The Constitution Study podcast

In response to the COVID-19 vaccine mandates, several states passed legislation to put a halt to such practices. For example Idaho recently passed the Medical Freedom Act. The question is, does this legislation protect medical freedom or is it just another example of government overreach.

When I hear people talk about freedom, there seem to be two different general ideas, freedom from something and freedom to do something. It reminds me of my days in Information Technology, when people described "free" open source software as "Free speech, not free beer!" When we talk about freedom today, are we talking about free speech or free beer?

Back in June I wrote about the oral arguments in Mexico's law suit against American gun manufacturers and distributors. While the court overall came to the expected decision, I think it's still worth some time digging into the logic and reasoning of the justices.

Most of us believe that our state legislatures are making our laws. But what if that is only partially true? What if a third-party was making the laws for your state? Would you be OK with that? Would you be concerned to find out that two private entities are making the laws your state uses regarding commerce?

There has been a lot of questions lately about the powers of the President. Can a President fire a member of an independent agency? Does the President have to spend money appropriated by Congress? Is it legal for the President to send the National Guard to our cities. Most of these questions can be answered by understanding a single constitutional point, the unitary executive.

When it comes to freedom of speech, there are two things that generate a fair amount of controversy. First is yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater and second is burning the United States flag. Recently, Donald Trump issued an Executive Order about flag burning. So let's take a look at the order and some of the history around flag burning.

Like any other profession, there are good law enforcement officers, and bad law enforcement officers. While I believe that most LEOs are good men and women, doing a difficult and dangerous job, often with little respect because of the actions of bad LEOs. For years, courts have been protecting these bad officers through their rules and doctrines. A recent Supreme Court case finds that one of those rules violates the Constitution of the United States.

Donald Trump's recent executive order declaring a crime emergency in Washington, D.C. has created quite an uproar, both for and against it. While there have been many claims on both sides, what I haven't seen, except for my radio program, is a real constitutional analysis of his actions. With his recent announcement post about sending National Guard troops to Chicago, I think it's time we do that type of analysis.

Benjamin Franklin wrote "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." What does it say about the American people who seem willing to give up their right to control their government in exchange for Internet access?

As a society, we've decided that certain things like alcohol, tobacco, and pornography are not safe for minors. When I buy wine at the grocery store, I have to show my ID to verify my age. Take a look at my picture on the website and you'll see I'm well over the age where I can purchase alcohol, but I'm still asked to verify my age. That's because my rights end when it infringes on the rights of another. However, the Free Speech Coalition thinks an adult's "right" to access pornography without age verification trumps the safety of minors...

Congress created Medicaid in 1965 to subsidize state healthcare system for people unable to afford healthcare. South Carolina has a law the prohibits public funds being used for abortion. For this reason, South Carolina disqualified Planned Parenthood from participating in the state's Medicaid system. It should be no surprise that Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued. The Supreme Court's decision may surprise you.

Back in March, the Supreme Court argued the case Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc., et al. v. Wisconsin Labor And Industry Review Commission et al. I reviewed those arguments in my article Are You Religious Enough? In June, the court released its decision, and thankfully, the court came to what I believe is the correct decision. That's not to say they came to the conclusion for the right reasons.

Which came first, the states or the federal government? A better question should be who created whom? Did the federal government create the states? No, the states created the federal government when they ratified the Constitution. So if the states are the "parents" of the federal government, why are they not sovereign over it? One state legislature tried to pass legislation to reassert their position as sovereign over the federal government. Sadly, that measure did not pass... yet.

SCOTUS, supreme court, HHS, health insurance, obama care, health and human services, HHS, There is a quote pretty much sums up a recent Supreme Court decision regarding your healthcare. Oh what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to deceive -- Sir Walter Scott In the case Kennedy v Braidwood Management, inc. we see the tangled web the United States has woven when it practiced to deceive by claiming the power to regulate what is covered by your health insurance.

