Legale§e

Today on Legalese, we discuss a very disappointing video from one of my favorite YouTube political commentators, The Actual Justice Warrior. Somehow this normally stellar YouTuber got it in his head that the police having no duty to protect you is a complete myth. So I made this video to correct the record and irrefutably prove the police have no duty to protect you. Actual Justice Warrior YouTube Channel Do Police Have A Duty To Protect You? (Full Video) Police Powers Police Powers in Con L:aw Public Duty Doctrine Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) Warren v DC Lozito v New York (Case Brief) Lozito v New York DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales United States tort law Duty Of Care Maksim Gelman stabbing spree 42 U.S. Code § 1983 FOLLOW Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor SUPPORT PayPal.me Venmo Locals Contact Me “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Today on Legalese, we examine the recent claims made by Joe Biden regarding guns and gun owners and scrutinize every single claim to comprehensively explain why Democrats should reject the Democratic Party's message on gun control. Some clips from The Babylon Bee video: "Frightening But 100% True Facts About Guns"  Where do you stand on the debate over protecting gun rights vs. imposing stricter gun control? I would love to get your thoughts on this topic. Leave a Comment! Leave a comment Legalese is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. FOLLOW Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack SUPPORT PayPal.me Venmo Locals Contact Me “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, guns, gun control, firearms, joe biden, al sharpton,2A, second amendment, cannons, assault weapons, weapons of war, ar-15, magazine, gun rights, democrats, democratic party

Welcome Back! Today on Legalese we finish discussing the Brunson Case (Commonly known as Docket: 22-380.) The first episode on The Brunson Case we looked at the background of the case and its judicial history. We also discussed what exactly a writ of certiorari is and broke down the first part of Brunson’s cert petition, including the all-important Question Presented. Today we explore the other key part of any cert petition, the statement of the facts of the case, where one brings to bare the material evidence required to answer all topics raised by the QP. We will also discuss the wisdom of fighting battles to ostensibly “defend the Constitution” by sacrificing the Times, Places & Manner’s clause, The Presidential Elector’s clause, the Electoral College clause, The Presidential Vote clause, the Cases and Controversies clause, the Treason clause, and the 5th, 6th, 7th, 11th and 12th Amendments on the altar of convenience. FOLLOW · Show Homepage · Rumble · Odysee · YouTube · Anchor · Twitter · Substack SUPPORT · PayPal.me · Venmo · Locals · Contact Me · Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Today on Legalese we are going to be examining the case of Brunson v Adams (Also commonly referred to at Docket 22-380). Raland Brunson is suing 388 members of Congress, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris & Mike Pence seeking to kick them out of office then declare them traitors by judicial fiat and put Trump back in office immediately because he believes the election was stolen. This case is fascinating for many reason and I want to share those reasons. Whether you support this case, vehemently oppose it, or have simply never heard of it. Every one has something to gain from listening. Supreme Court Docket for 22-380 (All filing and documents) Brunson District Court Case and Judgement Tenth Circuit Order and Judgement 28 U.S.C. § 636 The Brunson Brothers Home Page Supreme Court Rule 14 - Content of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack PayPal.me Venmo Locals Contact Me Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, docket 22-380, Brunson v Adams, Raland Brunson, Lev Brunson, supreme court, treason, cert petition, election, overturn election, investigate congress, lawsuit, tenth circuit, district court, Utah

Today on Legalese is the first of two videos covering the Trial of Muhammad Ali In this part we focus of the history of Conscientious objection in the United States, get a general overview of the events that unfolded over a period of several years as Muhammad Ali fought what could be seen as his toughest fight ever. Fighting for his right not to go and fight in a war based on his religious convictions. We also discuss some parallels between the Vietnam War and the present war in Ukraine. FOLLOW Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack SUPPORT PayPal.me Venmo Locals Contact Me Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Today on Legalese we will be taking a look at the legalized armed robbery that constitutes "Home Equity Theft”. Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to grant cert on the merits for the case "Tyler v. City of Minneapolis". This case challenges the constitutionality of a Minnesota state law empowering local governments to seize the entire value of a property in order to pay off a much smaller delinquent property tax debt. The property owner in the case—93-year-old widow Geraldine Tyler—argues that this kind of uncompensated seizure of home equity violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires government to pay "just compensation" anytime it takes private property, and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. So how does home equity theft actually work? How does the government justify this policy which stands in clear contravention to the 5th and 8th amendment's takings clause & excessive fines clause (respectively). We will discuss the likely outcome of the case as well as the broader implications that this potential landmark 5th amendment case will have. Creation, Consent, and Government Power over Property Rights Hall v. Meisner, Sixth Circuit Opinion (2022) Tyler v. Hennepin County, Eighth Circuit Opinion (2021)  Pacific Legal Foundation Tyler v. Hennepin County: Summary of Fact (Pacific Legal Foundation) Tyler v. Hennepin County Cert Petition FOLLOW · Show Homepage · Rumble · Odysee · YouTube · Anchor · Twitter · Substack SUPPORT · PayPal.me · Venmo · Locals · Contact Me Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. Tags:  Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, supreme court, equity asset theft, 5th amendment, 8th amendment, takings clause, excessive fines clause, Geraldine Tyler, Tawanda hall, 6th circuit, 8th circuit, property rights, taxes, Minneapolis, Hennepin County

Cargill v. Garland, No. 20-51016 (5th Cir. 2023) Today on Legalese, we will be discussing the recent case of Cargill v. Garland handed down by an en banc Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals. This case was a big win for gun rights and a well-deserved kick in the teeth for unaccountable Administrative State Agencies. We will discus the case, what it means moving forward and look at several other important implications that can be deduced by researching this case. Cargill v. Garland, No. 20-51016 (5th Cir. 2023) My syllabus & Case Brief Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack Check out my new book “Constitutional Sleight of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Legalese is community-supported venture that you can support with a one-time donation or monthly membership PayPal.me Venmo Locals Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law and currents events in politics & other areas of law. Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, court, gun, gun rights, bump stock, merrick garland, donald trump, fifth circuit, Cargill v Garland, bump stock ban, administrative state, deep state, 2A, second amendment, chevron deference

Today on Legalese, we add a new video to my series: “Today In Supreme Court History” This latest installment looks at the landmark case of Printz v. United States. We call it “Today” in Supreme Court history because it was on this day in 1996 that oral arguments for this case were heard by the Supreme Court; as two of our Nation’s finest litigators squared off. Stephen Halbrook, representing Sherriff Printz and Sherriff Mack argues as the petitioner. Walter J Dellinger III represented the United States as the respondent. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Bill) required "local chief law enforcement officers" (CLEOs) to perform background-checks on prospective handgun purchasers, until such time as the Attorney General establishes a federal system for this purpose. County sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack, separately challenged the constitutionality of this interim provision of the Brady Bill on behalf of CLEOs in Montana and Arizona respectively. This case became a landmark in defining the meaning and scope of the anti-commandeering doctrine. Legalese is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Full Case Brief Oral Arguments Audio and Transcript Syllabus My Condensed Case Brief Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack Check out my new book “Constitutional Sleight of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Legalese is community-supported venture that you can support with a one-time donation or monthly membership PayPal.me Venmo Locals Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law and currents events in politics & other areas of law. Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Current Events, anti-commandeering doctrine, supreme court, Printz, Mack, united states, tenth amendment, sheriff, CLEO, chief law enforcement officer, second amendment, federalism

Today on Legalese we take a look at the history of the right to privacy as well as the common law origins of our fourth amendment. Check out my new book “Constitutional Sleight of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack Legalese is community-supported venture that you can support with a one-time donation or monthly membership PayPal.me Venmo Locals Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law and currents events in politics & other areas of law. Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, common law, fourth amendment, 4th amendment, search and seizure, england, edward coke, william blackstone, james otis, writs of assistance, paxtons case, the rights of british colonies, colonial era, property right, right to privacy

Today on Legalese we are going to be discussing a little known area of constitutional law known as the state legislature doctrine that will play a major role in a landmark case the Supreme Court will be hearing this term. This is Moore v Harper, almost certainly it has already become the most controversial case the Court will be hearing for their Fall 2022 term. Links mentioned In The Episode “One Person One Vote" Episode Supreme Court Roundup Fall 2022 "Federal Functions" in 2020 Election Episode Derek T. Muller Amicus Curae Brief Moore v Harper on Supreme Court Docket Moore  v Harper on SCOTUSBlog Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack Legalese is community-supported venture that you can support with a one-time donation or monthly membership PayPal.me Venmo Locals Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law and currents events in politics & other areas of law. Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, supreme court, scotus, ,state legislature doctrine ,independent state legislature, gerrymandering, federal functions, districting, federalism, state constitution, federal constitution, Article 1, time place manner

Today we have the latest installment of my series "Ignorance of the Law". . This where we take some time to highlight stupid, pointless, hypocritical and useless laws passed by the government; To point out that while the government will tell you ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law, they clearly consider ignorance an excuse when making and enforcing the law. This episode has 3 examples of ignorant laws being ignorantly enforced. First we look at the foster care system in the State of Maine and their regulations regarding bunk-beds; and we share the story of some sweet old grannie taking care of her grandkids and how Maryland's laws are bunk-fucking grannie with their rules against foster children sleeping in bunk beds. Md. Code Regs. 07.05.02.10 - Foster Parent's Home, Equipment, and Supply Requirements D. Sleeping and Living Quarters. (3) Each child shall have adequate bedding and an individual bed which may not be a cot, sofa, sofa bed, double-tiered bed, bunk bed, or any type of portable bed. Second, we look at a case from Minnesota where the 8th circuit Court of Appeals has granted qualified immunity to a government employee who exercises police powers despite not being a policeman and answer the question: "what are you supposed to do when a government employee who is not a police officer pulls you over, detains you for hours, and tries to perform a traffic stop, despite having no authority to do so?" Finally I discuss why certain Halloween costumes just might make any child wearing it a potential felon. Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack Legalese is community-supported venture that you can support with a one-time donation or monthly membership Legalese is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribed Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, ignorance, law, court, grannie, bunk bed, child protective services, foster care, home, family, Maryland, government, regulations, NASA, copyright, trademark, government, qualified immunity

