, if We the People put as much effort into understanding jury duty as we did trying to get out of it, would America be a better nation?
Election day is just one week away. I'm sure many of you, like me, are ready for this election season to be over. For more than a year we've been hammered, badgered, and generally harangued with the idea of how important it is to vote. However, it has been my experience that the reasons given for our participation in the election process was more about getting their candidate election, or more often preventing their opponent from winning, than what actually makes voting so important. So as the day of reckoning for this crazy election cycle approaches, let's take some time and look at the importance of voting without all of the political party rhetoric.
How far can law enforcement go when it comes to arresting someone? For example, say police have probable cause to charge you with a misdemeanor, how far can they "bootstrap" that charge to something more serious? That appears to be the question in the case Chiaverini v. City Of Napoleon, Ohio. While dealing with a misdemeanor situation, Mr. Chiaverini was subsequently was charged not only with that, but a felony. One little problem, the police had no probable cause for the felony.
Everyone knows we have a right to remain silent, correct? What if I told you that in 2013 the Supreme Court upheld a decision basically stating that is not true. That you only have the right to remain silent if you verbally claim the right in the first place, otherwise, according to SCOTUS, your silence can be used against you. Let’s take a look at this case and some of the history behind this violation of your rights.
Can Massachusetts prosecute out-of-staters who can legally carry in their home state? That was the question before Massachusetts courts in two cases. Needless to say, when these courts agreed with the plaintiffs, the Commonwealth disagreed, appealing the cases the the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. While we wait for the court to decide the case, let’s look at the originating cases and the Commonwealth’s argument.
Was the Occupational Safety and Health Administration properly created? Was the grant of authority Congress gave the agency constitutional and valid, or did Congress create an overpowered agency, to micromanage businesses throughout the United States. That is the question in the case Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC v. Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary of Labor, et.al. Sadly, the Supreme Court decided not to year the case, even if Justice Gorsuch would have and Justice Thomas wrote a dissent.
There are plenty of myths that revolve around the Second Amendment. It's only meant for the militia, or for hunting, or some weapons are just too dangerous are just of few. When we read the Constitution, along with just a tiny bit of research into the Bill of Rights, these myths should evaporate like the morning mist. However, in the case Bianchi v. Brown, it appears the Fourth Circuit believes the myths. However, some unorthodox procedures may show the court manipulated the process to get the outcome they desired.
There are plenty of attempts to rewrite the Constitution, and few of them involve actually involve amending the document. However, the “problem” with the Constitution is not the language of the document, but the fact those those who need to understand it the most have probably not read or, or simple ignore what it says.
Encountering law enforcement can be a nerve wracking situation, even if you've done nothing wrong. Imagine you've pulled over to safely deal with something in your vehicle, then have a police officer pull up behind you. Nothing to worry about, right? Then imagine, after providing your drivers license, you're pulled out of your car, searched, handcuffed, and "stuffed" into the back of the police cruiser while the officer searches your vehicle from stem to stern, even though you've done nothing wrong. Now image, after this arrowing abuse of power, the officer claims "qualified immunity" and asks the court to dismiss the case. That is what happened to Basel Soukaneh in Waterbury, CT. The current state of that case is certainly worth looking into.
There's an adage in the legal profession, "hard cases make bad law". It can also be said that bad cases make bad law, and the case of United States v. Rahimi is one of those bad cases. The question is legitimate. Does 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8), which prohibits a person under domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm or ammunition, violate the Second Amendment. However, for those of you who are thinking the answer is yes, Zackey Rahimi is not the person you would want leading this case.
There are certain lies told about the Constitution that repeatedly grind into me like salt in an open wound. One of those is the repeated statement that "The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, to the states." By which, the speaker usually means that, before the Fourteenth Amendment, none of the ten amendment in the Bill of Rights could be applied to the states. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a flat out lie, and I will prove it here.
The First Amendment protects our right to petition the federal government for a redress of grievance. But what happens when said federal government tells you that you don’t have the right to petition? Because that’s exactly what happened when the Supreme Court decided the case Murthy v. Missouri.
After the January 6th riots the U.S. Department of Justice began charging anyone they thought participated, but not just for the crimes they committed. According to the DOJ, anyone who showed up at the Capitol had corruptly obstructed or impeded an official proceeding, punishable by a fine and imprisonment for up to 20 years. Many claimed that the DOJ was overcharging these J6ers, misusing the law to punish dissenters. When it comes to 18 U. S. C. §1512(c), SCOTUS agreed.
Seeking redress of our grievances is an important right, protected by the First Amendment. Can the federal government deprive you of due process as a condition of seeking redress? While not talked about in that way, that’s pretty much what the case SEC v. Jarkesy is all about. After assessing George Jarksey J. civil penalties for violations of antifraud provisions, the SEC attempted to deny him of his right to a trial by jury. Could this be a start of reforms of unconstitutional administrative law courts?
There are certain legal terms and cases that most people don’t know about, at least until their used to bite someone in the backside. One of those terms is Chevron Deference, or Chevron Doctrine. It comes from a 1984 case where the Supreme Court came up with the great idea that, when Congress isn’t specific, the bureaucrats get to decide. While the court may have overruled Chevron, Looper may not be any better.
When the delegates to the Constitutional Convention debated the role of the chief executive, many expected George Washington to become our first king. Between Mr. Washington’s humility, and the delegates recent experience with a king, they decided we'd be better off with a President rather than a king. With the recent case of Trump v. United States, many have asked, have we turned the office of President into the office of king?
Rarely does a single sentence so completely crystalize the situation as the first line of the court order in Tennessee v. Cardona. The case involves the attempts by the Biden Administration to rewrite Title IX’s protections of women in education and their access to competitive sports. The single sentence? “There are two sexes: male and female.” That one sentence is the foundation of Judge Reeves' injunction against the United States Department of Education’s attempt to ignore biology, rewrite law, and set back women’s rights by decades.
When does a rifle become a machine gun? That is the question asked in the Supreme Court case Garland v. Cargill. When the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives suddenly decided to redefine bump stocks as machine guns, many Americans simply complied. However, when Michael Cargill surrendered his bump stocks to the ATF, he did so under protest, filing suit to challenge the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act. Those of us who enjoy and exercise our right to keep and bear arms owe Mr. Cargill a debt of gratitude, but the fight is not over. Thanks to Mr. Cargill’s determination and persistence, the ATF’s bump stock rule has been found to have not been created correctly, meaning we get our bump stocks back. However, it also leaves open the chance for Congress to do what the ATF could not, violate the Second Amendment one more time.
Things looked bleak for the colonies in 1776. The question of freedom had life and death consequences. Those 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence knew they were committing treason against their king. They knew that freedom would cost them greatly. Yet they still pledged to each other their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Today, groups of people around this nation are still fighting for their independence. Not from political affiliation, but from ever expanding governments dedicated to taking away our independence, our freedom, and our right to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness. Will you stand by while your birthright as an American is taken away from you and your family? Will you join with others to make sure this remains the land of the free by making sure we are the home of the brave? Will you pledge your life, your fortune, and your sacred honor, not to me or to this nation, but to your children and those who will follow? As we remember Independence Day and the 56 men who pledged themselves to purchase it for us, let us renew the call of freedom. Let us take this opportunity to remind tyrants and despots that the American people were not born enslaved to their governments. Let us declare that liberty and freedom will not vanish from this nation. That we will not allow tyranny and fear to rule us. We will not go silently into that good night of subjugation. This July 4th, let us loudly proclaim:
Probably the most powerful instinct as a parent is to protect our children. Parents work hard, sacrifice, and sometimes risk their own lives to protect their children. Most parents believe the government is there to help them protect their children, but is that true? Take, for example, the case of Parents Protecting Our Children UA v. Eau Claire Area School District Wisconsin. Parents Protecting, an association of parents, sued the Eau Claire Area School District to prevent them from enforcing guidelines that interfere with a parents right to make decisions for their child. However, both the District and Circuit Courts denied the parents, claiming that no child had yet been harmed by the school policy, and therefore do not have the right to petition their government for a redress of their grievance. If a court can tell parents they are not allowed to protect their children, then who is? Because it is not the school district.
Late May in the United States is usually a time of cook-outs and remembrance as we memorialize those who gave their lives in service to this country. 2024 however, should be remember for another death, the death of courts of justice. First it was the International Criminal Court. Prosecutor court Karim Khan sought arrest warrants for the leader of both Hamas and Israel, alleging he had reasonable grounds to believe they had criminal responsibility for war crimes. Then, barely a week later, Judge Merchan concluded his biased case against Donald Trump with biased instructions to the jury, which found Mr. Trump guilty on all 34 counts. After some consideration, I realized that these cases are so similar, they could be fraternal twins.
According to federal law, if someone is convicted of a crime and punished with more than one year in jail, they loose their rights protected under the Second Amendment. A recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court not only brought that federal law into question, but decided it was wrong. The court didn’t find that this federal law violated the Constitution, rather they found it violated Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. But is that all this federal law violates?
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution states “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;” That seems pretty straight forward. So how could Congress establish a government agency funded not by appropriations from the treasury, but by fees paid to another federal entity? This was the question brought to the Supreme Court in the case CFPB v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America. Sadly, it seems that the Supreme Court once again showed they have a hard time reading and understanding the English language.
It’s been in the news again lately, the World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic treaty. Not only does this United Nation want the power to take over the world in a “health emergency”, but numerous politicians and commentators keep claiming that if Joe Biden signs this treaty, it would be legally binding. The truth is, that is just not true, for several reasons.
I meet a lot of people who think the Constitution is useless, while others wonder how people can get away with violating it. While these may appear to be opposing positions, I believe they stem from the same misconception. That the Constitution of the United States is some super hero that will come flying in to save the day. Rather, the Constitution is ink on parchment, a tool, and nothing more. Like any other tool, the Constitution is absolutely useless unless it is picked up and wielded. And like any other tool, unless you learn how to use the Constitution, you’re much more likely to crush your own thumb than those who are infringing your rights.
In one of the many cases against Donald Trump, his attorney’s are claiming that he cannot be criminally charged for an act he performed in his official capacity as President. Why? Because of something called Presidential Immunity. Is there such a thing as Presidential immunity? If so, where is it stated in the Constitution? Or is the idea Presidential immunity just the latest attempt to turn the President of the United States into a king?