Earlier this year I wrote about the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the case Mahmoud V. Taylor. The case had to do with a parent's right to opt their children out of content in public school they found objectionable, and the Supreme Court was asked if the plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction preventing the school from teaching their children objectionable content until the court had decided the case. On June 27, 2025, the court published its decision.

All of western culture is at war. The fundamental point of conflict is whether a person's "gender" is determined by biology or psychology, reality or wishes. One of the latest battles in this war is the Supreme Court case _United States v. Skrmetti._In this case Mr. Skrmetti, as Attorney General of the State of Tennessee, is defending the state's law that prohibits the use of so-called "gender-affirming" care for minors. The answer the court came to will surprise some and infuriate others.

In the "Rock, Paper, Scissors" of our federal government, who wins? Does a federal court always get what it wants, or are there limitations? While hearing cases on the question of "birthright citizenship", several District Courts claimed the power to rule over the President. I don't remember seeing that in the Constitution. Now, the Supreme Court has weighed in, deciding in the case Trump v. Casa that lower courts are not all powerful after all.

There has been a lot of talk about due process lately, but little of it seems to be informed by proof or evidence. Five of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights are called the "Due Process Amendments". With a little bit of research, we can not only be sure of what due process is, but how the Constitution protects our rights to it.

Next year with be the 250th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Over the next 365 days I expect to see plenty of opportunities to remember the date. I want to start by remembering the reason why we declared independence in the first place.

When is discrimination not discrimination? While the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals would have you think that reverse discrimination is not only legal, but OK. However, discrimination is discrimination, even when it's used in an attempt to right some past wrong.

Imagine being awakened from a sound sleep by a group of armed men bashing in your door. Come to find out, it's the FBI. Oh yeah, and they have the wrong house. After the trauma, not to mention the damage to your house, at the very least you can sue for a redress of these grievances, right? That is the question before the Supreme Court in the case Martin v. United States.

If you rent rather than own your home, you may be tempted to skip over this article. I suggest you don't, because the underlying question of ownership leading to control goes far beyond land.

Birthright citizenship has been a very hot topic for the last few years. When Donald Trump signed an executive order that quoted both the Constitution of the United States and federal law, claiming that would be the policy of the United States, that triggered mulitiple lawsuits. Now, three of those suits have been combined into one and oral arguments were heard at the Supreme Court.

Cities and states have been trying to put gun manufacturers out of business for decades with frivolous lawsuits, blaming them for the criminal use of their products. This got to be such a problem that Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Now Mexico has joined the fight, blaming Smith & Wesson for their drug cartel problems.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – Declaration of Independence You may be wondering, why am I quoting the Declaration of Independence for a holiday other than Independence Day? Because, one of our nation's most important holidays is often treated as nothing more than the beginning of summer. That does a di...

It took more than 20 years, but the REAL ID Act of 2005 is finally being enforced. While several people have talked about the requirements for a REAL ID, and whether or not they even need one, I haven't heard anyone ask one very important question, is it legal?

It took more than 20 years, but the REAL ID Act of 2005 is finally being enforced. While several people have talked about the requirements for a REAL ID, and whether or not they even need one, I haven't heard anyone ask one very important question, is it legal?

The State of Wisconsin exempts religious organizations from their unemployment tax system. Even though everyone agrees that Catholic Charities is controlled by a church, Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Catholic Charities is not "operated primarily for religious purposes", and therefore does not qualify for the exemption. Catholic Charities appealed to the Supreme Court to ask if that decision violated the First Amendment.

How many of you know about the Johnson Amendment? If you've ever donated to a church or other charity, you've been impacted by this amendment. This limitation on freedom of speech has been in effect for over 70 years. And now, the House of Representatives is trying to remedy this infringement.