Today's videos is not your typical podcast episode. It's a project. In fact its a project I could use your help on. David Hogg, the darling of the anti-gun movement has a habit of trying to shoe-horn his personal opinion that guns are bad into the Second Amendment and into American Law all the time & while he often says he is willing to discuss why he believes that with gun right advocates he doesn't seem to ever actually do it. I have tried reaching out to him twice in the past year to offer a chance to change my mind about guns and get no reply.  So I am Hoping all of you lovely people out there will take just a moment and head over to David Hogg's Twitter page and to a specific tweet he recently since that I respond to in this video & I am hoping you will share this video with him and respectfully ask him to find the time to join me here on the Legalese Podcast so we can have a discussion about the second amendment and about the morality of gun control David Hogg on Twitter: - https://twitter.com/davidhogg111 David Hogg's Tweet - https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status/1567529570966065153 The Largest Ever Survey Of American Gun Owners - https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-largest-ever-survey-of-american-gun-owners-finds-that-defensive-use-of-firearms-is-common/?itm_source=parsely-api Defensive Gun Use Study – https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4109494  Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Today on Legalese we have my fall Supreme Court Roundup. Of the cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this upcoming term I have focused on 5 which I believe have a high likelihood of becoming landmark cases in constitutional law jurisprudence. Including one case dealing with the Independent State Legislature Doctrine, based on Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution. As well as two commerce clause cases, one dealing with the Indian Commerce Clause and another dealing with the dormant commerce clause as well as anti-commandeering doctrine under the tenth amendment. Finally we have two cases regarding Section 230, the statute often referred to as the Internet's first amendment. Moore v Harper – independent state legislature doctrine Haaland v Brackeen – Indian Commerce Clause case National Pork Producers Council v. Ross –Dormant Commerce Clause Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh – Section 230 Gonzalez v. Google LLC – section 230 Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack Legalese is community-supported venture that you can support with a one-time donation or monthly membership PayPal.me Venmo Locals Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law and currents events in politics & other areas of law. Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, supreme court, scotus, writ of cert, commerce, commerce clause, indian, dormant commerce clause, indian commerce clause, section 230, independent state legislature doctrine, state legislature, twitter, google, national pork producers, ross, moore v harper, haalan v braaken, haalan, braaken, voting rights, tenth amendment, anticomandeering doctrine, pike test, pike doctrine, anti-terrorism act, ATA, dormant

Today on Legalese we are covering Joe Biden’s already catastrophic speech in Philadelphia. Check Out The whole speech here! While most of the critical coverage it has received is largely due to his schizophrenic messaging in which he couldn’t decide if he wanted to be the nation’s great uniter, or the guy who insists democracy is under threat from all those troublemakers who have a different opinion than Joe Biden on any issue. Because anyone who disagree with Joe Biden on anything is a dangerous terrorist extremist. Therefore, obviously, the only way to save democracy is to destroy democracy by disenfranchising anyone who wouldn’t act as a rubber stamp for all Biden driven initiatives. Instituting a one party system. Saving democracy by guaranteeing every American have the right to vote for Joe Biden. I want to focus on the other half of his speech that seems to have gotten almost no scrutiny from its detractors. These include his claim that There      is no place for violence in government Sedition      and insurrection are not American values That      he is on the side of the declaration of independence and the constitution. That      “MAGA Republicans” are categorically opposed to the declaration of      independence and the constitution These claims are all entirely unsubstantiated and fall apart under the thinnest of scrutiny. Related Content These are ideas and concepts I have discussed before in past videos and articles that I recommend checking out: Full Scope Of The Second Amendment Sedition: An American Virtue Follow & Support · Show Homepage · Rumble · Odysee · YouTube · Anchor · Twitter · Substack Legalese is community-supported venture that you can support with a one-time donation or monthly membership ·PayPal.me · Venmo · Locals · Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law and currents events in politics & other areas of law.

Today on Legalese we have the latest installment of a segment I call: Ignorance of the law This is where we discuss and make fun of laws that are arbitrary, hypocritical, ridiculous or sure to backfire in some hilarious way. Because as we all know, ignorance is no excuse when breaking the law…. But it IS an excuse when making and enforcing the law. Today we will be discussing how New York is finally recognizing the very serious problem it has with crime, homelessness and drug abuse by finally taking on the serious issues sure to make a critical difference in the quality of life of its law abiding citizens by banning people under 21 from being able to buy whipped cream. Related Articles Turns Out Its Illegal For People Under The Age Of 21 To Buy Whip Cream Canisters In New York 2021 New York Laws GBS - Article 26 §399-HH - Sale of Whipped Cream Chargers.  Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack Legalese is community-supported venture that you can support with a one-time donation or monthly membership PayPal.me Venmo Locals Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law and currents events in politics & other areas of law. Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, new york, whip cream, crime, law, ignorance, sean king, shaun king, george soros, real justice, PAC, statute, business law, drugs, social justice warriors, prosecutors, bail reform, Talcum X

There is all kinds of misinformation currently floating around about monetary inflation. Such as those who desperately try to convince you, in spite of all evidence to the contrary:  Inflation is caused by rich, corporate fat cats who aren't "paying their fair share in taxes"…  Or gas prices are up because those greedy corporate fat cats running oil and gas companies all suddenly got extra-greedy at exactly the same time somehow and are just price gouging us. Obviously neither of those things are true and the politicians selling that bullshit are just desperate to put the blame somewhere, anywhere other than where it belongs. Because where it belongs is with those politicians. They have to lie, because an honest appraisal would lead to the inevitable conclusion that they are at fault and that the only way to return to long-term prosperity will require a heavy dose of short term pain and they simply have too much to lose to actually admit that. I, on the other hand, have nothing to lose by being honest and can merely state the facts.  In this video we will discuss the real definition of inflation, the real cause of inflation and the only cure for inflation. Economic Policy: Inflation (Ludwig von Mises) - https://mises.org/library/inflation Inflation: An Unworkable Fiscal Policy (Ludwig von Mises) - https://mises.org/library/economic-freedom-and-interventionism/html/p/123 Monetary Inflation and Price Inflation (Bob Murphy) - https://mises.org/wire/monetary-inflation-and-price-inflation  How Inflation Hides Inflation (Robert Blumen) - https://mises.org/wire/how-inflation-hides-inflation An Inflation Primer (Melchior Palyi) - https://mises.org/library/inflation-primer Defining Inflation (Frank Shostak) - https://mises.org/library/defining-inflation The Cure for Inflation (Henry Hazlitt) - https://mises.org/wire/cure-inflation  Inflation as a Policy (Henry Hazlitt) - https://mises.org/wire/inflation-policy Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Order My Upcoming Book “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An Explicit History Of Implied Powers Lgalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture.

Today on Legalese we will be discussing the full scope of the natural right of armed self-defense codified in the second amendment. Too often, the modern debate over the second amendment has to do with whether, and to what extent, may people engage in individual self-defense  when the government is either incapable or unwilling to adequately protect people. However, they never question the legitimacy of the government's assertion of their monopoly on the use of violence. Moreover, should the types of arms individuals may own and carry be limited to those weapons suitable only for individual self defense. Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Order My Upcoming Book “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An Explicit History Of Implied Powers Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture.

Today on Legalese, we finish our discussion on the Democrat's new "Assault Weapon" Ban bill (HR 1808) We discuss, in greater detail what the ramifications of this legislation would mean for the future of the natural right of armed self-defense, codified in our Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms, as well as gun rights and gun culture. We watch all the anti-gun democrats on the House Judiciary Committee beclown themselves in their frantic attempt to prove they know (quite literally) NOTHING about firearms, especially technical & tactical distinctions; making them the very last people who should be writing legislation about the thing they have proven they know nothing about. We also discuss a challenge in Federal Court on the New York "Assault Weapon Ban" Related Links Stop The "Assault Weapons" Ban - GOA Form Letter HR 1808 - Full Text of Legislation NYSRPA v Bruen (2022) Vanchoff V James (Case Docket) Vanchoff v James (Firearms Policy Coalition Complaint)  Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture.  Tags: assault weapon, ban, pistol, rifle, shotgun, silencer, trigger, joe biden, jerry nadler, david cicilline, david hogg, 2A, second amendment, civil liberties, bill, legislation, house judiciary committee, gun control, gun rights

The House Judiciary Committee has a new assault weapons ban they plan to vote on next week. This new bill makes the 1994 AWB that was in place for a decade look downright libertarian by comparison. HR 1808 seeks to ban all semi-automatic sporting rifles, semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic shotguns as well as a ban on many types of triggers and silencers. All weapons which are in common use for lawful purposes. While this bill specifically exempts the very "weapons of war" it claims to be aimed at banning. This assault on our natural rights  acts with a breadth never before imagined. In This episode we go through the bill to tell you everything you need to know about this bill. HR 1808 Bill NYSRPA v Bruen (2022)  - Case Brief Vanchoff v James - Case Docket Vanchoff v James - Firearms Policy Coalition Complaint Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture.

Today on Legalese, as part of my ongoing series "Ignorance Of The Law" where we laugh at the fact that ignorance of the law may not be an excuse for breaking the law, but it's often an excuse for making and enforcing the law. Today we discuss the ignorance of Rent Control by looking at a recent John Oliver segment about the need for rent control and we look at a series of rent control laws passed in the Twin Cities that are considered to be the strictest Rent Control Laws in the country. Studies and Related Links The Atlantic - We need more luxury housing, not less  Rent Control is fashionable again. But still a bad idea  Increasing Acceptance of Housing Vouchers Among Landlords: A Piece of the Affordability Puzzle Landlord Participation Study Does Affordable Housing Make the Surrounding Neighborhood Less Affordable? -  Affordable homes don’t increase crime or dent Orange County property values, says UCI study Developers Halt Projects, Mayor Demands Reform After St. Paul Voters Approve Radical Rent Control Ballot Initiative America's Most Controversial Rent Control Law Is Getting a Hasty Makeover Robbing Peter to Pay Paul? The Redistribution of Wealth Caused by Rent Control   Wealthy, Older Tenants in Manhattan Get Biggest Boost From Rent Regulations NMHC Rent Control Update: Multifamily Firms Reconsider Investments in Rent Control Markets

Today by special request, we have a great episode that asks How can Substantive Due Process rights be transferred  to the privileges and immunities clause. We look at the history of "Privileges & Immunities" from its common law and colonial American beginning, to the Articles Of Confederation, Article 4, Corfield v Coryell and reconstruction era civil rights legislation to inform us of what the Privileges or Immunities clause was understood to mean by those who gave it legal force. We also discuss a general framework under which enumerated and unenumerated rights protected under the due process clause could be transferred to the privileges or immunities clause. Case Briefs and Legal Resources Dobbs v Jackson Whole Women's Health McDonald v. Chicago Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) Slaughterhouse Cases :: 83 U.S. 36 (1872)  United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) McDonald v Chicago Amicus Briefs  Clarence Thomas McDonald v Chicago Opinion (Edit)  Past Episodes Referenced In This Video: Clarence Thomas Is Right Roe v Wade (1973) Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. Tags: supreme Court, scotus, due process clause, privileges or immunities clause, 14th amendment, civil rights, clarence thomas, Dobbs, jackson, abortion, originalism, textualism, articles of confederation, article IV, Corfield v Coryell, roe v wade, planned parenthood v casey