Maine's governor allowed an unconstitutional piece of legislation to become "law" without her signature. LD 1578, An Act to Adopt an Interstate Compact to Elect the President of the United States by National Popular Vote is not only foolish and unconstitutional, but the latest attempt to change the United States from a union of republics into a monolithic democracy. It seems, just as with the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments in 1913, states are not only willing to give up their sovereignty, but deprive their citizens of their rights in pursuit of socialism. After all, I believe it was Vladimir Lenin who said "Democracy is indispensable to socialism."
A policy statement released by the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget effectively made a very bold statement, that the Constitution of the United States was a threat to national security. Does this not remind you of the saying from Benjamin Franklin? “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” Benjamin Franklin Are the American people willing to give up their right to be free from unreasonable searches for the promise of national security?
If there is a boogie man in the anti-gun community, it’s got to be the National Rifle Association. Accused of complicity in almost every gun crime from gang violence to mass murder, the NRA has become the lightning rod for the vitriol of those whose fear of firearms has grown to an irrational state. What happens though, when government actors advice others about the dangers of doing business with such a company? Is it merely warning of the dangers of sleeping with dogs, or an attempt to use their power to intimidate others into abandoning those they otherwise would do business with? The case of NRA v Vullo is just such a case?
Listen, my children, and you shall hearOf the midnight ride of Paul Revere, Paul Revere’s Ride by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow Most of us who grew up here in America learned about the battles of Lexington and Concorde from this Longfellow poem. Who does not remember, "One if by land, and two if by sea;" or Paul Revere's cries of "The British are coming! The British are coming!"? Most of the stories we have heard are not true. Whether poetic license or outright propaganda has been lost to history. However, the story behind those battles is not only well worth the telling, but of great importance to anyone today who still claims the title American.
I have a lot of issues with TikTok, and it’s one social media platform I refuse to use. However, when I look at how Congress plans to deal with this problem, I see even more. I’ve also read and listened to several commentators about the bill, and find even more problems with their suggestions. So what do We the People do when our representatives in Congress have a personal vendetta against a foreign company?
The word “choice” has all but been taken over by the pro-abortion crowd, but that is not what I want to discuss here today. Recent history, both public and private, has displayed the fundamental function choice plays in a person’s independence, liberty, and freedom. Yet said history has shown that many of the American people have given up the ability to choose, placing that responsibility on others. By doing so, people have voluntarily abandoned their position as free citizens in order to become enslaved subjects to those who do the choosing for them.
The gun grabbers in Congress are at it again. Attempts to disarm the American people have only been moderately successful over the past few years. So a bill was recently introduced in the House of Representatives entitled “Preventing Private Paramilitary Activity Act of 2024”. This bill wants to make it a crime for private citizens to work together to defend their rights. If this bill were to become law some day, even training together could not only get you fined, but placed in jail, possibly for life. Have these members of Congress forgotten that our war of independence was started by an attempt by the British governor of Massachusetts' attempt to disarm the people? That the the battles of Lexington and Concord were fought by private citizens who formed a militia? Or could it be that they just don’t care about our rights and the Constitution, and are just looking for another way to subjugate the American people?
As April 15th approaches, and people spend valuable time and money on filing their income tax return. While plenty of people grouse and complain about paying income taxes, most don’t realize that the cause of their pain is the actions of the states back in 1913. When the states ratified the Sixteenth Amendment they did more than just help the feds collect income taxes, they fundamentally changed the republic for the worse.
When can you sue the government? What started out as an erroneous credit report filing has turned into the heart of the question brought before the Supreme Court in the case Department Of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service V. Kirtz (USDA v. Kirtz). However, what the court found, and how it got there, points to a serious flaw in the constitutional education of lawyers and judges throughout this nation.
Every four years, the United States goes through the ritual of electing a President. I use the term ritual for two reasons. First, most Americans' understanding of the election process is based in custom or rites rather than the law. Second, most of the customs Americans follow directly contradict the actual process of electing a President of the United States.
I've spoken repeatedly about the unconstitutionality of most mask mandates. Recently, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was asked to review two cases where people were punished for attending school board meetings while refusing to wear masks. Sadly, the cases, as described in the Circuit Court opinion, seem poorly founded, thus leading to decisions against the plaintiffs. I think a closer look will not only show the flaws in the case, but help others build better ones in the future.
while looking through recent oral arguments at the Supreme Court, I stumbled across the case FBI v. Fikre. At first, I thought it was another simple procedural case, but something about it caught my attention. The oral arguments held before the Supreme Court were about whether Mr. Fikre's case that his rights were violated when he was placed on the No Fly List was no moot because he ad been removed from the list. As I stated looking deeper into the case though, I found intrigue worthing of a Grisham novel.
I propose that all board elections for non-profit corporations should be run by the state at taxpayer expense. After all, we already have taxpayer funded elections for private organizations. We call them “Primaries”. While this year's presidential primary is pretty much a fait accompli, there are still hundreds, if not thousands of primary elections that will be held over the next few months. In some cases the race is so partisan that the primary effectively decides the race and the general election is moot. What is the purpose of these taxpayer funded private elections? Why to limit your choices on election day of course. So why do we keep paying for someone else to take away our choices?
For decades, Congress has been turning over more and more lawmaking power to the Executive Branch. Frequently this is done by legislation giving the head of some agency or department the power to establish rules which have the force of law. What happens when the legislation doesn't explicitly say that such-and-such department has the power to make a certain rule? To deal with this, courts have come up with something called "Chevron Deference". While the case Loper Bright Enterprises, v Gina Raimondo, Secretary Of Commerce deals with who pays the salaries of federal observers on fishing boards, a more fundamental questioning of the court's deference to government agencies interpretation of law is the cornerstone of the petitioner's arguments.
Have you noticed how often the government of the United States decides how you should live your life? It seems everything from food and drugs to the lightbulbs in your home are regulated by Uncle Sam. And whenever some bureaucrat deems it necessary, they simply roll out another "rule" or "regulation" to clamp down on the American people. It seems though, that one of those agencies may have bitten off more than they could chew, at least according to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In the case Louisiana, et. al. v. U.S. Department of Energy the court decided that one of the DOE's rules was illegal, but was it unconstitutional?
Although I've talked about the recent attempts to keep Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot on the radio program, I realized I haven't taken the time to do an in-depth article here. I apologize for taking so long to broach this extremely important topic in this venue. Unless you've been hiding from everything politics in the United States, you are aware that there are actors in several states that have sued in their state courts to disqualify Donald Trump from being on their states primary election ballot for President of the United States. As of this writing, in only two states, Colorado and Maine, have those actors found some measure of success. While this case will undoubtably find its way to the Supreme Court, this truly is a state issue, even though it has national importance.
One of the most common ways for an American to seek a redress for some grievance is to file a law suit. This has made the United States a very litigious society. I was not able to determine the number of lawsuits filed, but in 2023 there were more attorneys in the United States (1.33 million) than doctors (1.08 million). As you might imagine, it is unlikely that all of these lawsuits are legitimate. Take for examples the case of Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer. In this case, Acheson Hotels claims that Deborah Laufer filed a lawsuit against them not because she was harmed by their hotel, but because she is an activist using the Americans with Disability Act to harass companies who do not advertise whether or not they have handicapped accessible rooms. While the Supreme Court found that the case was moot, both the facts of the case and the courts decision points to what appears to be a case of Ms. Laufer using lawsuits for both revenge and profit.
There are certain words that are so commonly used we think they have a universal understanding. One of those words is "income". Think about it, what is income? Your paycheck? Dividends on your investments? Profits from your business? When does an increase on the value of something you own become "income"? The answer to that question is important to more than just the parties in the case Moore v. United States, but to just about every American. Can the United States tax you, as income, for the value of something you have not sold yet?
I don't "do" New Years Resolutions. To me, they're one step above a campaign promise. (At least you intend to keep your resolutions.) That said, the beginning of a new year is a good time to consider your future. What plans do you have for the new year? While I do not make New Years Resolutions, if you do, here are a few ideas I think you should consider.
Thankfully, I have not seen the level of controversy over name "Christmas" this year that I've seen in years past. Whether or not you celebrate the holiday, 5 USC §6103 lists December 25th as the holiday "Christmas Day", which is why government offices are shutdown today. Since I do celebrate the holiday, I decided to take a few minutes, and consider a few some Christmas wishes I have for you, this country, and The Constitution Study.
As he prepared to leave office, President George Washington gave to us a Farewell Address. Friends and Citizens: The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made. Washington's Farewell Address 1796 As our thoughts are employed in the designation of the person who is to be clothed with the trust of administering the executive branch of the government of the United States, I think we should look back at the advice and warnings from the first occupant of that office.
As he prepared to leave office, President George Washington gave to us a Farewell Address. Friends and Citizens: The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made. Washington's Farewell Address 1796 As our thoughts are employed in the designation of the person who is to be clothed with the trust of administering the executive branch of the government of the United States, I think we should look back at the advice and warnings from the first occupant of that office.
In 1837, Daniel Webster wrote: "I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe... Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger." I’ve been thinking about that statement lately. I came across a video that I had forgotten about. It’s part of an interview with Soviet defector Yuri Bezmanov. Mr Bezmanov was a former KGB agent who defected to Canada in 1970. Then, in 1984, he gave an interview to G Edward Griffin where he exposed a long-term Soviet plan to defeat America not by force of arms, but through psychological warfare. You may be asking, what does a late 20th century defector have to do with a 19th century lawyer and statesman, and how could it possibly be relevant to our situation in the 2020s? Come to find out, both of these men were quite prescient in their warnings to the American people.
There have always been attacks on what is true. From the serpent in the Garden of Eden asking "Did God really say..." to today's attempts to quash "disinformation", truth has been under attack. While many of these attacks have been about what the truth is, over the past couple of generations, the idea of truth itself has been under attack. Why is that so? In the Gospel of John, Jesus said: And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32 (NKJV) Could the answer be that simple? Could the attacks on the very idea of truth simply be attacks on our freedom? If that is true, then what can we do to defend not only our freedom, but the very idea of freedom itself?