There will always be tension between our desire for privacy and safety. We're all for privacy, until we find that an invasion of said privacy could have stopped some terrible event. But are we willing to trade our privacy for safety? "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." --Benjamin Franklin In the case of SCHOLL and BEDNARZ v. Illinois State Police the privacy question revolves around automatic license place readers (ALPRs) and what makes a search reasonable.

I don't know which of the three branches of government does the most to infringe on your rights. Take, for example, the recent Supreme Court decision in the case Bondi v. Vanderstok, where Mr. Vanderstok challenged the recent regulation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives redefining weapons parts kits as firearms. It seems the Supreme Court has a hard time reading either the law or the Constitution.

Imagine you are stopped by law enforcement. Maybe you were doing something wrong, maybe not. At this point, when you are in the custody of law enforcement, whose safety matters more, yours or the officers? In the 2017 Fourth Circuit case United States v. Robinson, while not specifically put this way, the question came up, does officer safety trump your right against unreasonable search and seizure, even your own safety?

As a lifelong gun owner, I understand the awesome responsibility of owning a weapon. After getting my concealed carry license many years ago, I came to understand the greater responsibility of having a deadly weapon on my person. But as a constitutional scholar, I've come to realize just how badly states are infringing on our rights, simply because we decide to exercise one of them. Today, I want to talk about "duty to inform" laws. After all, if the presence of a firearm is a threat to officer safety, than the officer's firearm is a threat to my safety.<...

Ibriam Kendi is often quoted as saying "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination." But is that true? Above the main entrance to the Supreme Court is a promise chiseled into the marble façade, "equal justice under law". How can we have equal justice under law if one side is always discriminating against another? Enter the case of Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth Services, where Marlean Ames claims she was discriminated in her job because of her sexual orientation. What makes this case uniques is, Ms. Ames is heterosexual, and the Sixth Circuit claimed that m...

Free speech jurisprudence has rested on shaky ground for decades in this country. Looking back at cases like Hill v. Colorado, Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health has left a confusing and contradictory morass of precedence, most if not all of it contradicting the Constitution of the United States. With the recent case Coalition Life v. City of Carbondale, Illinois, the court had the opportunity to set the record straight once and for all. Instead, the court whiffed, and declined to even head the case.

In poker there's a move called "Buying the pot". This is when one person makes a very large bet in an attempt to discourage others from continuing the hand. But what if we're not talking poker? What if we're talking permit fees for the use of your own land? That is exactly what George Sheetz sued the County of El Dorado California for.

There are certain things in life with a minimum age limit like driving, drinking alcohol, and even voting, but is there a minimum age limit for your constitutionally protected rights? That was the question Caleb Reese and others wanted asked, when they filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regarding 18 USC §§922(b)(1) and (c)(1), which prohibit the selling of handguns to 18-20 year old adults.

I doubt it would surprise you that I watch a fair amount of videos that involve interactions with the police. One question that comes up is when is an officers attempt to search of detain someone reasonable? One of the cases attorneys frequent refer to is Pennsylvania v. Mimms. So I decided it was worth some time reviewing that case.

One of the executive orders Donald Trump signed on his first day in office ordered federal departments and agencies to not issue any citizenship documents to anyone born in the United States to a mother who was either illegally or temporarily in the United States unless the father was a citizen. It should surprise no one that this order stirred up controversy. Of the several lawsuits that have been filed I have found one thing in common, an inability to read the law.

When the government, in the form of the police, damage your property, who pays for it? In the case of VIcki Baker v. City of McKinney, TX the police had to damage her property to apprehend a fleeing felon. However, when the city refused to pay for the damages, Ms. Baker sued. The District Court found for her, but the Circuit Court overturned. When she asked the Supreme Court to review, they declined certiorari. Two justices expressed concern about the prospect of the government damaging homes without paying compensation.