12:50 CORRECTION - Utility Air 573, U.S. is NOT a regulation.  It refers to the case Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, (2014) Today on Legalese, we are looking at 2 recent Supreme Court Opinions that curbed the  legal doctrine in administrative law known as Chevron Deference. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf West Virginia v Environmental Protection Agency, 596 U.S. ___ (2022) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf And how in both cases the Court finally made meaningful changes to begin to curb the seemingly endless power assumed to be delegated to Executive Agencies under Administrative Law Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/302/ 42 U.S. Code § 1395l - Payment of benefits - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1395l 42 U.S. Code § 7411 - Standards of performance for new stationary sources - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7411 And we bid a fond farewell to Justice Steven Breyer! Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - Legalese@gmx.us Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture

Stare Decisis is a Latin phrase, commonly used in law that roughly translates to:  “Let wrong decisions of the Warren Court stand” Regardless of your personal opinion in the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate , Roe v Wade was a terrible opinion bereft of even a modicum of legal merit and substantive due process is a garbage legal doctrine invented out of thin air by the Warren Court a century after the 14th amendment was ratified. The only people who could disagree with that statement are people who have never read the actual case brief for Roe v Wade and never bothered to so much as read the 14th amendment, much less earnestly try to give it a good faith interpretation. Full Case Brief - Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) Today In Supreme Court History - Roe v Wade (1973) The 14th Amendment & Incorporation Doctrine Clarence Thomas was right to say as much in his concurrence in Dobbs. This is a position He (and much less importantly I) have held for many years.  A careful reading of Thomas’ opinion is, in many respects, less detrimental to the protection of unenumerated rights, secured by substantive due process than either Justice Alito’s majority opinion and Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion. This is because he is the only one who suggests how the 14th amendment could be used in its original public meaning to secure many of the unenumerated rights that have been created with the imaginary theory of substantive due process , through the original public meaning of the 14th amendment’s Privileges & Immunities Clause  AMENDMENT XIV, SECTION 1 No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.... In this episode we briefly discuss why Thomas is right and why those on the left who have turned into  violent racist bigots over this decision are demonstrating a new low in their pursuit of political ends through mostly peaceful violence and mostly non-racist racism Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture

WE have an opinion in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen concealed carry case, and the news is VERY, VERY good!!! Clarence Thomas came through with an incredible majority opinion that will spell the end of the restrictive "May Issue" licensing schemes in States like New York that say the right of self-defense is not reason enough to be able to exercise your right to armed self defense. In This video I go through the Court's primary holding and pull out the key information from the Majority Opinion from what is a 135 page case brief, that I read so you don't have to. (Actually everyone really should read it. But for those on the go I give you all the important information to understand the ruling in this case and its legal significance.) Read the full NYSRPA v Bruen Opinion Here - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf Past Videos of Mine About The Bruen Case: Tim Pool Doesn't Get The Bruen Case - https://youtu.be/8wotWTZlMl4 Disarming Gun Control: An Open Letter To Gun Control Advocates - https://youtu.be/uMDHCR8Kt80 Disarming Gun Control: An Open Letter To Gun Control Advocates (Part Two) - https://youtu.be/drwI3X3rz80 The Second Amendment Is Going Back To Court - https://youtu.be/gIMSj8qz5R0 The Supreme Court vs The Second Amendment (Supreme Court Roundup: The Good, Thee Bad & The Ugly) - https://youtu.be/QizuUeT7p6w Follow & Support Rumble.com/legalese locals.com/legalese categoricalimperatives.substack.com odysee.com/@Legalese anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23 PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - Legalese@gmx.us Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture Tags: Bruen, New York Rifle and Pistol Association, supreme court, scotus, clarence thomas, justice thomas, concealed carry, may issue, shall issue, second amendment, individual right, natural right, 2A

The other day on Twitter the notable YouTuber and world-class milquetoast fence sitter, Tim Pool tweeted about the upcoming Supreme Court Opinion in Jackson and Bruen. Saying if the Court overturns Roe and Casey and also rules on Nationwide Constitutional Carry there will be less rioting. While there are myriad problems with this tweet the one that really grinds my gears was his insistence the court could rule on nationwide constitutional carry. After reaching out to Tim to verify if this was meant to be ironic or if it was a genuine statement and it became clear that not only he, but his many followers all genuinely believe this is the most likely outcome, despite the fact this is a constitutional and procedural impossibility. After trying to explain and finding 240 characters not being nearly enough to refute such a complicatedly wrong belief I decided to make this video. Not only will it hopefully explain to the thousands of people espousing this with nothing but an assumption it must be correct why it is LITERALLY impossible for the court to make any ruling about constitutional carry and LITERALLY impossible the outcome of Bruen will be a nationwide anything, its also a great primer for those who are interested in this case to help explain what the case is about or to remind you of the importance facts, issues, the question presented and the potential judgement so when the case comes out you will have a fresh understanding of the arguments that were made in the cert petitions and oral arguments heard last November.  See Related Episodes From The Past: Disarming Gun Control (Part One) Disarming Gun Control (Part Two) Second Amendment Goes Back To Court Supreme Court 2nd Amendment Roundup All Gun Control Is Unconstitutional What The Heller? What Is An Assault Weapon? Cooper v Aaron Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture.

Today on Legalese we begin with a Supreme Court Roundup, where we will be going over all the major decision from the Court that they have been putting out since late May and will continue to put out until, at least, their final scheduled sate for this session, July 2nd. Today we look at two recent opinions regarding issues of criminal justice reform. These Include Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022) and Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. ___ (2022) Shinn was a 6th amendment case to define the role of Federal Habeas Relief in an appeal of a State criminal law conviction. Despite the fact two men on death row in Arizona and are seeking appeal on the merits based on new exculpatory evidence of incompetent representation in the state trial and post conviction as well as exculpatory evidence of actual innocence, the court ruled that for procedural reasons there is no valid cause of action for the kind of federal appellate review being sought. Egbert v Boule dealt with a man  seeking relief for an alleged violation of his 1st and 4th amendment rights by a U.S. Border Patrol Agent under the precedent set in Bivens v Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents (1971). In Bivens claims, private individuals may sue FBI agents for violating their Fourth, Fifth, and/or Eighth Amendment rights. This case was also denied on procedural grounds that Boule's remedy sought under the Federal Tort Claims Act was in a new and distinct context than the precedent set in Bivens, a case whose propriety has been controversial for many years and has had 11 cases seeking relief under the Bivens claim were denied review and only two have been accepted, but in both cases the appellant lost on the merits. I do my best to give you a recap with all the necessary information to understand case's basis in fact and law in a way that will be helpful for people whether these areas of federal law are entirely foreign to you, if you are having trouble with two cases that are very complex and hard to truly sort out without a background in the study of relevant jurisprudence. You will understand the decision, how it was reached and what the implications of these cases may likely be as precedent in the future. Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. ___ (2017) Hernández v. Mesa, 589 U. S. ___ (2020) Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture.

Episode #11  We just found out that the Senate has finished drafting its bipartisan gun control law and are being told by both parties they have the 60 votes needed to pass it. While we don't have the bill text yet one thing we can be very sure of is that it contains a red flag modeled after Jerry Nadler's 2019 House bill.  What does that entail, and what crucial piece of information about red flag laws have media and politicians completely overlooking that you should know before deciding on the wisdom and efficacy of this proposed bill. Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. House Judiciary Committee drafts Red Flag Law - https://rollcall.com/2022/05/31/house-judiciary-committee-sets-vote-on-gun-control-proposals/  Why this policy has bipartisan appeal? - https://www.npr.org/2019/08/20/752427922/poll-americans-including-republicans-and-gun-owners-broadly-support-red-flag-law Do Red Flag Laws Work? - https://reason.com/2019/10/06/states-are-depriving-innocent-people-of-their-second-amendment-rights/ Red Flag in Buffalo shooting - https://reason.com/2022/05/18/the-buffalo-massacre-illustrates-the-inherent-limitations-of-red-flag-laws/  New York Red Flag Law - https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/6341 Rand Corporation Mass Shooting Study - https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mass-shootings.html  2012 DOD Study - https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a565355.pdf Alexander Scherr Hastings Law Journal  - http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/hastlj55&div=3&g_sent=1&collection=journals  Jerry Nadler 2019 Red Flag Bill - https://reason.com/2019/09/12/this-awful-house-bill-would-promote-gun-confiscation-without-due-process/ ►00:00 Introduction ►03:41 Red Flag Law Essential Facts ►28:50 Baker Acts ►33:25 Conclusion and Upcoming videos ►39:07 Nadler Advocates For Mass Murder ►40:20 Closing and Credits #red flag, red flag law, gun control, lindsay Graham, Jerry Nadler, Baker Act, legislation, second amendment, 2a, law, senate, House Judiciary Committee, thomas massie, uvalde, buffalo, shooting, school shooting, mass shooting

Episode #10 In this episode of Legalese, we start a brand no segment I will be doing occasionally moving forward that I am calling "Ignorance Of The Law"... We discuss a recent ruling out of the California Court of Appeals for the Third District that found under the California Endangered Species Act, 4 species of Bumble Bees now qualify as fish to get endangered species protection status. This is a great reminder that while ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, ignorance is an excuse for writing and enforcing the law. CA Endangered Species Act Court Of Appeals Case Brief Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture.  #Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, CESA, endangered species, California, bumble bee, fish, third district, court of appeals

Watch Part One Today on Legalese we will be discussing the issue dripping from everyone’s lips across the nation. The balancing act between gun rights and stricter gun control. Gun rights and gun control are not a new topic to this channel, In fact I have assembled a playlist of past videos touching on this subjects quite a few times from quite a few different perspectives (See List Below) Today’s video will be the second in a two part series looking at the best arguments for current gun control proposals,. Today's episode if focused on exposing and explaining the myths that constituted Joe Biden's response to the recent Uvalde shooting In it he makes false claims about: So-called "assault weapons" The assault weapon ban The evil puppy hating, father raping, baby killers of "the gun lobby" The frequency of school shootings & mass shootings in comparison to other countries The multi-contextual, deceptive, non-argument that any restriction on natural rights and civil liberties are justified if it saves even one life Every one of those claims can be, and, subsequently will be objectively disproven by the end of this episode. Past Episodes on Gun Rights & Gun Control Why Background Checks Do Not Stymie Mass Shooters Public Mass Shootings: Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of U.S. Mass Shootings with Firearms Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. #gun, gun control, gun rights, firearm, NRA, SAF, GOA, SPC, 2A, second amendment, assault weapon, AR-15, background checks, universial background checks, HR-8, Steve Kerr, Damien Lee, Meena Harris, Hayley Johnson, Paula Reid, Neil Steinberg, baby formula, uvalde, uvalde texas, mass shooting, school shooting, mass shooters