There is an adage in the legal profession, “Hard cases make bad law.” Well, since cases in this country to not truly make law only precedent, you might be tempted to dismiss this saying. However, since our courts are so devoted to their precedent, we should be very careful when hard cases come to the Supreme Court. For example, one case heard by the court has a very unsavory respondent. The question is, will Mr. Zackey Rahimi’s shady past be used to infringe on the right of the rest of Americans?
Social media has become so much of everyday lives that we often don’t think about its use. This has led to what appears to be a large percentage of Americans developing what can at best be described as “interesting ideas” about the relationship between government and the various social media platforms. Some recent cases heard before the Supreme Court bring the question of the relationship between government actors and social media companies into question. Probably the best well known would be Missouri v. Biden, where the states of Missouri and Louisiana have brought suit claiming that members of the Biden Administration violated the First Amendment by attempting to influence what content would be deleted or deemphasized on various platforms. However, two other cases involving local officials focus on under what circumstances government actors can block access to their social media accounts. While most of the country seems to be focused on Missouri, these two cases bring up some questions the American people should really think about.
Studies show that the best outcomes for children is to live in a home with their married parents. If the world were perfect, then all children would have that chance. But the world isn't perfect, and either by accident or as the consequences of the actions of adults, children will be in need of people to step in for their parents. In our modern society, the role of finding homes for these children has been filled by the state government. What happens when those government entities place politics above the needs of their charges? A recent case in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts deals with that very topic. Plaintiffs Michael and Catherine Burke claim that the State of Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) discriminated against them in their application to become foster parents for religious reasons. When I looked at the case what I saw wasn't so much religious discrimination, but DCF placing political viewpoints above not only the Constitution of Massachusetts, but what is best for the children in their care.
Do you have a right to record people in public? A recent case out of Oregon asked that very question, can states restrict who and when people can record the conversations in public. Oregon law prohibiting recording public conversation except in certain limited circumstances was challenged by Project Veritas. As is so often the case, both the legal challenges and judicial opinion make some questionable constitutional claims. This is why we’re going to look at the opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court Panel and decide for ourselves, does recording the public conversations of others violate the law or does the law violate the Constitution?
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law... Miranda Warning If you've ever been taken into custody, or simply watched a crime procedural on TV, you're familiar with the Miranda warning, named after the 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona. However, if you're getting your legal advice from television, you may find yourself in serious legal trouble. Where does this right to remain silent come from, how is it protected, and just how constitutional is the Miranda decision?
As I write this, the United States is deep into the primary season for the 2024 Presidential Election. There is more than enough news, polls, allegations, recriminations, and influence peddling bombarding the American people, and will continue to do so, probably until the middle of next year. While most Americans have an idea of how the primary system works, it is usually superficial, incomplete, and ignores the fundamental purpose of election primaries, control of the election process.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Several years ago I wrote an article about the Battle of Athens, TN. In the article I showed the corruption in McMinn County Sheriff’s Department, where the Sheriff and his deputies did not receive a salary, but were paid for everyone they booked, incarcerated, and released. This perverse incentive let to deputies routinely boarding buses to “fine” and jail the passengers for any alleged violations they could come up with. When subject to this corruption, many GIs returning from World War II were led to challenge the corrupt county Sheriff and other office holders. This challenge led not only to an embattled election, but an armed uprising in an attempt to restore the rule of law. If you don’t find this story of corruption compelling, consider this. The same basic system of corruption in the McMinn County Sheriff’s Department exists across the country. While the McMinn County process did not have a name, the 21st century version does, Civil Asset Forfeiture!
I was having a discussion with someone online about how we elect the President and Vice President of the United States. I was doing some research to reinforce my point when I discovered something interesting, a state which had a fraudulent ballot in 2020. Thinking this was probably an individual mistake, I started looking at the sample ballots from each state in the 2020 election. I found mistakes in not just one state, or a handful of states, but in two-thirds of the state's ballots. Which leads me to believe these may not be mistakes at all, but fraud committed by the states in regards to electing the President and Vice President of the United States.
President Obama famously said: "We're not just going to be waiting for legislation,... I've got a pen and I've got a phone…and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions." President Obama on CBS News This is a perfect example of executive overreach should go down in history as the abuse of a President's executive power to usurp the powers of other branches
Yesterday, September 17, 2023 was the 236th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States. Did you, your family, or your neighbors honor that day? Have you considered what parts of your life you enjoy because of that documents and the 27 amendments that have been made to it? Have you considered what your life, and that of your family, would be like should that document continue its fall into obscurity? To paraphrase William Shakespeare, “It was a constitution, take it for all in all, I shall not look upon its like again.” Today, I want to take sometime to consider not only what life would be like with a neutered and disabled Constitution, but what we are willing to do in order to keep it, and the protection of our rights it affords, alive and well in America. In our national anthem, we proclaim that the United Staters of America is the land of the free and the home of the brave. If we let the Constitution fall, then we will no longer be the land of the free, because We the People have not been brave.
Who is in charge of your children? That has been a perennial question that has grown in importance over the last few years. When I was a child, it was understood that, with rare exceptions, parents were in charge of a child’s upbringing. This included medical, religious, and educational decisions. However, over the last few decades, the role of the parent in these decisions has been replaced by experts. What happens when the goal of the experts differs from those of the parents? Who decides the future of the rising generations? It was understood that the state acted in loco parentis, in place of the parents, only for the safety of the child. A recent case in U.S. District Court shows that be it health departments, child services, schools, or even the courts. Government not only believes they know better than the parents, they are more than willing to act in loco parentis tyrannis.
With the release of ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence (AI) applications, there has been a lot of speculation and downright assertions about our future. With over 30 years of experience in Information Technology (IT), not more than a passing understanding of AIs, I've come to the conclusion that much of what I've heard is more science fiction than fact. A recent court case decided in the D.C. District Court revolved around one very important question. Do AIs have rights?
Since last year’s Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned the court’s precedent in Roe v. Wade, there has been a flurry of work on both sides of the debate. Some states passed legislation restricting access to abortions except for medically sound reasons, others to not only secure abortion access in law but effectively declare themselves abortion sanctuary states. Some groups are working to enshrine abortion in their state’s constitution. With all of the heated rhetoric on both sides, one question never seems to be asked. Would of these state constitutional amendments be constituional?
I encourage people to ask questions. I believe there are only two "stupid" questions in the world, the one you don't ask and the one you ask three times. Questions are important. We cannot truly learn unless we ask questions. Several weeks ago I posted the article The Role of Congress. I was pleased when I was asked a question about that article. Specifically, what are the powers of Congress. This article is the answer to that question.
I don't think I'm exaggerating to day that Judge Terry Doughty did more to protect Freedom of Speech and Press in America in my lifetime, possibly since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. What could one man do that had such a tremendous impact? How could one preliminary injunction be so important? While there has been plenty of hype about judge Doughty's order, from both sides, as I have taken the time to review it, I am impressed both by it's scope and it's quoting of both the Constitution and Founding Fathers to prove the rightness of it's position. What decision of a judge could have such an impact on the rights of the American people? The recognition of if infringement on one of our most basic rights, the freedom of expression, and the willingness to stand against it. Some may say it is fate that this judge issued his order on the 4th of July, 2023. I see it as providence that this judge has once again honored that date as our Independence Day!
In this third installment of the three-part series on the branches of government, we look at the role of the third and weakest branch. At least that is what our Founding Fathers thought of it. What is the role of the federal judiciary? What are the extent of their powers, how do they related to the other two branches of government, and why is a proper understanding of the role of the judiciary critical if the United States is to remain a constitutional republic?
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the right of an employee to be granted a religious accommodation by his employer unless doing so would substantially affect the employer’s business. In Groff v. DeJoy, the high court reiterated that employees must not be forced to choose between their faith and their job, and finally clarified long-standing precedent that had been largely misunderstood and used to deny religious accommodations to employees for years. The petitioner in the case, Gerald Groff, had asked the justices to determine whether his employer, the U.S. Postal Service, was required to provide a religious accommodation excusing him from work so that he could observe the Sabbath on Sundays.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines racism as: racism noun a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race Racism - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary This idea has taken many forms in American history, slavery, Jim Crow laws, eugenics, and yes affirmative action. Regardless of the euphemism you use, all of these policies are based in the idea that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities.
This is the second in a three-part series on the branches of the federal government. The first article covered the Legislative branch, in this well look at the role of the executive branch. While there are many misconceptions about the roles of the three branches of government, some of the most seem to be reserved to the executive. Like referring to the President as the most powerful man in the world, or to an independent executive agency. So let's delve into Article II of the Constitution and learn more about our nation's chief executive.
Freedom of speech has been under attack in this country, and Colorado has been a big part of it. First Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop has spent ten years trying to defend his right to not be compelled to create custom cakes with messages which violate his beliefs. So when Lorie Smith wanted to expand her business into developing custom wedding websites, she was concerned that Colorado would do to her what it was doing to Jack Phillips. Her request for an injunction went all the way to the Supreme Court.
For the last two years I have written showing you how much our current government in Washington, D.C. is acting exactly as King George III was back in the 18th century. While King George’s actions led the colonies to declare independence, the states have not shown themselves as willing to defend their rights and those of their citizens. Why is that? I think the answer can be found in the Declaration of INdependence: accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Could it be that all of the evils coming out of the federal government are still sufferable? Are the people will to suffer he ruling of judges, the monarchal actions of the President, Congress acting more like a House of Lords than the representative body it was created to be? Apparently they are. How long will this train of abuses have to grow before we throw off those in this tyrannical government and restore not only independence, but justice and liberty? What will it take for us to learn the truth of what Abraham Lincoln said: We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
When I started studying the Constitution, I was struck both by how much I had not been taught in school, and how much of what I was taught was wrong. Based on the questions I’ve been asked and the assertions that have been presented to me, a lack of knowledge about the Constitution is almost universal in America. As I watch news coverage, politicians, pundits, and everyday people make claims about the different parts of government can do, can’t do, or is required to do, it has become obvious that a basic understanding of how the United States government is organized is not only needed, but missing. So I’m starting a three-part series explaining the roles of the three branches of government. We’ll start where the Constitution starts, the legislative branch.