Who decides what is appropriate for public libraries? That is at the heart of the case Fayetteville Public Library et. al. v. Crawford County, Arkansas et. al. The representatives of the people of Arkansas passed a law, Arkansas Act 372, which both established a crime of furnishing a harmful item to a minor and established guidelines for selection, relocation, and retention of such materials. A group of libraries, librarians, and related organizations sue Arkansas 28 prosecuting attorneys in the federal District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction, preventing the law from going into...

There were plenty of infringement on people's rights during the COVID scamdemic, and censorship was rampant. Not only did we have members of our own government colluding to censor information they didn't like, but we've had professional associations joining in. Worst of all, the so-called medical professionals seemed to be at the forefront, violating the central tenant of the hippocratic oath, "First, do no harm".

There are a lot of things I'd like to see done better in this country. On that list, education is right up near the top. But is it right to break the law to improve education? That's the question I asked myself when I read the text of H.R. 5349, The "Crucial Communism Teaching Act''. You see, while teaching the truth about communism's history is important, should this bill pass Congress and be signed, it cannot be the supreme law of the land, because it was not made pursuant to the Constitution of the United States.

For many, New Year's Eve is a time for drinking and partying, which frequently makes New Year's Day a time for dealing with a hang over. For others, New Years is a time for making resolutions, promises to ourselves to be better. I rarely drink, so hang overs are not a problem for me. I also do not make New Year's resolutions, not because I don't think there are ways I can be better, but because I don't wait until the New Year to act on them. That said, a new year is a good time to look at...

There are many things most Americans will take for granted this Christmas Holiday. For example, even that fact that it is a holiday is something most of us don't even think about. Let's take a look at this federal holiday in America.

One of the reasons I like answering questions is they prompt me to look at things I hadn't thought about before. Take for example the recent request I had to review the Federal Tort Claims Procedure. While I review lawsuits regularly here, I'd never taken the time to look at this particular legislation.

I don't believe a serious study of the Constitution can be made without looking at the public debates over the documents. After the Constitutional Convention sent the proposed constitution to the states for ratification, a great debate was had over its pros and cons. Supporters of the document as proposed, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, published essays in New York State newspapers under the pseudonym Publius. These essays are collectively known as the Federalist Papers. Meanwhile, several authors published articles and essays opposing, or at least cautioning a rush to adopt the proposed Constitution, under many pseudonyms...

How much pollution is too much? We all want clean air and water, but we still want our cars and flush toilets as well. The question in San Francisco v. EPA is how specific does the EPA need to be when it tells cities how much waste they can discharge into our nation's waterways. From a constitutional standpoint, this case is not about waste water, but whether or not executive agencies have to follow the laws as written.

Most of us have had the experience of pickup up the mail, only to get that pit in our stomach, maybe utter a small curse or two, and immediately being thinking of ways to get out of it. The piece of mail that has caused these reactions is a jury summons. Almost no one looks forward to jury duty, and the efforts to get out of it are legendary. Which makes me wonder, if We the People put as much effort into understanding jury duty as we did trying to get out of it, would America be a better...

Election day is just one week away. I'm sure many of you, like me, are ready for this election season to be over. For more than a year we've been hammered, badgered, and generally harangued with the idea of how important it is to vote. However, it has been my experience that the reasons given for our participation in the election process was more about getting their candidate election, or more often preventing their opponent from winning, than what actually makes voting so important. So as the day of reckoning for this crazy election cycle approaches, let's take some...

How far can law enforcement go when it comes to arresting someone? For example, say police have probable cause to charge you with a misdemeanor, how far can they "bootstrap" that charge to something more serious? That appears to be the question in the case Chiaverini v. City Of Napoleon, Ohio. While dealing with a misdemeanor situation, Mr. Chiaverini was subsequently was charged not only with that, but a felony. One little problem, the police had no probable cause for the felony.

Everyone knows we have a right to remain silent, correct? What if I told you that in 2013 the Supreme Court upheld a decision basically stating that is not true. That you only have the right to remain silent if you verbally claim the right in the first place, otherwise, according to SCOTUS, your silence can be used against you. Let's take a look at this case and some of the history behind this violation of your rights.