***For some reason, Anchor.fm is being a total dick and will not let me add ANY of the links to my source material, or the show’s “Follow and Support” links. To find the complete show notes for this episode head to the SHOW NOTES ON SUBSTACK  Today on Legalese we will be discussing the issue dripping from everyone’s lips across the nation. The balancing act between gun rights and stricter gun control. Gun rights and gun control are not a new topic to this channel, In fact I have assembled a playlist of past videos touching on this subjects quite a few times from quite a few different perspectives (See List Below) Today’s video will be the first in a two part series looking at the best arguments for current gun control proposals, such as expanded background checks, assault weapons bans, Red flag laws, Discussing if it is indeed too easy for people with sinister motives to get their hands on a gun legally and more.  Where this video will differ from past videos is that while my usual position when it comes to all individual rights, namely that I like my civil liberties the same way I likes my women. Strictly enumerated, vigorously protected and absolute… I will instead be adopting a more middle of the road position. Because this video is a genuine attempt to write an open letter to gun control advocates and meet them halfway. Which is why this video is premised on my uncritically accepting the assumption that: “If a policy for stricter gun control could be shown to have a demonstrable effect on numbers of gun violence and mass shootings, it would be worth curbing gun rights to implement that policy” I am doing it this way because I believe most gun control advocates are arguing their positions in good faith, under the belief their proposals will reduce future gun violence and I also believe it can be demonstrably shown these arguments are made off a lack of information that means their proposals would be entirely unhelpful and in some cases, they are arguing for policies that are already in practice and vigorously enforced.

Today on Legalese we will be talking about  that one time Thomas Jefferson acted like a true tyrant and Chief Justice John Marshall acted as a true hero in the cause of individual liberty and due process… This is the trial of Aaron Burr… and if you think you know what crime he was being charged with, your may be surprised. Now it was today, May 22nd in 1807 that Aaron Burr was charged with high treason and would go on trial for his life. This case was of fundamental significance to questions of governmental power and individual rights in America. The case is known as the United States versus Aaron Burr.  The trial of Aaron Burr turned on the vital question, to what extent can the judicial process and to what extent will it protect an individual who is prosecuted by his own government or putting in more plainly who is supreme, the will of the government or the law?   Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. #aaron burr, john marshall, thomas jefferson, treason, high crimes, alexander hamilton, democratic republicans, federalists, marbury v madison, US v Burr, circuit court, constitution, law, democracy, individual rights, conspiracy, common law, founding fathers, history, edmund randolph, john dickinson, charles lee, george hay, james monroe

Today on Legalese we will be looking at the best and worst arguments for a robust, if not absolute protection of Freedom of speech, freedom of expression & freedom of association. Including an examination about how the censorious left and corporate media who are most eaher to impose censorship are actually advocating for policies that wil destroy the very things they say we need censorship to protect. We also look at what most free speech absolutists get wrong when they advocate for free speech. Neither group tend to understand its true value. So what is its true value?  Link to past episodes we discussed Julian Assange: and the myth of Constitutional rights  Sedition: An American Virtue  Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture.

This video is a remastered re-release of a very old episode I did on the case of Stromberg v California (1931)... This video was the very first in my series of "Today In Supreme Court History"...  To skip the long introduction and get right to the Stromberg Case Brief skip to 5:13 I noticed this video had started generating a bunch of new views the past few days, and I noticed, like many of my old episodes, the sound quality was absolutely terrible, So this is not a new video, I just did some post-product on work on the original audio track and got it sounding MUCH better than the original episode. This was a pivotal case because it was the very first time the Supreme Court incorporated the First Amendment protection  of free expression on a State, rather than Federal level in 14th amendment jurisprudence based on substantive due process. Enjoy! Follow & Support umble.com/legalese locals.com/legalese categoricalimperatives.subRstack.com odysee.com/@Legalese anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23 Contact the show: Legalese@gmx.us

Today On Legalese We discuss Biden's new Ministry of Truth. The Disinformation Governance Board. We are going to take a deep dive into what this Executive Agency is for, why it's being created, who are the people in charge of it and why it is one of the greatest threats to civil liberties since the PATRIOT Act. Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. Special thanks to "Bull Brand" for creating the "Two Minute Hate" video segment. Watch the Full Original Video "1984 or 2021?" - Check out his channel full of great content - https://www.youtube.com/c/BullBrand/featured #DHS, Biden, Homeland Security, Disinformation Governance BoardNina Jankowicz, Mayorkas, ministry of truth, 1984, censorship, free speech, free association

Today on Legalese we will be discussing some of the fallout over Elon Musk's purchase purchase of Twitter. A very powerful NGO and think tank called "The Open Markets Institute" put out a public statement calling on the government to block this sale of Twitter because they are afraid the guy who bought Twitter with the almost singular reason  of expanding and protecting freedom of expression somehow poses an existential threat to free expression. While many of us saw and appreciated his response to the article with a pair of tweets and damning articles about this organization claiming to respect free expression so much they want to make sure they are the only people who may actually exercise that right. Cited Sources Elon Musk 1st tweet Elon Musk 2nd tweet Open Markets Details How US Government Can Block Musk Takeover of Twitter Simington Comments On Acquisition Of Twitter Carr Rejects Call for FCC to Block Musk's Purchase of Twitter What few are aware of is that the FCC issued its own response to the suggestion they have and should use the power to block the sale of Twitter to Elon Musk. Usually the kind of flimsy argument that departments of the administrative usually love to use to justify power grabs. Instead we got a couple responses that were every bit as biting as Musk's tweets were. Rejecting what they called an illegal, unconstitutional, unamerican government restrictions on free expression. Link to past episodes we discussed Julian Assange: Freedom of the press and the myth of Constitutional rights Sedition: An American Virtue United States v Lopez Gonzalez v Raich Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me

Today on Legalese we will be discussing the consequences of this leaked Supreme Court Opinion in their upcoming case Dobbs v Whole Women's Health of Jackson. The leaked draft written by Samuel Alito allegedly shows a majority opinion to essentially overturn Roe. This leak should not necessarily be taken as the Court's final opinion. Drafts of decisions like these often make the rounds among the Justices and they often end up getting changed by the time the actual opinion is given to the public. But there is no doubt that this leak shows a Court dealing with potentially its greatest crisis in the history of the Court.  We also discuss some options about who may be responsible and what some of the likely fallout will be. Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. abortion, dobbs, whole womens health, samuel alito, supreme court, case law, roe, wade, casey, planned parenthood, leak, opniion

Today on Legalese we discuss the recent district Court ruling that the CDC's mask mandate policy exceeded their constitutional and statutory authority. The Biden administration's failure to seek a stay and the true meaning behind their delay in taking this matter before an appellate court. We also discuss how the response we have seen to this ruling from the White Hpuse, the CDC and most especially, Dr. Fauci, constitute a complete misunderstanding of Constitutional government and the rule of law and demonstrate an outright contempt for federalism and judicial review. Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. cdc, nih, white house, biden, mask mandate, title 42, federalism, rule of law, district court, circuit court, jen psaki, anthony fauci

Today on Legalese, we are going to be discussing the confirmation hearings for Ketanji Brown Jackson to look at the plethora of reprehensible attacks made against her by Republicans in one of the most petty Borkings of all time. We also discuss the one Republican who actually gave a valid reason for voting against Judge Jackson's nomination and what that reason was. Follow & Support Rumble Locals Substack Odysee Anchor YouTube Contact the show: Legalese@gmx.us ketanji brown jackson, borking, supreme court, scotus, confirmation hearing, stephen breyer, ted cruz, josh hawley, tom cotton, ben sasse, andrew mccarthy, national review, swedish chef, joe biden, nomination, justice, rule of law

To find the show or get in touch via email just follow these links: Legalese on Rumble Legalese on Locals Legalese on Odysee Contact me with questions, comments & suggestions:  Legalese@gmx.us