In the House, it’s calls it the “Protecting the Right to Organize Act”. What it should be called is the “Takeover and Socialism of Labor Act”. While they claim that the act is to protect the right to organize, a look at the language of the bill shows that this is not about protecting the right to unionize, but forcing people to do so. Once again we see the federal government illegally regulating employment, coercing people to join a collective, and doing all it can to destroy small business.
I've written before about the Convention of States movement, but this is a topic I'm frequently asked about. I know plenty of people both for and against such a convention, and I've written about their concerns as well. However, I've been asked to write not about the movement, but about the convention itself. So once again, let's dive into the Convention of States, look at the pros and cons, and decide for ourselves if this is the solution to America's problems.
By now I’m sure you’ve heard about the Durham report. There have certainly been enough reports, at least on the non-corporate media sites. With all of the points of view on the net, I thought it was time to review the document myself and share my thoughts with what I hope is an attentive world. At 316 pages, the report is fairly long, so I will focus soon the Executive Summary. Besides, what I found there was enough to fill an episode all by itself.
MEMO'RIAL, noun That which preserves the memory of something; any thing that serves to keep in memory. Once a year America sets aside a day to preserve the memory of those who have given their last full measure of devotion to this country. This day of memory is relegated by many to a simple holiday, a day off of work and a chance for a cookout. For others, it is a time for parades and decorating cemeteries. Regardless of how you treat this day, it is a day to remember the honored dead, those who gave their lives so we could live free. I think we owe it to them, to our families, and to ourselves to honor their sacrifice and do all we can to secure the blessings of liberty for everyone.
A recent decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals may have an interesting impact on the prosecutions of those charged with the Capitol breech on January 6, 2021. The case of United States v. Fischer appeals three decisions in lower courts reading the charge of “Obstruction of an Official Proceeding” (18 U.S.C. §1512(c)(2)). Since many of those charged regarding the January 6th incident were charged until this statue, the decision could have wide ranging impacts. It all comes down to the question of did these people act corruptly?
When I turned 16, I wanted a car, just like pretty much every other American teenage boy. When I asked my father for financial help getting my first car, he told me that if I didn’t get the money myself, I would value the car. I didn’t like that answer, but as Thomas Paine said in The American Crisis, “What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly”. it turns out my father was wise to make me work for my first car. We are not here today to talk about teenagers and their cars, but of the trillions of dollars the United States spends each and every year. First, we should ask if our employees in Washington, D.C. are spending our money wisely, or like some spoiled rich brat, are they treating our hard earned cash like Monopoly money? Once we answer that, the next obvious question is, do we cut up Uncle Sam’s credit cards before all 330 million of us are bankrupt?
During the COVID-19 scamdemic, Nancy Pelosi once again ignored the Constitution and implemented by rule something called “proxy voting”. Now, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging a bill because the final version passed in the House of Representatives by proxy vote. Does Mr. Paxton’s suit have a constitutional leg to stand on? If a court finds for Texas, what does that mean for other legislation passed on a proxy vote?
After the mass murder in Nashville, I was not surprised by the politicians and advocates rushing to microphones, many before the bodies were even removed. I wasn’t surprised by the demonstrations, especially after it was announced that the murder identified as “transgender”. While what happened in the Tennessee legislature was shocking, the aftermath is an excellent example of why the United States is a republic, not a democracy.
There has been plenty of talk lately about TikTok, its connection to the Chinese Communist Party, and what American politicians should do about it. Several states, and I believe federal agencies, have banned it from government owned devices, but is that enough? There are those who are calling for drastic actions to protect the American people from this software. However, just like after 9/11, it appears those in government are ready to use a howitzer to take care of a flea. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, along with a dozen others, hav proposed the “Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act”, also known as the RESTRICT Act. It appears the American people have not learned from our rush to protect ourselves in 2001. Then the PATRIOT Act infringed on the rights of millions of patriotic Americans. Similarly, it appears that the RESTRICT Act is setting us up to further restrict our rights and liberties.
When should a parent be denied the right to know about the medical procedures performed on their children? Most of us have been rebellious teenagers, sure that our parents are out to get us, only to grow up and realize they were right. When does a teenagers right to liberty supersede the parent’s right to oversee their minor child’s upbringing? These are all questions in the case Doe v. Chapman which was decided in the Eighth Circuit in April, 2022. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, which decided the case in March of 2023 with a single justice dissenting. This case turns not only on the questions I’ve already posed, but the procedures of the court.
With the failure to properly test the alleged COVID-19 vaccines, the FDA has lost a lot of trust in the people’s eyes. But this may not be the first time the FDA criminally approved a dangerous drug. The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, along with others have filed suit against the Food and Drug Administration regarding its approval of the abortion drug Mifeprex. Their complaint claims that the FDA violated multiple federal laws and its own regulations when it first approved the drug, then again over the next three decades when it expanded its use. This case has not been heard by a court yet, but I want to take some time and evaluate the specifics in the complaint to see if they pass constitutional muster. This will also give us a framework by which to evaluate the court’s decision when it is published.
Someone reached out on the website with an interesting question. They wanted my take on the Militia Acts of 1793 & 1903 and the National Defense Act of 1916. Specifically, he wanted to know about the constitutionality of the militia system within the United States, so I took a look. What I found was interesting, but maybe not what some people would have expected.
You’ve probably noticed, I frequently use this quote from John Jay; “Every member of the State ought diligently to read and to study the constitution of his country, and teach the rising generation to be free. By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated, and be the better prepared to defend and assert them.” – John Jay, First Chief Justice of the United States”\ This quote is the foundational idea behind The Constitution Study. I’ve realized that I’ve spent a fair amount of space here on the topic of reading the Constitution, and about studying it, but not nearly enough teach it. Sure, I mention how important teaching the Constitution is, and I’ve put on sessions and events across this country where I teach the Constitution, but how much time and effort have I put into teaching people to be free? Today, I rectify that oversight, as this entire article will be about teaching, not just the rising generation, but all generations to be FREE!
I talk quite a bit about the limitations of the federal government and the need for the states to reassert the power they have to control their creation. The number of federal agencies that do not legally exist, the fact the the supreme court does not issue rulings but offers opinions, and we can’t forget about the fact that the states created the federal government, not the other way around. So you can probably imagine my elation to find my legislation proposed in my adopted home state that codifies the state doing exactly what I said all of the states need to do, regain control of their creation in Washington, D.C. So let’s take a look at this legislation, see what lessons we can learn from it, and maybe push our representatives in other states to join in this march toward liberty.
I am loath to use the term “Bill of Rights” lightly, for two very good reasons. First, the over use of any term tends to diminish it’s value. Second, just because something claims to be a “Bill of Rights” doesn’t mean it actually is one. The bill may be very good, but that doesn’t mean it truly is a Bill of Rights. I believe a recent bill filled in the North Carolina legislature gives up an excellent opportunity to test this hypothesis. Would Senate Bill 49 actually create a Parent’s Bill of Rights, or is this just another example of over promising and under delivering?
Over the past few weeks I’ve been asked several questions about the “Sovereign Citizen” movement. What is a “sovereign citizen” or a “national citizen”? What do those in the “sovereign citizen” movement believe, what is their belief based on, and does the evidence support their assumptions? What are the consequences of following the recommendations from the movement? I thought it was time to not only dive into the facts of this movement, but to bring my findings to everyone here at The Constitution Study.
We're all familiar with the fact that our property is taxed. And if you don't pay your taxes, it's going to cost you. But how far can a city, town, or any government agency go to collect your taxes? In 2014, after several personal and business issued, Alan DiPietro purchased some property straddling Stow and Bolton, MA for the purpose of raising alpacas. What ensued was several years of battle between Mr. DiPietro and the town of Bolton over his use of his own land. While what was described in Mr. DiPietro's law suit was pretty terrible, I want to focus on the foreclosure of the property.
A couple of weeks ago someone claiming to be my “#1 Fan”, at least that’s the name they used, asked an interesting question. “Any chance you could make a YouTube video going through each major executive federal agency or department and discuss which is actually Constitutional under Article 1 Section 8?” That’s a good question, so there’s not only a very good chance I will write the article, but here it is.
We’re always told to live and yet live, but things don’t seem to work out that way. Take, for example, the transgender movement’s insistence that everyone else ignore what is physically true and pander to their psychosis. Such is the situation with the case Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, FL. Drew Adams is a minor girl pretending to be a boy. Even though the St. Johns County School Board has made accommodations for Ms. Adams delusions, she’s not happy. She wants to use the boys bathroom, rather than the sex neutral bathrooms that were specifically set aside for the very few confused students. She is so insistent, that she, through her mother, sued the school district in federal court. This case has made it all the way to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
I received an email asking me to "delve into Rental Inspection Programs." I have to admit, having lived my adult life in rural America and owning my own home for over 30 years, I haven't had to deal rental inspection programs. While I was researching these programs, I realized they may be just the tip of a truly large iceberg.
Imagine you have immunity for any bad actions you take. You’ve probably heard of diplomatic immunity, where officials of other countries are shielded from prosecution. Then there’s sovereign immunity, when the head of government cannot be charged. But in America, our legal system has come up with the idea of qualified immunity. While the idea of qualified immunity may make sense, like so many other things, it has been badly abused by those in government. The State of New York is considering legislation that may put the brakes on some of the abuses of qualified immunity. Would this make things better or worse?
In 1722, under the name Silence Dogood, Benjamin Franklin wrote: “Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech;" Why is freedom of speech so important? As Mr. Franklin stated, there is public liberty without it, but what does that mean. Yes, without freedom of speech people cannot express themselves, but there’s more. Without freedom of speech we would never be exposed to contradictory ideas, and we would never grow. The basis of the scientific method is the testing of contradictory ideas. If freedom of speech is so important, why do people keep tying to shut it down? Take New York State’s “Online Hate Speech Law”. Why is the State of New York attempting to get social media networks to act as government censors for them?
There are few things more universally feared and hatred than the IRS. When I’m asked about unconstitutional government agencies, and I point out that the IRS does exercise a power delegated to the United States, most people are gravely disappointed. While the IRS may legally exist, that does not mean that everything they do is constitutional. IRS’s rule to gather data from those in the gig economy went to far. While the Sixteenth Amendment does allow Congress to collect taxes on income from any source without apportionment to the states, the IRS used the threat of unreasonable searches to “encourage” compliance. But for those of us who read and study the Constitution, we can see that this is just the latest in a long line of abuses this agency has engaged in. Let’s face it, this $600 reporting requirement is less about collecting taxes and more about gathering intelligence on the American population.