Can Massachusetts prosecute out-of-staters who can legally carry in their home state? That was the question before Massachusetts courts in two cases. Needless to say, when these courts agreed with the plaintiffs, the Commonwealth disagreed, appealing the cases the the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. While we wait for the court to decide the case, let's look at the originating cases and the Commonwealth's argument.

Was the Occupational Safety and Health Administration properly created? Was the grant of authority Congress gave the agency constitutional and valid, or did Congress create an overpowered agency, to micromanage businesses throughout the United States. That is the question in the case Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC v. Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary of Labor, et.al. Sadly, the Supreme Court decided not to year the case, even if Justice Gorsuch would have and Justice Thomas wrote a dissent.

There are plenty of myths that revolve around the Second Amendment. It's only meant for the militia, or for hunting, or some weapons are just too dangerous are just of few. When we read the Constitution, along with just a tiny bit of research into the Bill of Rights, these myths should evaporate like the morning mist. However, in the case Bianchi v. Brown, it appears the Fourth Circuit believes the myths. However, some unorthodox procedures may show the court manipulated the process to get the outcome they desired.

Encountering law enforcement can be a nerve wracking situation, even if you've done nothing wrong. Imagine you've pulled over to safely deal with something in your vehicle, then have a police officer pull up behind you. Nothing to worry about, right? Then imagine, after providing your drivers license, you're pulled out of your car, searched, handcuffed, and "stuffed" into the back of the police cruiser while the officer searches your vehicle from stem to stern, even though you've done nothing wrong. Now image, after this arrowing abuse of power, the officer claims "qualified immunity" and asks the court to...

There's an adage in the legal profession, "hard cases make bad law". It can also be said that bad cases make bad law, and the case of United States v. Rahimi is one of those bad cases. The question is legitimate. Does 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8), which prohibits a person under domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm or ammunition, violate the Second Amendment. However, for those of you who are thinking the answer is yes, Zackey Rahimi is not the person you would want leading this case.

There are certain lies told about the Constitution that repeatedly grind into me like salt in an open wound. One of those is the repeated statement that "The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, to the states." By which, the speaker usually means that, before the Fourteenth Amendment, none of the ten amendment in the Bill of Rights could be applied to the states. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a flat out lie, and I will prove it here.

The First Amendment protects our right to petition the federal government for a redress of grievance. But what happens when said federal government tells you that you don't have the right to petition? Because that's exactly what happened when the Supreme Court decided the case Murthy v. Missouri.

After the January 6th riots the U.S. Department of Justice began charging anyone they thought participated, but not just for the crimes they committed. According to the DOJ, anyone who showed up at the Capitol had corruptly obstructed or impeded an official proceeding, punishable by a fine and imprisonment for up to 20 years. Many claimed that the DOJ was overcharging these J6ers, misusing the law to punish dissenters. When it comes to 18 U. S. C. §1512(c), SCOTUS agreed.

Seeking redress of our grievances is an important right, protected by the First Amendment. Can the federal government deprive you of due process as a condition of seeking redress? While not talked about in that way, that's pretty much what the case SEC v. Jarkesy is all about. After assessing George Jarksey J. civil penalties for violations of antifraud provisions, the SEC attempted to deny him of his right to a trial by jury. Could this be a start of reforms of unconstitutional administrative law courts?

There are certain legal terms and cases that most people don't know about, at least until their used to bite someone in the backside. One of those terms is Chevron Deference, or Chevron Doctrine. It comes from a 1984 case where the Supreme Court came up with the great idea that, when Congress isn't specific, the bureaucrats get to decide. While the court may have overruled Chevron, Looper may not be any better.