Today On Categorical Imperatives we are discussing some new developments around SB 8 - This is the Fetal Heartbeat Bill out of Texas currently facing a number of legal challenges. FPC Amicus Brief - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-463/197205/20211021195907665_Firearms%20Policy%20Coalition%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf Gorsuch's Majority Opinion in Jackson v Whole Women's Health - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/595/21-463/ Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. ___ (2021) Full Case Brief - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/595/21-463/ Columbia Missourian Abortion Legislation Article - https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/missouri-lawmakers-fight-to-restrict-abortion/article_300b4a2c-a001-11ec-956b-2b13933b8b72.html SB 753 - https://www.senate.mo.gov/22info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=71259698 SJR 34 - https://www.senate.mo.gov/22info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=71259672 SB 778 - https://www.senate.mo.gov/22info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=71259887 HB 2810 - https://www.house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB2810&year=2022&code=R Texas Occupational Health & Safety Code §164.055(a) - https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/OC/htm/OC.164.htm Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)  Full Case Brief- https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/ Related Episodes Of Categorical Imperatives: If The Court Reaffirms Roe (The Future Of The Legal Conservative Movement) - https://youtu.be/J_Av2bWkJzU What Happens if SCOTUS Overturns Roe? - https://youtu.be/QfP_KHqTt-Q Covis Travel Bans - https://youtu.be/05rOqs4dMvw OSHA Vaccine Mandate - https://youtu.be/4PFkAbSLkEw Texas Abortion Law & The Supreme Court - https://youtu.be/KKIELHjNBuA A Tale Of American Sovereignty (11th Amendment, Chisolm v Georgia & Popular Sovereignty) - https://youtu.be/q1qqUXVkJLM Today In Supreme Court History Episodes: Roe v Wade (1973) - https://youtu.be/Y6yb3H54Y7A Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) - https://youtu.be/6OB_ehOL6Uc Cooper v Aaron (1958) - https://youtu.be/5PM4cEzkxzc Follow & Support Brand new website with blog, past episodes, show notes , podcast archive, articles, support the show - https://categoricalpodcast.wordpress.com/ Patreon: - https://www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Today on Categorical Imperatives I am joined by Dave DeCamp the news editor at antiwar.com We are discussing the war in Ukraine. What has happened, what will likely come next?  What possible resolutions could bring an end to this conflict and what barriers are being put up by Ukraine and Russia to impede a peaceful resolution.  We also try to discern the motives of major players such as Putin, Bide & Zelinsky.  Also, Dave has some stellar advice on how non-experts in foreign policy like myself and most people can begin to sift through the deafening noise of useless and incorrect information from the political class and corporate media and much more. You can find Dave's work over at - http://www.antiwar.com Follow & Support Show's New Webpage Patreon PayPal.Me Venmo LBRY Odysee Youtube Libertarian Institute Contributor Page Tenth Amendment Center Contributor Page Twitter Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Kyle Rittenhouse recently went on Tucker Carlson to announce he will be starting a non-profit group called the "Media Accountability Project" as well as announcing a series of defamation lawsuits against numerous individuals in corporate media, celebrities and politicians. Today we discuss why, while the corporate media's smears against Kyle may be reprehensible. But they are not defamatory. How Kyle is being miscounseled and why we probably won't win a dime in court Find Doctor Randomercam on YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/DoctorRandomercam Common Law Courts In A Civil Law System (PDF) - http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/Class%20Readings/Scalia/Scalia_Common%20Law%20Courts%20In%20A%20Civil%20Law%20System.pdf My Episode on Consttutional Interpratation and Statutory Construction - https://youtu.be/QnEq4rAh9aw My Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Coverage Playlist - https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6NjbXOax5B3G7yiuH88jJzWApqQq8vyM Follow & Support https://categoricalpodcast.wordpress.com/ Patreon: - https://www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Today On Categorical Imperatives we complete our exploration of the massive influence the Roman Republic had on our Republic's Constitution and System of government. In Part 1 we looked at the way this Roman Republican influence manifested in the Founders individually. In Part 2 we looked at the Enlightenment era rediscovery and reinterpretation of the Ancient Roman Republic and the resulting political philosophy of classical republicanism and we examine the way it influenced different groups of people during the founding and especially those who wrote and ratified the US Constitution. In this 3rd and final video we look at the ways that the enlightenment era classical republican tradition differed from the Greco-Roman Republics of antiquity and we examine how those Ancient Republics themselves influence the creation of our constitution, and or mixed government. And we explore the origins of the concepts of virtue and liberty as they were understood at the time of the founding, how they are understood today and how they relate to similar, but distinct concepts in the Ancient Roman philosophy of people like Cicero and Tacitus as the concepts of 'Virtus' and 'Libertas' Watch Part 1 - https://youtu.be/REN7ljH8vGc Watch Part 2 - https://youtu.be/E9jnL51rpyA The Failure to Reform: Rome's Institutions Slide Into Crisis - https://youtu.be/GKPMpWyqSZs Collected works of Greco-Roman philosophers and historians of Classical Republicanism Thucydides - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/thucydides Aristotle - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/Aristotle Tacitus - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/publius-cornelius-tacitus Plutarch - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/plutarch Livy - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/titus-livius-livy Cicero - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/marcus-tullius-cicero Follow & Support https://categoricalpodcast.wordpress.com/ Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Today On Categorical Imperatives we are looking at the second part in what what is quickly becoming a 4 part video series on the influence of The Roman Republic and the philosophy of Classical Republicanism on America's Founding. In Part 1 we looked at the way this influence manifested in the Founders individually Today we look at the Enlightenment era rediscovery and reinterpretation of the Ancient Roman Republic and the resulting political philosophy of classical republicanism and we examine the way it influenced different groups of people during the founding and especially those who wrote and ratified the US Constitution and what influence the Roman Republic had on our very system of government embodied in the Constitution Watch Part 1 - https://youtu.be/REN7ljH8vGc The Failure to Reform: Rome's Institutions Slide Into Crisis - https://youtu.be/GKPMpWyqSZs Collected works of Greco-Roman philosophers and historians of Classical Republicanism Thucydides - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/thucydides Aristotle - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/Aristotle Tacitus - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/publius-cornelius-tacitus Plutarch - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/plutarch Livy - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/titus-livius-livy Cicero - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/marcus-tullius-cicero Follow & Support https://categoricalpodcast.wordpress.com/ Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Today on Categorical Imperatives we will be looking at the massive influence the Roman Republic had on our Founders and is part of a series that will be looking at the influence of Classical Republicanism on our Founders and our Constitution's framers and ratifiers. Collected works of Greco-Roman philosophers and historians of Classical Republicanism Thucydides - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/thucydides Aristotle - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/Aristotle Tacitus - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/publius-cornelius-tacitus Plutarch - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/plutarch Livy - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/titus-livius-livy Cicero - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/marcus-tullius-cicero Follow & Support Brand new website with blog, search past episodes, browse show notes page, , links to audio/video podcast, articles, resources to support the show and more coming soon! https://categoricalpodcast.wordpress.com/ Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Today On Categorical Imperatives we will be discussing the Supreme Court case every leftist loves to hate: Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (2010)  In my last video I briefed  3 landmark Supreme Court cases dealing with issues of money and speech, including Citizens United. Today I want to go further in exploring this case and it's legacy. My previous video was part of my “Today in Supreme Court History” Series which means what you got was a purely objective and scholarly explanation of those cases in their background, the facts of the case, the primary holding and the precedent they set.  Today’s video is meant to be an open letter of sorts to people who think citizens united is a case that ruled corporations are people and money is speech.  Mentions links and articles:  Does Money Equal Speech? Episode Corporations Are People, And They Have More Rights Than You 12 Years After Citizens United, the Supreme Court's Right-Wing Revolution Continues   Thomas Massie Interview on the REAL money in politics problem Getting Big Money Out of Politics and Restoring Democracy, Friends of Bernie Sanders Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) Brief Of The ACLU In Support Of Appellant

Today on Categorical Imperatives we have a new video in my "Today In Supreme Court History" series. This weeks marks the 12 year anniversary of the Supreme Court's opinion in the case of Citizen's United v Federal Election Commission. So I have briefed three landmark Supreme Court cases concerning the relationship between money and speech as a matter of law. We will be starting with:  Buckley v Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) which set the precedent upon which the second case is constructed:  McConnell v F.E.C. 540 U.S. 93 (2003) which is the case Citizens United overturned:  Citizens United v F.E.C. 558 U.S. 310 (2010)  Citizens United and Twelve Years of Unjustified Resentment

Episode #79  *Correction: Dave DeCamp is news editor (not managing editor) at antiwar.com*  In this episode I am joined by Dave Decamp, writer and news editor for antiwar.com With escalating tensions between the United States and Russia over the future of Ukraine it always feels their is vital, but missing, information and context in the official explanations our governments gives and in the way corporate media talks about the subject . Dave has been following these events and writing about them over the last few months, so I brought him on the show to talk about what is being left out by our government and by the mainstream press in their coverage. Follow & Support Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month  PayPal.Me Venmo LBRY Odysee Youtube Libertarian Institute Contributor Page Tenth Amendment Center Contributor Page Twitter Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com  Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture. Episode Tags: Russia, US, America, biden, putin, war, ukraine, conflict, tension, nato, dave decamp, antiwar.com

Today on Categorical Imperatives I will be responding to some feedback I got from a viewer on a past video about American Constitutional Republicanism. This episode will be the first of three videos covering the topics I am responding to. Today, that topic is the Electoral College  and what role it plays in our elections as well as discussing faithless electors, gerrymandering and redistricting and I give my own personal take on what we can do to make Presidential elections matter and put power back in the hands of the people as opposed to the 2 major political parties. ►Related Links From Viewer Feedback Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/AllRoadsLeadToTheTruth/ Facebook Article On My American Constitutional Republicanism Video:  https://www.facebook.com/groups/AllRoadsLeadToTheTruth/posts/4737729229599106/ What Is The Electoral College: https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/about Faithless Electors Article: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10515 Redistricting Article:   https://www.ocfl.net/OpenGovernment/Redistricting2011/FrequentlyAskedQuestionsRedistricting.aspx ►My Links  American Constitutional Republicanism: https://youtu.be/R8cPu7GFPTY Electoral College Part One:  https://youtu.be/aQ3PXuJJRmc Electoral College Part Two: https://youtu.be/jbWAoW1FZmo Follow & SupportTo find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ How to support the channel: Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month -: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

In today's episode of Categorical Imperatives we will be taking a look at beliefs amongst the sovereign citizen movement Including The capitalization of names on Court documents, the supposed meaning of gold fringe on a flag, The meaning of the term "color of law" The difference between suits at common law and suits in equity and the difference between the privileges and immunities of citizenship and their relation to natural rights in both Common law and Constitutional law. Follow & Support To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ Substack - https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal How to support the channel: Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

In this episode of Categorical Imperatives we look at the likely outcome and consequences if the Supreme Court was to reaffirm Roe next June in it's opinion on the case for Dobbs v Jackson Whole Women's Health. Why this outcome is more likely than most people believe it is and what it will mean for the future of the legal conservative movement. Follow & Support Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Episode #74 In this episode we discuss what I think some of the most likely and moat interesting possibilities if the Supreme Court does, in fact, overrule Roe v Wade in the recent case of Dobbs v Whole Women's Health The future of state and federal abortions laws, the role of implied powers, it's affect on Federalism, the Commerce Clause, State's Rights and much, much more... Related Episodes Roe v Wade Overview - https://youtu.be/Y6yb3H54Y7A Texas SB 8 Abortion Legislation - https://youtu.be/KKIELHjNBuA Originalism and Textualism - https://youtu.be/QnEq4rAh9aw Gonzalez v Raich - https://youtu.be/gboAUgA-dTs  Property Rights - https://youtu.be/MxmYhQKRxjs Planned Parenthood v Casey - https://youtu.be/6OB_ehOL6Uc  US v Lopez - https://youtu.be/8wL26DSP_bA  Right To Privacy - https://youtu.be/8wL26DSP_bA Related Articles Implied Powers In The Founding Era - https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/constitutional-sleight-of-hand-implied-powers-during-the-founding-era/  The Irrepressible Myths of Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson - https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/the-irrepressible-myths-of-whole-womens-health-v-jackson/ A Right To Your Property & A Property In Your Rights - https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/a-right-to-your-property-and-a-property-in-your-rights/ Constitutional Sleight of Hand: The Evolution of Implied Powers - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/11/19/constitutional-sleight-of-hand-the-evolution-of-implied-powers/ Three Supreme Court Cases that Twisted the Commerce Clause - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/07/17/three-supreme-court-cases-that-twisted-the-commerce-clause/ Follow & Support Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ Send Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request  CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Today on Categorical Imperatives we discuss the unavoidable fact that experience shows that what little good travel bans may do is outweighed by the immensely cruel harm. Follow & Support To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ How to support the channel: Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month -: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Today we return to the kyle Rittenhouse case. I discuss why they dropped the misdemeanor gun  charge and we assess the incredibly weak closing argument made by Kyle's attorney Mark Richards. Where did he go wrong and what possible effects might it have on the outcome of the case? Follow & Support To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY Odysee  Youtube  Anchor.fm  Libertarian Institute Substack- Tenth Amendment Center  Twitter Bitchute  How to support the channel: Come join me over on Patreon PayPal.Me  Venmo Donations Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture. 00:00 Introduction 01:30 Misdemeanor Gun Charge  08:15 Closing Argument