When the Framers were drafting the Constitution, they had several examples both for how to create laws and execute them. Would the President be an executive or a king? Read Article II and you’ll see that we have an executive not a king. But is that how modern Presidents act? Alexander Hamilton discussed this in Federalist Papers #69. Let’s look at The Real Character of the Executive, then decide for ourselves whether the current and recent occupants of the office are worthy of it.
We all indulge in wishful thinking from time to time. What would happen if that wishful thinking made it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States? That may be just the case with Brunson v. Adams, et al. Mr. Brunson has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear his case against 388 federal officers, including President Biden, Vice President Harris, former Vice President Pence and 385 members of the U.S. House and Senate. Does his case have a constitutional leg to stand on, or is it just wishful thinking?
In every dystopian novel or movie I can think of there is either an oppressive government or not functioning government at all. As we travel this road of life, we should be asking ourselves, does this head to more liberty or more control? Take for example Central Bank Digital Currencies, or CBDCs for short. Would this new currency allow Americans more liberty or would it give government more control of our lives. To understand this, we first need to look at what are CBDCs. Then we can look at both sides of this preverbal digital coin and decide for ourselves, do the benefits outweigh the costs.
I hear this all the time, how does homosexual marriage impact your marriage. This platitude has a small grain of truth, but it only works if you ignore the rest of reality. It's not that recognizing other marriages changes your own, but how allowance morphs into coercion and then extortion. For almost a dozen years there's been a feud between the State of New York's Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) and New Hope Family Services (New Hope). New Hope was granted a perpetual corporate authorization as an adoption agency by OCFS. However, between January 2011 and November 2013, OCFS created policies and rules that would require that New Hope place children with couple that would violate their religious beliefs. The suit New Hope filed in December of 2018 has been through ups and downs. With the latest court orders, it appears New Hope is currently enjoying the protection of their religious liberty. Will it be challenged again?
Here at the Constitution Study, we spend a lot of time discussing the legal and societal cost of ignoring the Constitution. Have you considered the financial costs though? Sure, we all complain about the size of government, usually around tax season. But of the trillions of dollars spent every year, how much of it is spent on unconstitutional government agencies and programs? Let's take some time and look at the 2023 budget for the government of the United States, see how much is being spent on these agencies that do not legally exist, and consider the costs of our lack of constitutional literacy.
There is legislation working its way through Congress called the Respect for Marriage Act. But does this act respect marriage or redefine it? Let's face it, the definition of marriage has been changing for centuries. Marriages used to include polygamy and other relationships that are no longer legal. But does this act respect the institution of marriage, change it to make it better, or merely open the door to its degradation. Does Congress even have the legal authority to pass such legislation.
While writing my last two articles about the Virginia Bill of Rights, I became more and more impressed by the person who had written them. I decided to do some research on this little know but extremely important Founding Father, and what I found did not diminish my opinion of him. So today, let's take a closer look at George Mason, the man known as the Father of the Bill of Rights.
Last week we looked at the first eight sections of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. This predecessor to the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights not only gives us some ideas about what Thomas Jefferson was thinking when he wrote the Declaration, but why George Mason refused to sign the Constitution when the other framers did. Let's finish the job by going through the last eight sections.
Prior to the Declaration of Independence being adopted, Virginia adopted their Declaration of Rights. A Declaration of Rights Is made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government. George Mason wrote this declaration, but its impact goes far beyond the Commonwealth of Virginia. We can see the influence of this document on Thomas Jefferson in the opening paragraphs of the Declaration. Let's take some time and look at this predecessor of our Declaration of Independence.
In the latest example of government bureaucrats attempting to take over our lives, the CDC has added an experimental treatment to their "Vaccine for Kids" program. This program provides eligible children free vaccines. What makes this decision truly awful is the vote to add these treatments to the children's vaccine schedule. Many schools and other children's programs require children to receive the vaccines on the CDC's schedule in order to attend. All of this under the guise of a medical emergency that does not exist.
You may have heard about Texas bill H.B. 20, an attempt by the government of Texas to prevent censorship by social media companies. You might also have heard about the case making its way through the federal judicial system regarding this particular law. The central question we should be asking is, when is freedom of speech not freedom of speech? Put another way, can government, either legislatively or judicially, force private companies to share communication they disagree with?
"Operation Crossfire Hurricane", or as it is colloquially known "Russia-gate", seem to be the gift that keeps on giving. Six years after its inception and still it keeps making the news. This time it is a lawsuit filed by Carter Page, an information advisor to the Donald Trump campaign. Recently, a District Court judge for the District of Columbia has dismissed Mr. Page's case. The reasons why are both interesting and informative, making it worth taking a closer look at.
If you spend any significant time discussing court opinions, you've encountered the concept of "Judicial Review". What is judicial review, where does it come from, and is it used today the way it was originally defined? These are the questions every American should have a basic understanding of if they wish to live free. So that is what we are going to look at in this article.
None of us want to be judged by our race, sex, or how we live our lives. But what right do we have to impose our views on others, even to the point of controlling their private property. That is the question in a complaint against Yeshiva University. Does the City of New York have the legal authority to make a private university recognize a student group? Can the state order a religious school to violate its core beliefs to accommodate the wishes of a student? If we wish to live at liberty, doesn't that mean we have to allow others to enjoy their own liberty, even if we disagree with it?
"By hook or by crook", that seems to be the sentiment of some who promote abortion in this country. When they could not get their way by federal law, they engaged the federal judiciary. When the judiciary abandoned them, they went back to using state law to get their way. And when state law didn't get them all they wanted, they used regulation to "back door" themselves around the law. Such seems to be the case in California.
Most Americans celebrate the Signing of the Declaration of Independence, but very few celebrate the signing of the Constitution of the United States? Why is that? Sure, we celebrate Independence Day with cookouts and fireworks, but there's nothing preventing us from celebrating Constitution Day the same way? Could it be that this union of states, like an old married couple, has become complacent and bored? Come with me while I examine this phenomenon in preparation for my own celebration of Constitution Day.
When a government agent stands at your door asking to come in, do you know what your rights are? What would you do if that agent tries to enter your house illegally? If that day comes, the difference between liberty and incarceration may well depend on how well you know your rights and how prepared you are to assert and defend them.
Most of us are aware of Double Jeopardy, the right to not be tried for the same crime twice. But the courts have adopted a "dual sovereign" doctrine to get around this pesky little problem. Two Supreme Court cases out of Oklahoma show the problems with the court making up the rules as they go along, and how this concept of dual sovereignty violate both your rights and the Constitution of the United States.
In Federalist Papers #78, Alexander Hamilton said that the the federal judiciary would be the branch of government least dangerous to our rights. But is that how the courts are working in the 21st century? What makes the courts today so injurious to our rights? We get a clue from current Associate Justice Elena Kagan in a speech she gave at a judicial conference in Montana this July. By comparing her statements to the Constitution and the writings of those who helped frame it, we should not only be able to answer what makes the court dangerous to our rights, but how to protect our rights from them.
In Federalist Papers #78, Alexander Hamilton said that the the federal judiciary would be the branch of government least dangerous to our rights. But is that how the courts are working in the 21st century? What makes the courts today so injurious to our rights? We get a clue from current Associate Justice Elena Kagan in a speech she gave at a judicial conference in Montana this July. By comparing her statements to the Constitution and the writings of those who helped frame it, we should not only be able to answer what makes the court dangerous to our rights, but how to protect our rights from them.
After years of trying to pack the Supreme Court, there's a new attempt to take control of the third branch of government. Rather than placing extra justices on the court, (all of which would be appointed by the current President), they want to set term limits for, and a complicated method of appointing justices. But is any of this constitutional? How will Congress and the courts react to this of power? Will the American people meekly sit back and watch while the Constitution is once again set aside by Congress for political ends? What would happen to America if this legislation is allowed to see the light of day?
When parents saw what their children were being taught during the COVID-19 school shutdowns, school choice has been a topic of interest lately. If government schools were going to substitute political theory for reading, writing, and arithmetic, parents wanted another choice. Most people cannot afford private schools, and others cannot dedicate the time to home schooling. Since the people pay for these government schools through their taxes, shouldn't they be able to use that money for better options?
Most of us have heard of the case where the Supreme Court placed limits of freedom of speech. However most people don't know the name of the case and frequently misquote it. A recent case out of Kansas once again brings into question the government's ability to criminalize certain types of speech. From the Schneck case in 1919 to the Hernandez-Calvillo case in 2022, when the government tries to make speech it doesn't like criminal, We the People must stand up to the tyranny.
A high-school coach was denied his freedom of religion and speech based on a a more than 50 year old lemon of a court opinion. In the case Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court claimed that your right to freely speak and exercise your religion must yield to the government's "interest" in avoiding violating the establishment clause. But the standard "Lemon" put in place put the government's interest above your rights protected by the Constitution. In this years case Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the court took this Lemon and turned it into lemonade.
Did you ever imagine a question about air pollution could end up changing the way governments work? That may be exactly what happened with the Supreme Court's opinion in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. What started as a question of whether or not the EPA's plan to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from the electric grid was constitutional into a statement about the limits of discretion that executive agencies can exercise.
Can a state arbitrarily decide whether or not you get to exercise a right protected by the Constitution of the United States? That is the question in the case New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen, Superintendent of the New York State Police. New York State is a "may issue" state, meaning that you did not get your carry license even if you met all of the legal requirements, you had to show you had a "good cause" to carry a firearm in public. But self-defense was not considered "good cause" by the New York courts. You had to show you had a special need for self-defense, greater than the general public. Does that sound like infringement on your right to keep and bear arms to you?
After almost 50 years, a landmark decision of the Supreme Court has been overturned. Will it be remembered with other decisions like Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson? Only time will tell. After all of the furor when a draft of the opinion was leaked, we finally get a chance to review that actual opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health in its final form.
Last year, I re-examined the Declaration of Independence in the light of current events. After another year, I believe the evidence is clear, the government in Washington, D.C. has become just as corrupt, despotic, and destructive or your rights as the government of King George III was. This year, I want to look at this new evidence to show you just how fast the American people are rushing toward servitude. I also want to take a closer look how We the People can regain control of our governments, restore our freedom, liberty, and rights, and once again show that tyrants are unfit to govern a free people.