When the delegates to the Constitutional Convention debated the role of the chief executive, many expected George Washington to become our first king. Between Mr. Washington's humility, and the delegates recent experience with a king, they decided we'd be better off with a President rather than a king. With the recent case of Trump v. United States, many have asked, have we turned the office of President into the office of king?

Rarely does a single sentence so completely crystalize the situation as the first line of the court order in Tennessee v. Cardona. The case involves the attempts by the Biden Administration to rewrite Title IX's protections of women in education and their access to competitive sports. The single sentence? "There are two sexes: male and female." That one sentence is the foundation of Judge Reeves' injunction against the United States Department of Education's attempt to ignore biology, rewrite law, and set back women's rights by decades.

When does a rifle become a machine gun? That is the question asked in the Supreme Court case Garland v. Cargill. When the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives suddenly decided to redefine bump stocks as machine guns, many Americans simply complied. However, when Michael Cargill surrendered his bump stocks to the ATF, he did so under protest, filing suit to challenge the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act. Those of us who enjoy and exercise our right to keep and bear arms owe Mr. Cargill a debt of gratitude, but the fight is not over. Thanks to...

Things looked bleak for the colonies in 1776. The question of freedom had life and death consequences. Those 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence knew they were committing treason against their king. They knew that freedom would cost them greatly. Yet they still pledged to each other their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Today, groups of people around this nation are still fighting for their independence. Not from political affiliation, but from ever expanding governments dedicated to taking away our independence, our freedom, and our right to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness. Will you stand by while your...

Probably the most powerful instinct as a parent is to protect our children. Parents work hard, sacrifice, and sometimes risk their own lives to protect their children. Most parents believe the government is there to help them protect their children, but is that true? Take, for example, the case of Parents Protecting Our Children UA v. Eau Claire Area School District Wisconsin. Parents Protecting, an association of parents, sued the Eau Claire Area School District to prevent them from enforcing guidelines that interfere with a parents right to make decisions for their child. However, both the District and Circuit...

Late May in the United States is usually a time of cook-outs and remembrance as we memorialize those who gave their lives in service to this country. 2024 however, should be remember for another death, the death of courts of justice. First it was the International Criminal Court. Prosecutor court Karim Khan sought arrest warrants for the leader of both Hamas and Israel, alleging he had reasonable grounds to believe they had criminal responsibility for war crimes. Then, barely a week later, Judge Merchan concluded his biased case against Donald Trump with biased instructions to the jury, which found Mr...

According to federal law, if someone is convicted of a crime and punished with more than one year in jail, they loose their rights protected under the Second Amendment. A recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court not only brought that federal law into question, but decided it was wrong. The court didn't find that this federal law violated the Constitution, rather they found it violated Supreme Court's Bruen decision. But is that all this federal law violates?

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution states "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;" That seems pretty straight forward. So how could Congress establish a government agency funded not by appropriations from the treasury, but by fees paid to another federal entity? This was the question brought to the Supreme Court in the case CFPB v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America. Sadly, it seems that the Supreme Court once again showed they have a hard time reading and understanding the English language.

It's been in the news again lately, the World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic treaty. Not only does this United Nation want the power to take over the world in a "health emergency", but numerous politicians and commentators keep claiming that if Joe Biden signs this treaty, it would be legally binding. The truth is, that is just not true, for several reasons.

I meet a lot of people who think the Constitution is useless, while others wonder how people can get away with violating it. While these may appear to be opposing positions, I believe they stem from the same misconception. That the Constitution of the United States is some super hero that will come flying in to save the day. Rather, the Constitution is ink on parchment, a tool, and nothing more. Like any other tool, the Constitution is absolutely useless unless it is picked up and wielded. And like any other tool, unless you learn how to use the...

In one of the many cases against Donald Trump, his attorney's are claiming that he cannot be criminally charged for an act he performed in his official capacity as President. Why? Because of something called Presidential Immunity. Is there such a thing as Presidential immunity? If so, where is it stated in the Constitution? Or is the idea Presidential immunity just the latest attempt to turn the President of the United States into a king?