Today on Categorical Imperatives we are going to be talking about the Biden  Vaccine Mandate in the form of OSHA ETS. The 5th Circuit recently stayed an injunction against the mandate's implementation until it can be assessed on the merits in the Circuit Court. We will discuss what the mandate actually purports to do, What the 5th Circuit had to say about the mandate, as well as the reason for their stay until the issue can be properly adjudicated and what comes next in the ultimate plan to get the court to issue a permanent injunction. We also talk about what the esoteric Circuit Court Lottery is, how it works and what it could mean in this case moving forward.   Follow & Support To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ Substack - https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal How to support the channel: Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Today on Categorical Imperatives we are talking about updates in the Kyle Rittenhouse case. The way the prosecution's star witness, appeared more like a star witness for the defense, the way ADA Thomas Binger manages to somehow fuck every day up more than the last and we discuss some of the trial commentary we have been hearing from other YouTube lawyers regarding the outcome of the trial and the quality of the defense. Plus we talk about why it's time to cancel the FBI  Babylon Bee Article - https://babylonbee.com/news/prosecutors-move-for-mistrial-as-jury-has-been-tainted-by-clear-video-evidence-of-kyle-rittenhouse-defending-himself/?utm_source=telegram&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=telegramThanks to Blue North Wind for sending me that article!  Follow & Support To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media:  LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:aOdysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:aYoutube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperativesLibertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal How to support the channel: Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month -: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativVenmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com  Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Today on Categorical Imperatives we return to discussing the unfolding trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. In my last video we looked at how the corporate media had beclowned themselves with their ridiculous coverage and analysis of the case. All this week we have been watching the trial proper, in which the Prosecutor has been laying out his case for conviction.... or at least that's the idea.... The only problem is that absolutely everything this guy says and does either makes his argument look worse or makes Kyle's affirmative defense seem much more likely. He couldn't be doing a better job making sure Kyle walks if he was actually Rittenhouse's defense even more reasonable. Really, the prosecution's case has all the hallmarks of a politically motivated trial of an individual clearly being charged for reasons other than the merits of the case... Because there are none. I have a few observations to add to what is already a very lively discussion both online and in the real world that is taking place all over the country regarding this trial Follow & SupportTo find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ How to support the channel: Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month -: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

The media and their legal analysts prove once again they are not in the journalism business. They are political activists LARPing as journalists. We discuss what the media got wrong about the pre-trial motions that were heard and considered in Court for the Kyle Rittenhouse trial this last Friday.

This video is the first in a series I plan to do from time to time covering the particular issues during the ratification period between September 1787 and July 1788. That topic will be approached with the best, most influential, most commonly held beliefs that divided the Federalists from the Anti-Federalists. Today we will be looking at A speech given by James Wilson on October 6th in Philadelphia in what would become the first great defense of the proposed Constitution and a direct reply to many of the most contentious issues among anti-federalists. Wilson's speech then was akin to our notion of the Federalist Papers today. That is to say it was the most common and well known argument in favor of ratification. It is undoubtedly the most read and most influential of all Federalists at the time. Following that I will be reading from articles & speeches that were written or spoken as a direct rebuttal and refutation of James Wilson's October 6th speech. Follow & SupportTo find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ How to support the channel: Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month -: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

The upcoming fall term for the Supreme Court has a number of important cases on the docket, including two very important Second Amendment cases. The first case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen. The case will decide whether the Second Amendment right to "bear arms" is an actual right. Or conversely, if law-abiding adults who pass a biometric background check and safety training can be denied a concealed carry permit simply because permitting officials only issue concealed carry permits when they feel that the applicant has a special need. Oral arguments for this case will be happening on November 3rd. Today I will be laying out the background on this case, we will go into detail about the question presented by the appellant as well as discussing why it is that no matter what the outcome of the case is, it will almost certainly be a true landmark case & is the first new case the court has granted cert on since McDonald v Chicago in 2010.  I will be making a couple more episodes about this case between now and when it is scheduled to start, so make sure you are subscribed to the channel and have that notification bell checked so you can follow along with me as this case progresses.  Supreme Court docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-843.html   Follow & Support To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:aOdysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:aYoutube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperativesLibertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberalBitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ How to support the channel: Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month -: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativVenmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com  Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Today on Categorical Imperatives we have part one of what will be a two part episode About the theoretical origins of Judicial Review. Most people are familiar with Marbury v Madison (1803) Which is widely understood to be the first time the Court articulated a meaning of judicial review in fact, and when talking Marbury, virtually everyone will point to Hamilton's writing under the pen name Publius in the Federalist Papers, Federalist #78 specifically as the first example of when the doctrine of judicial review was articulated in theory. Which is all well and good, except that neither of those two things are correct. Judicial review before Marbury is a topic we will get around to discussing at some point in the future, but for today we are going to focus on the first place in the ratification debated we actually find Judicial Review being described which starts with Brutus' 8th Essay.

Today on Categorical Imperative is part one of a two part episode On the public battle during the ratification debates on Judicial Review. Looking at it from the perspective of two of the most well-written series of essays from that time. This is also the first episode of an idea I plan to make a regular feature of that I am tentatively calling *The Founders in Context*. This is also meant to shed a little light on a long neglected thesis by Brutus giving a downright prophetic warning, about how Judicial Review is liable to collapse into Judicial supremacy.

This is the latest installment of my ongoing series, Today in Supreme Court History. Where we discuss a case brief of a landmark Supreme Court Decision to understand the basic history facts and law that are crucial to understand the Court's opinion and the case's significance. Today we are looking at the controversial 1973 case of Roe v Wade in which the Supreme Court decided that under the14th amendment's due process clause, laws banning abortion were a deprivation of fundamental liberty and that the decision to have an abortion up until the point of "viability" is a decision to be made by a woman and her doctor, not the government. Virtually overnight this invalidated laws in 46 states that, to one degree or another restricted or banned the ability to have an abortion.

There have been a lot of serious misconceptions about the Supreme Court's recent decision in Whole Women's Health v Jackson ruling. In this episode I explain the reason people are really overreacting to what was a very unimportant case and why the "something" everyone says the Court should have done simply doesn't exist

Episode #63 Today on Categorical Imperatives we go down a rabbit hole about how often police shoot and even kill other officers, why it happens and the disturbing trend I have found that its becoming common to blame a suspect for the death, despite the fact they never contest it was another officer who actually fired the shot that caused the death. This all sprang from what started as an article of a single, ongoing case where a woman named Jenna Holm is charged with manslaughter after one officer on the scene was hit by a cop car arriving on scene. These incidents of what I have dubbed "Blue on Blue violence" is something I discovered during my personal research for this video that only seem to be reported on as many separate & distinct instances. I found little data or reporting that has aggregated these instances and looked at them collectively. This episode is a preliminary attempt to compile these sorts of incidents. Since this information is nearly as new to me as it likely is for you. So as I learn more this will be a topic I intend to follow up on in future episodes. Follow & SupportTo find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ How to support the channel: Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month -: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request you can e-mail the show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

On this episode of Categorical Imperatives We finish our discussion started last week about the Electoral College, why the National Popular Vote Movement i Unconstitutional and the meaning of "One Person, One Vote Doctrine" Categorical Imperatives on Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/channel/categoricalimperatives/ Categorical Imperatives on Parler - https://parler.com/profile/Lockeanliberal/pos Original Chris Hayes Segment - https://youtu.be/T1Dv25z480c Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that uses legal theory and moral philosophy to discuss current events surrounding law, politics & culture. Follow & SupportTo find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Substack - https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberalHow to support the channel:Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberalShow Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.comCategorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

In this episode of Categorical Imperatives we discuss how it is as a matter of both law and moral philosophy that all rights can be said to be property rights.

Today on Categorical Imperatives we are going to be looking at the Electoral College. In this video, Part One of a two part series we will be looking at The electoral College as compared to a system put forward by the National Popular Vote Movement. In Part Two we will be examining the case law that compromises the Supreme Court's "One Person, One Vote" doctrine. What people think it means, why they are all wrong, what it actually means and what, if anything is the Constitutional basis to continue putting "one person, one vote into practice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PART ONE Why do we use this system to elect the president? Why do some people believe we should have a National Popular Vote and why is the NPV a terrible idea. We see how the National Popular Vote is a Trojan Horse being offered a "A more fair and Democratic system" when in fact it's an attempt by the left to swing elections to their side We will also be examining a number of common Fallacies about the so-called "One Person, One Vote Doctrine".... Why it is not in any way Constitutional, but is a pointless example of legislating from the bench. It's also a doctrine most people, conservatives and leftists alike, tend to completely misunderstand and misinterpret. So we will be examine the Landmark cases that comprise that doctrine and discussing them as a matter of Constitutional law, instead of the usual discussion that comes from tools like Chris Hayes on MSNBC... How they misread and misapply this doctrine in a way not at all consistent the law itself. Instead viewing it with a kind of prevented political redefinition that you find on the right and the left Categorical Imperatives on Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/channel/categoricalimperatives/ Categorical Imperatives on Parler - https://parler.com/profile/Lockeanliberal/pos Original Chris Hayes Segment - https://youtu.be/T1Dv25z480c A Defense of the Electoral College By: Rob Natelson https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/04/06/a-defense-of-the-electoral-college/ Did Founder James Wilson oppose the Electoral College and favor “National Popular Vote?” By: Rob Natelson https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/11/14/did-founder-james-wilson-oppose-the-electoral-college-and-favor-national-popular-vote/ The Electoral College is still right for America By: Rob Natelson https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/01/27/the-electoral-college-is-still-right-for-america/ Keep the Federal Courts Out of the Electoral College By: Tenth Amendment Center https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/10/keep-the-federal-courts-out-of-the-electoral-college/ Destroying the Electoral College Destroys Freedom By: Tom DeWeese https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/06/30/destroying-the-electoral-college-destroys-freedom/ The Plan to Circumvent the Presidential Election Process By: Bob Greenslade https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/09/01/the-plan-to-circumvent-the-presidential-election-process/ Constitutional Republic vs. Pure Democracy: How the U.S. Election Process Has Changed By: Sam Jacobs https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/08/17/constitutional-republic-vs-pure-democracy-how-the-u-s-election-process-has-changed/ Why the “National Public Vote” Scheme is Unconstitutional By: Rob Natelson https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/02/09/why-the-national-public-vote-scheme-is-unconstitutional/ Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that uses legal theory and moral philosophy to discuss current events surrounding law, politics & culture.