Regardless of the problem du jour, I'm frequently asked what We the People can do. Everyone seems to think all the answers are in Washington, D.C. But a look at the Constitution and some Supreme Court opinions will show that the answer to an out of control federal government is a lot closer to home.
Have you ever considered how money relates to speech? The federal government has. One of the issues with federal election law is the limitation on the use of money for a candidate to get their message out. What does the case FEC v Cruz have to do with free speech? More important, what does it show about the corruption of elections in America?
There's a saying in many training communities, "The body will not go where the mind has not already been." The idea is simply, if you do not prepare beforehand for a given situation, you will not be prepared when it happens. But what happens when preparation moves from proper to totalitarian?
There are certain Supreme Court cases that are infamous, either for their import or their error. Miranda, Roe v. Wade, and Obergefell are just a few. Two of these cases are known simply as Dred Scot and Korematsu. These cases are not only examples of when the courts get things wrong, but of our nature to treat others as less than human.
As children, we receive protection of our rights through our parents. But have you ever considered at what age you receive protections for your rights directly? Is it the same for all rights, or are there different ages when you receive protections for different rights? The case Jones v. Bonta asked the question, when do you receive protections for your right to keep and bear arms. The answer out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals may surprise you.
When is flying a flag government speech? That was the question before the Supreme Court in the case of Shurtleff, et al. V. City Of Boston et al. Could the City of Boston refuse to fly a Christian flag? Was the city required to do so? Or did Harold Shurtleff have the right to fly the flag of his choice on public property? What does this mean for other Freedom of Speech cases around the country?
Finally! The first of those incarcerated for participating in the January 6th demonstration has petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. What does this mean? What are the constitutional issues? And why should this important to the American people?
You've probably heard about the "ruling" from a U.S. District Court Judge in Florida that "struck down" the CDC's mask mandate on public transportation. There has been plenty of discussion about what this means, how people have reacted, and the fact that the Biden administration is appealing this decision. What has been lost in most of the conversation is that the judge did not find the rule unconstitutional. What does this fact mean for the American people?
What can you do when government abuses their powers? I've talked before about the right to petition the government for a redress of grievance and how the judicial precedent of sovereign immunity violates that right. But what happens when law enforcement or the justice department abuses their prosecutorial powers? How do you seek redress for a malicious prosecution? For years it has been extremely hard to do so, but a recent Supreme Court opinion may balance the scales.
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing laws that abridge your right to petition the government for a redress of grievance. Yet not only has Congress ignore that restriction on their actions, but the federal courts have piled on. Today, I will look at what the right to petition means, how that has been violated, and what the American people can do about it.
Misdirection is the stock and trade of both magicians and politicians. Over the years, the American people have been conditioned to focus on Washington, D.C. as both the source of our problems and their solution. In doing so, we are allowing those in our state and local government to steal our rights and our liberties right out from under our noses.
Imagine your rights are under attack. You seek assistance from those who have sworn to protect you, only to be attacked again. You reach out to what you think is your last hope, only to be rebuffed. Now consider how that must feel, to be abandoned by those who have sworn to protect you. Enter Seattle's Union Gospel Mission. Their freedom of religion is under attack, not by the laws of the State of Washington, but by a disgruntled job applicant. The Supreme Court of Washington placed their political preferences above their oath to support Constitution of the State of Washington. Then when the Missions seeks redress from the Supreme Court of the United States, they are rebuffed. Their only cold consolation, the statement by two justices that the court may have to deal with this infringement in the future. I've asked this before and I'll ask it again. Do you truly have Freedom of Religion when those who have sworn or affirmed to protect it fail to do so?
We all recognize that property can be foreclosed on for failure to pay a tax debt. What happens when the value of the foreclosure is greater than the debt owed? A case out of Michigan, recently appealed to the Sixth Circuit, seeks redress for just such situations. Eight citizens of Oakland County Michigan are suing the county for, among other things, taking property worth far more than the tax debt owed, then not reimbursing them the difference. Is this an illegal taking, or a deprivation of property without due process? Or could it simply be a scheme to defraud both the homeowners and taxpayers of Oakland County?
How can you tell if you have freedom of religion? Is it because of the First Amendment? Does freedom of religion exist because people say so? Does freedom of religion exist if government can decide whether you are properly following the tenants of your religion? A recent case before the Supreme Court asked that very question. Sadly, the court decided not to consider answering it.
A reader sent me an email about the influx of illegal aliens on our souther border. The question of whether or not this constituted an invasion and thereby requiring a response by the federal government under Article IV, Section 4 is one worth taking a closers look at. Not only the question of does this constitution an invasion or not, but what are the consequences of such a point of view?
With all of the unconstitutional laws, executive orders, and regulations coming out of Washington, D.C. lately, people often wonder, what can be done. Out of control governments are nothing new in America. At the end of the 18th century, two of our Founding Fathers wrote about keeping what we now call the federal government in check. Let's look at how these two men expected the states to rein in the federal government.
We keep hearing about threats to America’s democracy. Occasionally I’ll hear someone point out that the United States is not a democracy, but a republic. How many Americans know the difference? And just what are the responsibilities of the federal government to protect that republican for of government?
With the recent passing of legislation in both Wisconsin and Nebraska, the call for a Convention of States is once again in the news, which has brought up a lot of comments and more than a few questions. So what is this Convention of States? What can happen if one is called? And most important, is it constitutional? Let's take a dive into the Convention of States, and see if we can answer these questions.
Does Congress have the legal power to regulate Presidential elections? The answer is no, unless you are a leader in the Senate. Senators Angus King, Amy Klobuchar, and Dick Durbin have released a discussion draft of their legislation to place Congress in control of the Presidential election process, in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States. Let's look at this blatant act of theft in the light of what the Constitution actually says. Then we can decide how to deal with these oath-breakers.
I got the idea for the Constitution Study while listening to a podcast reporting on the 2013 State of the First Amendment Survey. While the First Amendment Center has issued a survey since 2019, based on what I've been seeing lately, it is still worth investigating. Let's roll back the clock a few years, look at the state of the First Amendment, then see if it is healthier in 2022 than it was in 2019?
Many of you may be wondering what medical ethics has to do with the Constitution. Many who've been following what's been going on with the COVID-19 "vaccine" and related mandates have asked me about the Nuremberg Codes. While this set of medical ethics is not law in the United States, it does support the rights protected by the Constitution. Understanding this code, and how the Constitution protects your rights is paramount if liberty and freedom are to survive the attack they are under by enemies both governmental and societal.
In a previous post I reviewed the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in two sets of cases involving federal vaccine mandates. It did not take long for the court to decide those cases. However, as is often the case, the reporting on these cases has been fairly atrocious. I've heard several respected people claim that the court "struck down" the OHSA mandate while others lamented the court decided not to protect healthcare workers. While the opinions the court offered are spilt, we need to remember that the court was only dealing with whether or not to enjoin these mandates until these cases have worked their way through the court system. The actual opinions regarding these injunctions is a bit of a mixed bag, but certainly not the definitive outcome you may have read or heard. So let us look at the opinions without the hype or hyperbole, and see if we can find a clue as to the state of the justice system in America today.
By the time this article posts, the Supreme Court has probable offered their opinion on the injunctions against OSHA's mandates against private businesses and healthcare providers. Before the court could render its opinion, there were oral arguments. While many court watchers seemed to believe the court would offer restriction if not find the mandates illegal, reading the transcripts of the oral arguments showed a much more serious failure in our legal system, the judicial branch, and the potential failure of our constitutional republic.
Recently, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Health and Human Services enforcing new rules regarding COVID-19 "vaccine" and mask mandates in Head Start programs. While this is good news for liberty in America, it also hides a terrifying secret. That more and more, America is run less like a constitutional republic and more like a kingdom or an oligarchy, where those in positions of power merely dictate to the rest of us how we are to live our lives. The case Texas v. Becerra is not over, and neither is the need of the American people to rein in the out of control government that resides in Washington, D.C.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution is the Necessary and Proper Clause.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Does that mean Congress can pass any law which they think is necessary? Enter the new law, H.R.3684 - Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In Section 24220, Congress "finds" it necessary to require new cars to include drunk and impaired driving technology. The question we should all have asked was, is that a power vested in the government of the United States?
There are certain idea that we find detestable. Concepts we find repulsive. Even some actions that we cannot abide. But do we have the right to tell other people that they must live by what we find acceptable? How many dystopian novels are based in the idea that only approved thought is allowed in society? Benjamin Franklin, writing as Silence Dogood wrote:
“Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or controul the Right of another: And this is the only Check it ought to suffer, and the only Bounds it ought to know.
What will you do to protect public liberty? What will you allow, not because you approve, but because you recognize the right of others to live differently than you?
The Supreme Court opinions in Roe v Wade (Roe) and Planned Parenthood vs Casey (Casey) have been political footballs since the day they were decided. A recent Mississippi law placed restrictions on abortions within the state that contradict the standards set by Roe and Casey. Not surprisingly, a lawsuit was filed challenging the Mississippi law. Recently, oral arguments in this case were heard at the Supreme Court. I found a number of arguments that I believe anyone interested in what the Constituiton actually says would find worth their time.
U.S. Representative Tim Burchett has introduced a bill to limit the number of terms members of Congress can serve. I’ve talked before about term limits, but this seems to be a good opportunity to look at the details both to the legislation and the idea of term-limits.
One concept that I often see people express is that the United States is now a private corporation. Those who make these claims often cite The District of Columbia Act of 1871 as proof. This “fact” is then used to support various positions or explain why or how certain acts of government take place. So let’s look at The District of Columbia Act of 1871 and the Constitution of the United States to see for ourselves if we are no longer citizens of a union, but subjects of a corporation.
With the recent "approval" of the Pfizer vaccine for 5-11 year olds, many are wondering when the "recommendation" to vaccinate will become a mandate. Do governments have the legal authority to intervene in family decision? If so, under what conditions? One opinion comes from a case out of the Second Circuit in the 1970s. Understanding the limits of the coercive power of government over families will be important if we wish to remain free.
This week I’m taking questions from my Knowing Your Rights tour event in New Port Richie, FL.