On this episode of Categorical Imperatives we discuss the importance of Federalism as a mainstay of our government's checks and balances. Why calls for electoral reform from particular political party every election cycle because they are just sore losers, is more than selfish. Why it is a short-sighted grasp for power that they demand without considering any of the consequences of the changes they propose or the merits of the structure they want to destroy. We will be going over and article from Vox.com about why they say they think the Senate should have proportional representation. Why they are no good liars who are really just pushing for a scheme of national government that would do far more than what they claim they want, which is "a better balance of power between the states and the people". They want to do away with States entirely. replace our legislature with a single national legislature that would be nothing more than a rubber stamp for the President's wishes. Why this Wilsonian impulse is an eminently dangerous impulse and why we should cherish the Madisonian Republic we have. Vox Article- https://www.vox.com/2018/10/13/17971340/the-senate-represents-states-not-people-constitution-kavanaugh-supreme-court Chris hayes electoral reform- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1Dv25z480c&t=483s Roger sherman Biography.com Article- https://www.biography.com/political-figure/roger-Sherman Encyclopedia Britannica Article- https://www.britannica.com/biography/Roger-Sherman General information- http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/biographies/roger-sherman/ Yale Repository of "The Great Compromise"- https://archives.yale.edu/repositories/12/resources/3083 History of "The Great Compromise"- https://www.thoughtco.com/great-compromise-of-1787-3322289 Wikipedia Connecticut Compromise- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise Encyclopedia Britannica Connecticut Compromise- https://www.britannica.com/topic/Connecticut-Compromise The Great Compromise- https://historycooperative.org/great-compromise/ Saint George Tucker Tucker on Wikipedia- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._George_Tucker Saint George Tucker Society- http://stgeorgetuckersociety.org/ Encyclopedia of Virginia - https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Tucker_St_George_1752_x2013_1827 Tucker's Jeffersonian Constitution- https://lawliberty.org/st-george-tuckers-jeffersonian-constitution/ Tucker's Blackstone & Other Selected Works- https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/tucker-and-the-us-constitution https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/tucker-view-of-the-constitution-of-the-united-states-with-selected-writings Current events, law, politics & culture through a lens of legal theory and moral philosophy

On this episode of Categorical Imperatives we look ahead to the presidential election to ask a truly important question. Not what do you plan to do November 3rd 2020... What do you plan to do November 4th? It's easy to get swept up with Democrats and Republicans who will tell you "This is the most important election of our lifetime"... But it never is. I sat down for a conversation with Mike Maharrey of the Tenth Amendment Center about why greater individual liberty won't come at the ballot box. We discuss decentralization, nullification, Federalism of course the Tenth Amendment. As well as what Founders like Thomas Jefferson & James Madison had to say about jealously guarding individual liberty and how to protect our Constitution from the government it created. Tenth Amendment Center -Homepage: https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/ -Tenther Blog: https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/ -State of the Nullification Report: https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/report/ Mike's Homepage: https://www.michaelmaharrey.com/ SchiffGold -Homepage: https://schiffgold.com/ -It's Your Dime: https://schiffgold.com/category/its-your-dime/ -Friday Gold Wrap: https://schiffgold.com/category/friday-gold-wrap/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that uses legal theory and moral philosophy to discuss current events surrounding law, politics & culture Follow & Support To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Substack - https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberalHow to support the channel:Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberalShow Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.comCategorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Today on Categorical Imperatives we contemplate how we as individual citizens can advocate on our own behalf when we are up against the long arm of the law. For centuries Habeas Corpus has been known by Jurists and civil libertarians alike as "The Great Writ". And indeed it is. Where does it come from? What role has it played in the formation of Jury Nullification, in bringing an end to slavery, in exposing our 16th and 43rd Presidents as tyrants, and what can it do for citizens to help ensure against unlawful arrest arrest and detention. All this and more will be answered on the show! Follow & Support To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Substack - https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberalHow to support the channel:Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberalShow Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.comCategorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Today I am going to be looking at a few videos put out by Doug TenNapel. Best known for a comic book that, if you grew up in the 1990's like I did, was one you were very familiar with. Earthworm Jim. He also does a podcast with the guys from Babylon Bee called Audio Mullet, and he is a Trump supporter. After my recent videos talking about the Trump Texas election lawsuits, which I got quite a bit of very encouraging feedback on (and I always appreciate when you guys give me feedback on the show!) I have decided to continue covering these Trump election challenges until he finally gives up, realizes no one but him cares and goes to sulk in palatial style The new theory being floated by Trump supporters about why they still think he is playing super upside-down underwater 4D chess and that the only reason it looks like he lost the election and is whining like a little bitch is part of his master plan. Because all the things that he tried that we were told were solid, genius, no lose strategies.... that he always lost they always came back with another reason why Trump is doing what he is for some very important super secret reasons and that the fact its looks like he is losing is the surest sign he's secretly winning. He's got a genius plan and secret evidence and a few Krakens on standby to release and he is gonna be President again.... so they say. Rather than what I did with the Texas election lawsuit videos where I just played Monday morning quarterback explaining why what happened was the only possible outcome, I thought I would get ahead of the game on this one and explain in advance why their new super duper secret strategy to have like Pence disenfranchise tens of millions of American voters by just refusing to count their votes is not going to work (as though that needs to be be stated.) Also, as I said in this video, I want to start putting out more videos like this. By which I mean simpler videos covering a topic is a more brief and freeform kind of episode. Rather than the long scripted shows that take me weeks to make. I am gonna keep making those but in between I want to put out more videos like this one and I need your help with ideas. Part of putting out these videos while still working on longer videos is for me to cover topics that don't require a whole lot of research and a scripts and a huge list of legal citations to the various laws and other various sources that I want to make sure you guys can find when I make longer videos. At the end of this episode you will hear some basic instructions on how you can help me out by submitting topics, questions or anything else you would want to hear me cover. The more you guys are able to bring me idea of what you would like to see, the more I will be able to put out the new content I want to do and to still be able to work on and release by bigger more epic shows

As will surprise no one, there is a facially unconstitutional piece of legislation snaking its way through Congress - HR 51. The latest Democratic scheme to take what they cannot fairly win. In the past I have discussed their encouragement of a National Popular Vote (https://youtu.be/aQ3PXuJJRmc) Court Packing (https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/the-constitutional-revolution-of-1937-or-the-irrespresible-myth-of-a-political-judiciary/) and schemes for democratic representation in the Senate (https://youtu.be/25IqSH6ShhQ) This latest effort, that just passed in the House is seeking to grant DC Statehood. While H.R. 51’s obviously partisan scheme to give one party a clear advantage is a problem in itself, worth taking note of, this seems to be the only criticism this bill is getting; despite there being much more serious Constitutional issues at stake. Follow & Support Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

102 years ago today, the 18th Amendment was ratified , making alcohol prohibition the law of the land. Only 12 years later did our nation learn the difficult lesson that you cannot legislate morality and passed the 21st Amendment, repealing the 18th amendment. This is the only time in the history of the Republic an amendment has been unamended. Just about every American can explain the reasons for it's failure & rattle off a fairly accurate list of reasons why the treatment was worse than the disease. But far too many people refuse to see how that valuable lesson is highly applicable today in our decades long "War On Drugs" So today on Categorical Imperatives we are going to be taking all of those valuable lessons from alcohol prohibition and showing conclusively our War on Drugs is every bit as bad as prohibition, and often much, much worse. At the end of the show I also discuss the many reasons I am optimistic that this war on drugs is quickly becoming unsustainable. It's not only that the harm the drug war inflicts is worse than the harm caused by the drugs themselves. But the war on drugs will fail on it's own terms. This is one place State Legislatures are using the 10th amendment and the "Anti-Commandeering Doctrine" To make the war on drugs more and more unenforceable. It's about time. If you want to help by getting involved in various efforts to nullify the federal war on drugs in your own state you should go to the Tenth Amendment Center's website www.tenthamendmentcenter.com Get a copy of their "State of the Nullification Report" or search the site for articles & videos about the war on drugs. Follow & Support To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Substack - https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberalHow to support the channel:Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberalShow Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.comCategorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

In this episode we continue our discussion of the Sovereign Citizen movement. This is a legal response to sovereign citizen claims about American jurisprudence. A serious and sincere reply. Even if you aren't interested in the Sovereign Citizen aspects I took the opportunity to give a broad and comprehensive treatment of American Jurisprudence. We will touch on many important aspects of US law and the American legal system. This video works well for anyone as a primer to the aspects of the American legal system we should all be familiar with (but which, thanks to American politicians and as a consequence of enacting the Department of Education & long ago removing civics from the public school curriculum) this is information that is commonly poorly understood. There is something for everyone in this episode. Follow & SupportTo find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ How to support the channel: Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

In today's episode of Categorical Imperatives we will be taking a look at beliefs amongst the sovereign citizen movement Including The capitalization of names on Court documents, the supposed meaning of gold fringe on a flag, The meaning of the term "color of law" The difference between suits at common law and suits in equity and the difference between the privileges and immunities of citizenship and their relation to natural rights in both Common law and Constitutional law.  Follow & SupportTo find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ How to support the channel: Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

On the anniversary of this seminal free speech case in which the 14th amendment was used to incorporate first amendment protections of speech on a state level we discuss the history of the case, the court's ruling and the significance of this case. Current events, law, politics & culture through a lens of legal and moral philosophy Follow & SupportTo find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ How to support the channel: Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

With California's bill regulating the gig economy out of existence and interfering with the Constitutional protected freedom of contract hurting the very people it was designed to help, and this same regulation being considered by several other states as well as on the national level it's fitting to discuss a case that was argued on this date before the Supreme Court in 1905 "Lochner v New York". While this case has become so maligned as to be seen as anti-canonical, many Constitutional scholars are beginning to reexamine this case and even rehabilitate it. What does this case have to tell us about the scope of government regulation of the gig economy and the freedom of contract? Thats exactly what we will be discussing today here on Categorical Imperatives. Follow & SupportTo find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ How to support the channel: Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

*Correction* 13:00 I mixed up details about Wickard v. Filburn. Claude R. Wickard was the plaintiff. He sued on behalf of Department of Agriculture et al. & Roscoe Filburn was the farmer charged with violating the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 In this episode of Categorical Imperatives we take a look at a case from this day in 1995 that was the first time in over 60 years the court struck down a law under the commerce and necessary and proper clauses It was a big win for Federalism and limited government It's one of my all time favorite rulings, I am sure it will be one of your favorites as well 100 Supreme Court Cases: By Josh Blackman and Randy Barnett: https://conlaw.us/

Today we will be discussing the meaning of Sovereignty across time. From the Compact theory of individual sovereignty in Natural Law, to the development of government by consent in the English common law, the doctrine of sovereign immunity and the uniquely American concept of popular sovereignty as expressed in Constitutional law. This will include a gallop through early American history between 1787-1795 as our Founder's developed what is now our modern understanding of sovereignty of the several States and the people therein. Such as the Citizen-State-Diversity Clause - U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1 (1787) The first major constitutional decision of the new Supreme Court: Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793) And the Eleventh Amendment that reversed it - U.S. Const. amend. XI. (1795) We will also briefly diverge while we do one of my favorite mini-series on the show discussing Founding Fathers most people don't know, but everybody should. Today we look at John Jay who was our first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court . Appointed nearly 10 years before John Marshall became Chief Justice. Jay presided over the first foundational case 8 years before before the case all Con Law classes start with which is Marbury v Madison (1803)

On this episode of Categorical Imperatives We discuss the Second Amendment and the General Militia Power as a form of Police Reform. That may sounds counter-intuitive, Prima Facie, but I will be making the case as to why this is a crucial step to take, following the death of George Floyd. This is the second episode exploring the 2nd amendment and a re-discovery of the true meaning of the general militia as defined both in history and law. From English Common Law to our current Corpus Juris. To Watch Part One of the Series: https://youtu.be/HVjlqgAV5ig Collection of Tenth Amendment Center Articles and Videos on numerous topics related to police reform: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6NjbXOax5B30hgiKtiCQvQdNUjL_zzZc Case Law and Case Briefs Dred Scott v Sanford http://sites.gsu.edu/us-constipedia/378-2/ https://legaldictionary.net/dred-scott-v-sandford/ https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/dredscott.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/60/393 Civil Rights Act of 1866 https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/civil-rights-act-1866 Freedman's Butreau Bill https://www.cop.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/FreedmensBureau.htm Slaughterhouse Cases http://sites.gsu.edu/us-constipedia/slaughterhouse-cases/ U.S. V CRUIKSHANK http://sites.gsu.edu/us-constipedia/u-s-v-cruikshank/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/92/542 Militia Acts of 1792 and 1903 https://www.law.cornell.edu/topn/militia_act_of_1903 https://archive.org/stream/jstor-25119439/25119439_djvu.txt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 Barron v Baltimore https://cases.laws.com/barron-v-baltimore Salinas v Blakely https://guncite.com/court/state/83p619.html United States v Miller https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/ United States v Emerson http://www.ecases.us/case/ca5/c34012/united-states-v-emerson DC v Heller https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dc-v-heller/ McDonald v Chicago https://www.britannica.com/event/McDonald-v-City-of-Chicago https://legaldictionary.net/mcdonald-v-chicago/ http://sites.gsu.edu/us-constipedia/chicago-v-mcdonald-2010/ Matter of Babington v. Yellow Taxi Corp., 164 N.E. 726 (NY 1928) https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3601389/matter-of-babington-v-yellow-taxi-corp/ THE FOUNDERS CONSTITUTION (EXCERPTS) Chapter 3 Document 3 "Right of Revolution" William Blackstone https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s3.html CHAPTER 3 | Document 4 Samuel Adams, Boston Gazette 27 Feb. 1769 Writings 1:316--19 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s4.html CHAPTER 16 | Document 23 James Madison, Property 29 Mar. 1792 Papers 14:266--68 https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html ►00:00 Introduction & Overview Of Part One ►03:15 District of Colombia v Heller ►06:51 Preamble to the Bill of Rights ►09:25 Majority and Minority Opinion for Heller ►09:35 Collective/Individual Right? ►14:20 Original Meaning and Original Intent Jurisprudence ►15:30 McDonald v Heller ►21:10 Original Meaning or Substantive Due Process? ►25:15 Conclusions

On this episode of Categorical Imperatives We discuss the Second Amendment and the General Militia Power as a form of Police Reform. That may sounds counter-intuitive, Prima Facie, but I will be making the case as to why this is a crucial step to take, following the death of George Floyd. This is the first of two episodes exploring the 2nd amendment and a re-discovery of the true meaning of the general militia as defined both in history and law. From English Common Law to our current Corpus Juris. To Watch Part Two In the Series: https://youtu.be/rYxdu4a_RuA Collection of Tenth Amendment Center Articles and Videos on numerous topics related to police reform: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6NjbXOax5B30hgiKtiCQvQdNUjL_zzZc Case Law and Case Briefs Dred Scott v Sanford http://sites.gsu.edu/us-constipedia/378-2/ https://legaldictionary.net/dred-scott-v-sandford/ https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/dredscott.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/60/393 Civil Rights Act of 1866 https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/civil-rights-act-1866 Freedman's Butreau Bill https://www.cop.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/FreedmensBureau.htm Slaughterhouse Cases http://sites.gsu.edu/us-constipedia/slaughterhouse-cases/ U.S. V CRUIKSHANK http://sites.gsu.edu/us-constipedia/u-s-v-cruikshank/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/92/542 Militia Acts of 1792 and 1903 https://www.law.cornell.edu/topn/militia_act_of_1903 https://archive.org/stream/jstor-25119439/25119439_djvu.txt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 Barron v Baltimore https://cases.laws.com/barron-v-baltimore Salinas v Blakely https://guncite.com/court/state/83p619.html United States v Miller https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/ United States v Emerson http://www.ecases.us/case/ca5/c34012/united-states-v-emerson DC v Heller https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dc-v-heller/ McDonald v Chicago https://www.britannica.com/event/McDonald-v-City-of-Chicago https://legaldictionary.net/mcdonald-v-chicago/ http://sites.gsu.edu/us-constipedia/chicago-v-mcdonald-2010/ Matter of Babington v. Yellow Taxi Corp., 164 N.E. 726 (NY 1928) https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3601389/matter-of-babington-v-yellow-taxi-corp/ THE FOUNDERS CONSTITUTION (EXCERPTS) Chapter 3 Document 3 "Right of Revolution" William Blackstone https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s3.html CHAPTER 3 | Document 4 Samuel Adams, Boston Gazette 27 Feb. 1769 Writings 1:316--19 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s4.html CHAPTER 16 | Document 23 James Madison, Property 29 Mar. 1792 Papers 14:266--68 https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html

Today On Categorical Imperatives I take a look at the insanity of Trump and his increasingly unhinged base of supporters who cannot accept the fact that he lost the election and their desperate straw-grasping for any hope and pearl clutching schemes. But at this point there is really only one possible outcome. Trump is going to continue down the same hilarious path of denial and delusion that Hillary did in 2016, and even if he did succeed, as I point out at the beginning of the episode, then he will have provided me with a full-proof way..... or maybe more accurately a fool-proof way, for me to get the 2024 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate elected. I explain precisely how that is, then join me to share a laugh at some of the most ridiculous delusional scheming to keep Trump in power in a video from Doug Tennaple, followed by a more serious back-half of the episode where I read a great article from Rob Natelson that was posted over at the Tenth Amendment Center today talking about how the president could have used fraud and irregularities to his advantage had he adnd his supporters actually understood the law and the Constitution a little better and I close out the show reading from an article I wrote for Reason's legal blog that should be available online tomorrow. Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events, law, politics & culture. Categorical Imperatives On Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives Categorical Imperatives on LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives Lockean Liberal On Parler - https://parler.com/profile/Lockeanliberal

It seems like every election cycle people can't wait to have all manner of pointless debates, where two factions engage in politics as team sport. Competing to see which team can talk the most while substantively saying the least and competing to see who can actively & most thoroughly dismiss their opponent's arguments Prima Facie. I am speaking of the controversy over whether we are a Democracy or a Constitutional Republic. I want to end this whole debate by proving that anyone who presents you with this choice is trying to sell you a false bill of goods... This holds true both when being discussed in the parlance of our times and then through an Originalist argument based directly on the arguments made by those who drafted and ratified the Constitution. I will be doing this by re-enacting that Great Debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists over what our system of government should operate in alignment with our Nation's founding moral philosophy, that is known as American Constitutional Republicanism ►00:00 Introduction ►02:35 Constitutional Republic or Democracy ►12:40 Historical Evidence ►17:58 Montesquieu's Political taxonomy ►27:50 American Constitutional Republicanism ►30:30 The Great Debate - Advocates and Opponents of the Constitution Articles by Eugene Volokh https://reason.com/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-americ/ https://reason.com/2016/11/14/the-united-states-is-both-a-re/ https://reason.com/2016/12/16/is-america-a-republic-or-a-dem/ "A Republic, Not A Democracy? Initiative, Referendum, and the Constitution's Guarantee Clause" By: Robert Natelson https://works.bepress.com/robert_natelson/24/ "How the U.S. Election Process Has Changed" By: Sam Jacobs https://www.silverdoctors.com/headlines/world-news/constitutional-republic-vs-pure-democracy-how-the-u-s-election-process-has-changed/ Baron de Montesquieu, Complete Works, vol. 1: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/montesquieu-complete-works-vol-1-the-spirit-of-laws The Spirit of the Laws (1748) https://thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/The-Spirit-of-The-Laws.pdf The Federalist Papers: https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/The-Complete-Federalist-Papers.pdf Collected works of Greco-Roman philosophers and historians of Classical Republicanism Thucydides - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/thucydides Aristotle - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/Aristotle Tacitus - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/publius-cornelius-tacitus Plutarch - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/plutarch Livy - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/titus-livius-livy Cicero - https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/marcus-tullius-cicero

On this episode of Categorical Imperatives, we go through Trump's Social Media executive order & why this demand for "free speech" is repugnant to the Constitution, the first amendment, individual liberty and free association. Current events, law, politics & culture through a lens of legal and moral philosophy Follow & Support To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ Substack - https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal How to support the channel: Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

We discuss the 14th Amendment, Incorporation Doctrine, Substantive Due Process and what is the real world effect these Constitutional doctrines have on public discourse, jurisprudence and individual liberty Previous video on Incorporation Doctrine - https://youtu.be/-YQinwxV4GM Path To Liberty - https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/03/quarantine-states-feds-and-the-constitutions/ Was the Bill of Rights Meant to Apply to the States? By Mike Maharrey - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/10/13/was-the-bill-of-rights-meant-to-apply-to-the-states/ Incorporation of the Bill of Rights in the Fourteenth Amendment By Raoul Berger - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/07/27/incorporation-of-the-bill-of-rights-in-the-fourteenth-amendment/ The 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine By Dave Benner - https://members.tenthamendmentcenter.com/ebook-the-14th-amendment-and-the-incorporation-doctrine/ TAC Homepage - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/ Current events, law, politics & culture through a lens of legal and moral philosophy

My latest discussion with Scott Horton