By now, you've probably heard of Jen Psaki's response to a question about Texas standing up to Biden's threatened vaccine mandate. She stated that federal law trumps state law. I guess it's true that the best lie should contain a bit of truth. Today, let's answer the question of whether federal law always trumps state law. Let's do so by looking at the original documents, so we can answer this question not only when it comes to vaccine mandates, but all of the acts coming out of Washington, D.C.
I usually cover cases involving the Constitution of the United States. Today however, I am looking at a case our of the State of Illinois involving that state's constitution and the question of county gun and ammo taxes. While the appellant's complaint argues that these taxes violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Illinois Supreme Court focused on similar language in the state's constitution. While Cook County gun owners may be happy with the outcome, as a constitutional scholar I find the majority opinion woefully lacking.
When you hear a lie so often that you think it's the truth, we say you've been "gaslighted". That is just as true for government as any other part of your life. From early in the 20th century, Congress has been telling the American people the lie that they limited the number of members in the House of Representatives by law. That law is invalid and void. Yet the American people sit back and allow their employees in Congress to violate the law, and do so with blatant disregard for the supreme law of the land and their oath or affirmation to support it. We act like the people in the Hans Christian Anderson tale, "The Emperor's New Clothes". We nod our heads and go along with what we've been told our entire lives, that the House of Representatives legally has 435 members. I'm here to play the role of the small boy in the story and cry out "The Emperor has no clothes." Specifically, that the House of Representatives has denied you the proper representation you are entitled to in Congress, and it's about time we do something about it.
A recent case out of the Court of Appeals of the State of California brings up some interesting questions. First, does someone have the legal right to tell you how to refer to them? Second, does a mental disorder give someone the legal authority to infringe on the rights of others. The opinion in this case shows the irrationality of both the transgender activists and the judicial branch. Which leads me to a question, is the mental confusion we call transgenderism contagious?
Many people have pointed to Florida as an example of a state protecting the rights and liberty of its citizens. They point to the state's responses to COVID and Big-Tech as examples of not just upholding the rights of those in the Sunshine State, but specifically the leadership of Governor Ron DeSantis. Meanwhile, an objective look at some recent legislation and executive actions shows that when it comes to rights and liberty, not all in Florida is sunshine.
But freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we fight for it, protect it, defend it and then hand it to them with the well thought lessons of how they in their lifetime must do the same. And if you and I don't do this, then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free. Ronald Reagan's words have come true. We now live in a country where we have to explain to the rising generations what it was like to live in America where people were free. While this day has been coming for decades, recent events show us the level of rot and decay when it comes to your rights and liberty. No longer must those of us who cherish our freedom and liberty concern ourselves solely with the acts of government. Today, businesses, society, and even our neighbors are out to crush the last vestiges of the rights and liberty we enjoy. It's not that we weren't warned this day would come. But like so many in other situations, we never thought it would happen in our lifetimes.
On September 17, 1787, the members of the Continental Congress signed the Constitution for the United States of America and sent it to the states for ratification. If I were to review the "State of the Constitution" in 2021, I would have to say it is not good, not good at all. While this Constitution for the United States is the oldest national constitution in the world, second only to the Constitution of Massachusetts in age, decades of ignorance and apathy by the American people has reduced the supreme law of the land to an anachronism, a throw back to a time when rights, freedom, and liberty were important to them. Today, Americans seem more interested in being taken care of than actually exercising their rights. As a matter of fact, the American people have shown they no longer believe in unalienable rights, only fulfilling their own narcissistic desires. Does this mean the Constitution is dead? Only if the American people allow it.
The recent Texas law SB8 has been described as an attack on the right to abortion. The case challenging the law, Whole Woman's Health et al, v. Austin Reeve Jackson, Judge, et al, has become a lightening rod for abortion activists. Referring to the law as both extreme and a blatant violation of constitutional rights, President Biden has been one of the chief spokesmen opposing this law and the decision of the Supreme Court. By going to the original documents we can cut through the hype and understand the truth, not only about the law but the court's opinion as well.
I've been talking a lot recently about the Due Process Clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Why? Because they seem to be lost in the noise created by the current legal climate. I thought it would be a good time to dive deeper into these two clauses, both so we can understand them and see how often they are violated, even if the judiciary does not.
There has been a fair amount of focus lately on the CDC eviction moratorium, including court findings and the fact that President Biden ignored them. By doing some research, we can find out the facts of this case, including the good, bad, and ugly when it comes to the constitutionality of the different actions. Let's take a look at those details, and determine for ourselves what we should do about it.
Are you familiar with eminent domain? Do you know where that is authorized in the Constitution of the United States? Do you know the requirements and limitations of eminent domain? A recent case out the Supreme Court shows just how dangerous it is for We the People to not know what the Constitution says. According to this court, not only does Congress have the authority to use eminent domain, but to authorize private companies to use that power for their own private gain. Sadly, not only the courts, but most Americans believe that it's legal.
There have been a lot of claims lately that all voter integrity laws from republicans are racist while all from democratic are a move toward free and fair elections. Beyond the partisan propaganda, a recent case at the Supreme Court asked the question, was Arizona's election laws racist? Specifically does the out-of-precinct policy or ballot-collection law violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
I have written before about the constitutional problems with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, (known as ObamaCare), not to mention the Supreme Court's repeated machinations to make it appear to be legal. But recent case that the court declined to hear shows just how corrupt and untrustworthy these black robed oligarchs are.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." “The Friends of Voltaire” by S. G. Tallentyre (Evelyn Beatrice Hall) This quote has been the cry of free speech advocates for decades. But how is society to treat those, especially minors, who violate the standards of speech considered acceptable in public? In the case Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the question is, what are the legitimate actions of public schools in disciplining the vulgar speech of students. In its opinion, the Supreme Court illegitimately applied the First Amendment to state actors, but that is nothing new. By far the most interesting part of the opinion is the role the justices believe schools have in parenting children. And you may be surprised by what the lone dissenter in this case said regarding the subject.
Does truth matter? I know, many people claim truth is personal, that you have your truth and I have mine. But can a society survive without a recognition of objective truth? The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case out of the Fourth Circuit that revolved around a simple question. Is truth defined by what is or what people think?
Earlier this year I wrote A Taking, or Not A Taking, that is the Question about the oral arguments in the case of Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid. The Supreme Court has rendered its opinion, so now is the time for a review. If you've read many of my case...
What is the role of government in enforcing societal norms? Does the state have the legal power to force compliance with its preferred worldview? A religious freedom case pitting the city of Philadelphia against Catholic Social Services has had its day at the Supreme Court. While the court correctly found for Catholic Social Services, the details prove that judges and lawyers at all levels have a serious comprehension problems when it comes to reading the Constituiton of the United States.
This week we had a great discussion covering court packing, Biden's vaccine push, and the Louisana Purchase.
As we celebrate the anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, I think it’s important that we take some time and perform a self-examination of the independence to which those men pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. If we compare the federal government today to the king we declared independence from then, I think we’ll find them much more alike than we would find comfortable. So today, let us redeclare our independence, not from the government in Washington, D.C., but from the men and women who have corrupted the legacy we celebrate today, from the unjust powers they are exercising, and the tyranny they are attempting to impose on the American people.
Many in California dream of exercising their right of self-defense protected by the Second Amendment to the Constituiton of the United States. That's because today they are living in a nightmare of laws and regulation designed to prevent otherwise law abiding citizens from exercising the right to keep and bear arms. The recent case Miller v. Bonta, may sound like a blow for freedom in the golden state. The opinion itself however, is more of a "good news/bad news" situation.
This week we discussed the Declaration of Independence, law schools, due process, and more.
By now most of you have probably heard the reports of counties that have voted to break away from Oregon and become part of Idaho. While this type of vote is not unheard of, and many pundits have claimed there is precedent, should these counties get their wish, it would be a first time event in American history. Let's cut through the political positioning, wishful thinking, and questionable constitutional analysis to see what it would take for these counties to move between states.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
This Live Q&A we disucssion the Convention of States & Term Limit movements. We also talk about how to exercise you right properly.
What does a 2020 Georgia Supreme Court case have to do with a 1900 case about a dead officer? Plenty. A report about a case decided by the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia this past December highlights the importance of knowing your rights. In the 1900 case the justices used in their opinion, we see that this knowledge can have life or death consequences. Both cases show the importance of knowing your rights and being prepared to assert them, especially in the face of government actors.
Today is a day the American people set aside to honor those who gave their lives fighting for us. Whether you plan to go to a parade, place flowers on graves, or simply enjoy a cookout, every American should take some time to honor the fallen and what they fell for.
If there are two actions that can best describe the first months of the Biden administration, they would be executive orders and spending. I've talked about executive orders in the past, so today I want to delve into spending. Specifically the idea that Washington, D.C. can spend money on anything Congress can appropriate. Federal spending on anything they find popular is not a 21st century phenomenon, it's not even a 20th century one. James Madison dealt with Congress' spending habits all the way back in 1817. How he dealt with them is something the American people need to learn today if we are to ever rein in an out of control federal government.
Why do we call the government of the United States the federal government, when the Constitution doesn't refer to it that way? What is this idea of federalism and why is it important to the health of the republic? And how can we use federalism to protect our rights?
In this Q&A we discuss promoting the COVID vaccine with coercion and bribrey, judicial review, Maranda Rights, and permitless carry.
What happens when courts serve neither the law nor justice? Can liberty in America survive when courts attempt to be experts in everything except what they are delegated to do? You may have heard about the California church that recently received an injunction from the Supreme Court against Governor Newsom's tyrannical restrictions against churches in California. But just as the magician distracts his audience while performing the trick out of sight, this injunction is not a win for liberty in the Golden State, it is a knife in the back to the rights of all Americans .
A recent case argued before the Supreme Court revolved around what is called the "caretaker exception" to the Fourth Amendment. This is an excellent example of how constitutional law, which is nothing more than the opinion of judges, is being used to circumvent the Constituiton of the United States.
This time we're talking Judicial Supremacy, Federall Supremacy, and what we can do about it.
On the morning of April 19th, 1775 the actions of a few would have an impact that would resound throughout history. Most of us were taught about "The shot heard 'round the world", but have you learned what led up to that event? Let's take the 246th anniversary of this famous event to remind ourselves how we got here.
The proliferation of drones have become another front on the war against privacy. In a case in the Michigan Court of Appeals, we find a question of whether a drone search is reason, or not.
Ronald Reagan said "a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth." Apparently that is no longer true, as a dead proposed amendment simply will not go away. Sounding like Dr. Frankenstein, the House of Representatives is crying "It's alive!", but it is still dead.
I don't know who said it, but I've heard the future described as the undiscovered country. Today, I have some undiscovered country to ponder with you.
I recently saw the body cam video of a Galveston, TX police officer arresting a woman for not wearing a mask in a local bank. While many seem to be appalled by the actions of the officer, I see this as an excellent example of how ignorance of our rights has led to the situation this woman was in.
Are states beginning to exert control of their own monetary policy by establishing gold and silver a money?
It seems we forget that courts are part of their government. Several groups petitioned the government, in the form of the federal courts, for a redress of the grievances what state actors other than their legislature changed the manner of appointed electors for President. When the supreme Court denied to hear these cases, it reminded me why we should not blindly trust the courts to protect our rights. Why? Because in many cases, they are the fox guarding the henhouse.
I recorded a video back in September about the CDC's "order" banning evictions. Well a U.S. District judge in Texas agreed that the CDC's order is unconstitutional. So let's ponder the judges opinion, next on The Constitution Study.
https://constitutionstudy.com/2020/09/28/206-federal-land-lords/
Did you hear about the representatives who pressured cable providers to stop hosting news outlets they don't like? No, that isn't the straight line to a joke, it's real life. And if we aren't careful, it's free speech in America that will become a joke.
There's an old saying when it comes to the news media, "If it bleeds, it leads!" Taken to the extreme, we see Americans being ruled not so much by laws but by fear. Tonight I want to discuss how people have used COVID to rule by fear, and it's not just the politicians who are doing it.
With all the talk of a new federal minimum wage, I thought this would be a good tie not only to ask the question, is it legal, but to look at a case about it from our history.
This country was formed with a radical idea, that the people rule the government rather than the government ruling the people. That idea has been eroded almost since the beginning. But the rate at which the people have voluntarily given up their sovereignty to become servants of government has exploded over the last few decades. So today I want to ponder the power structure the Framers created, compare it to how we live today, and consider some ideas to preserve rights and liberties in America.
After the fiasco of the 2020 election, I was not surprised when a bill claiming to fix the problem was introduced in Congress. H.R. 1, titled the “For the People Act of 2021” is actually an attempt to remove the states from controlling the voting process, centralize power in Washington, D.C., and open even more opportunities for fraud and malfeasance in future elections. In other words, if there was truth in legislative advertising this bill would be called the "Corruption of Future Elections Act of 2021".
When it comes to rights and liberty, 2020 was a dumpster fire. Tonight, I want to look at some of the more recent examples of states infringing on the rights of their people, and discuss what the American people have taught their governments.
Do the American people have a right to vote or a duty? The difference may seem minor, but according to a proposed bill in Connecticut, it's the difference between whether or not you can be fined for not voting.
What is Free Speech worth? In the case of Uzuegbunam v Preczewski the supreme Court is not only considering the ability of public universities to regulate speech on their campuses, but the value of that speech.
There's been a lot of chatter about the second Trump impeachment. Some claim it is constitutional, others say no. The word "unprecedented" seems to be in just about every article about the topic. I think it's time we look at this subject and see what the Constitution says about the topic.
More and more, America is resembling the Monarchy we deposed in 1776. We'll look at why we look more like a monarchy than a republic and what we can do about it. As always, we'll do our best to answer your questions during this broadcast.
New Hampshire actually sued Massachusetts back in October, 2020, but with all that has been going on, it didn't float to the top of my list. But I thought this would be a good time to take a break from our regular government insanity, and look at something a little closer to home. And not just for those in New Hampshire, because this case has implications for every small business owner in America.
When New Hampshire sued Massachusetts, it seemed it was only about collecting income tax from non-residents. But after I looked at the complaint, I think we should make the exact same argument about interstate sales taxes as well.
Sometimes I hate to be right, I hate to say I told you so. But I recorded a video several weeks ago about how these government attempts to interfere with the paying of rent, and the eviction of those who fail to, would have serious consequences. I found an example to share with you today showing how trying to do a good thing can have really bad consequences.
I see it all the time in the media. Examples of states intimidating and extorting their own citizens in an effort to consolidate their power. So today, I want to look at some of the recent examples of this and give you some tools to protect yourself and your neighbors.
Recent events provide a view of what we can expect in America's near future. Sadly it seems that future is quite dystopian. It appears one of the most relevant questions for today is, are we living in Orwell's 1984 or Huxley's Brave New World?
Having lived most of my life in the Empire State and still having friends and family there, I found Assembly Bill 416 (A.416) to be more than just disturbing, I found it both frightening and disgusting. Why? Because it reminded me of some of the most despotic and egregious violations of human rights in history. It seems Santayana was correct, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Now that we've inaugurated a new administration, the calls will soon be heard along the lines of "The President DESERVES to have the cabinet he wants." The question we should all be asking is, is that true?
Sure, the First Amendment to the Constituiton of the United States says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. The the Constitutions of our states may protect freedom of speech as well. But has the concept of free speech in America become lost in the very psyche of the American people? Recent events show that, while it may not be dead, it certainly is mortally wounded.
President Trump and other have called for "Landmark Election Reform" and an "Overhaul of Election Security". There's just one problem, the federal government has no authority to meddle in the elections of the states.
There has been a lot of news about Rep. Gohmert's lawsuit against Vice-President Pence regarding the counting of the votes of the Presidential Electors. Much of the reporting is wrong, but then, so is much of what I found in the actual suit. Rather than reviewing all of the misinformation coming out of the news media, I went right to the lawsuit, and found plenty of misinformation for this article.
On New Years Eve, I talked about resolutions. The new year is also a time to talk about predictions. When it comes to predictions, a friend of mine says "Halve the good news and double the bad." This seems a pretty good way to avoid getting your hopes up. But today, rather than making predictions, I want to ponder what I think 2021 might be like.
There is a story about a man who propositioned a women with $1,000,000 to spend one night with her. She agreed. Then the man acknowledged that he did not have $1,000,000 and asked if she would spend the night with him for just $100? When she asked what kind of woman he thought she was, the man replied, “We both know what kind of woman you are. Now we’re just haggling over price.”
It appears the politicians in Washington, D.C. know what kind of people most American citizens are. Now, they’re just haggling over price.
As we prepare to celebrate the end of 2020, there is one resolution I hope you make this year.
I have heard a lot of talk lately about the institution of the Insurrection Act and martial law. In an effort to keep us focused on facts, I thought it would be a good idea to review the Insurrection Act, see what powers are legally delegated to the United States, and hopefully dispel some rumors you might have heard.
Let's take a few minutes in what has been a crazy 2020, and recognize why we should celebrate America in this holiday season.
What happens when two parties of a contract disagree? What happens when one party to a compact believes several of the other parties violated the rules of the compact? In both cases the first answer is sue in a competent court of law. That’s exactly what happened when Texas sued Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin over their handling of the 2020 presidential election. As with so many things these days, it’s the details that matter. So let’s look at the details of this suit.
We've seen plenty of examples of governments enforcing unconstitutional laws. But what happens when they find other ways of enforcing their illegal laws by other means?
On December 15th, 1791, the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were ratified and became part of the U.S. Constituiton. However, there is more to the story than just the names and dates.
Why is our Bill of Rights included as amendments to the Constituiton rather than part of the original document? How was it created? Why was it created? And what is the state of the Bill of Rights today, in the 21st century? Let's celebrate the 229th anniversary of these amendments by finding the answers to those questions.
In George Orwell's 1984, the government had a ministry who's purpose was to keep the people uninformed, misinformed, confused, deceived, and directed where they wanted. this ministry was called the "Ministry of Truth". In 2020 we have our own "Ministries of Truth". But they are not run by government, they are run by private citizens.
Having lived most of my life in New York State, and with friends and family that still live there, I followed the case of ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, NEW YORK v. ANDREW M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK with great interest. With the recent Supreme Court opinion, many were claiming victory for religious liberty. However, as is often the case, the facts don't exactly match the rhetoric.
Forced Vaccinations: https://constitutionstudy.com/2020/08/17/194-force-vaccinations/
Rights and liberty are under greater threat than any other time I have seen. What can We the People do to defend them? We'll discuss some options here.
While discussing the mode of electing the President of the United States in Federalist Papers #68, Alexander Hamilton said:
I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers #68
Yet a reasonable observation of the recent Presidential election shows that what we did is certainly not perfect, and could be described as far from excellent. So let’s look at how we have drifted from such an excellent process.
Edmund Burke said “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” As I read the reports of, if not actual fraud, questionable vote counting practices, I am eerily reminded of a part of our past I’m sure most Americans would not like to repeat.
We're all familiar with the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. But what happens when it's our media outlets who cries wolf?
With all the accusations, law suits, and recriminations around this year's election, most people seem to have missed one very important problem. Before the voting even started, the federal judiciary interfered with elections in several states. I'll not only explain the problem and show examples, but I will tell you what the American people can do about it.
Many people complain about the Electoral College, often blaming it for what are actually state problems. Tonight, we will discuss how we can fix these problems.
More and more I am convinced we are living in the world George Orwell predicted in his book 1984. In California, a state with a constitutional amendment prohibiting systematic racism, they recently considered a proposition to "fight...systematic racism" by removing the amendment prohibiting systemic racism and allowing systematic racism. And if that doesn't make your head spin, then you may have already succumb to this newspeak future that we are creating.
Institute on the Constitution: https://bit.ly/2HQI6je
Free Constitution Course: https://bit.ly/35OtIA5
With the appointment of now Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the talk of "packing the court" has grown more strident. Lets ponder what "court packing" is, why it is important, and what it tells us about the state of our government, next, on the Constitution Study.
The long awaited day is finally, almost, here. However I doubt the Presidential decision will be made on that day. But is that the only thing we should be focused on?
Once again we have calls for breaking up, regulating, and restricting Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Before we jump into that particular swimming pool, let's take some time and ponder what we're actually talking about.
Is Justice Thomas correct when he states "By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the Court has created a problem that only it can fix."?