Maine's governor allowed an unconstitutional piece of legislation to become "law" without her signature. LD 1578, An Act to Adopt an Interstate Compact to Elect the President of the United States by National Popular Vote is not only foolish and unconstitutional, but the latest attempt to change the United States from a union of republics into a monolithic democracy. It seems, just as with the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments in 1913, states are not only willing to give up their sovereignty, but deprive their citizens of their rights in pursuit of socialism. After all, I believe it was Vladimir Lenin who said...

A policy statement released by the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget effectively made a very bold statement, that the Constitution of the United States was a threat to national security. Does this not remind you of the saying from Benjamin Franklin? "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." Benjamin Franklin Are the American people willing to give up their right to be free from unreasonable searches for the promise of national security?

If there is a boogie man in the anti-gun community, it's got to be the National Rifle Association. Accused of complicity in almost every gun crime from gang violence to mass murder, the NRA has become the lightning rod for the vitriol of those whose fear of firearms has grown to an irrational state. What happens though, when government actors advice others about the dangers of doing business with such a company? Is it merely warning of the dangers of sleeping with dogs, or an attempt to use their power to intimidate others into abandoning those they otherwise would...

Listen, my children, and you shall hearOf the midnight ride of Paul Revere, Paul Revere's Ride by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow Most of us who grew up here in America learned about the battles of Lexington and Concorde from this Longfellow poem. Who does not remember, "One if by land, and two if by sea;" or Paul Revere's cries of "The British are coming! The British are coming!"? Most of the stories we have heard are not true. Whether poetic license or outright propaganda has been lost to history. However, the story behind those battles is not only well worth t...

I have a lot of issues with TikTok, and it's one social media platform I refuse to use. However, when I look at how Congress plans to deal with this problem, I see even more. I've also read and listened to several commentators about the bill, and find even more problems with their suggestions. So what do We the People do when our representatives in Congress have a personal vendetta against a foreign company?

The word "choice" has all but been taken over by the pro-abortion crowd, but that is not what I want to discuss here today. Recent history, both public and private, has displayed the fundamental function choice plays in a person's independence, liberty, and freedom. Yet said history has shown that many of the American people have given up the ability to choose, placing that responsibility on others. By doing so, people have voluntarily abandoned their position as free citizens in order to become enslaved subjects to those who do the choosing for them.

The gun grabbers in Congress are at it again. Attempts to disarm the American people have only been moderately successful over the past few years. So a bill was recently introduced in the House of Representatives entitled "Preventing Private Paramilitary Activity Act of 2024". This bill wants to make it a crime for private citizens to work together to defend their rights. If this bill were to become law some day, even training together could not only get you fined, but placed in jail, possibly for life. Have these members of Congress forgotten that our war of independence was started...

As April 15th approaches, and people spend valuable time and money on filing their income tax return. While plenty of people grouse and complain about paying income taxes, most don't realize that the cause of their pain is the actions of the states back in 1913. When the states ratified the Sixteenth Amendment they did more than just help the feds collect income taxes, they fundamentally changed the republic for the worse.

When can you sue the government? What started out as an erroneous credit report filing has turned into the heart of the question brought before the Supreme Court in the case Department Of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service V. Kirtz (USDA v. Kirtz). However, what the court found, and how it got there, points to a serious flaw in the constitutional education of lawyers and judges throughout this nation.

Every four years, the United States goes through the ritual of electing a President. I use the term ritual for two reasons. First, most Americans' understanding of the election process is based in custom or rites rather than the law. Second, most of the customs Americans follow directly contradict the actual process of electing a President of the United States.

I've spoken repeatedly about the unconstitutionality of most mask mandates. Recently, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was asked to review two cases where people were punished for attending school board meetings while refusing to wear masks. Sadly, the cases, as described in the Circuit Court opinion, seem poorly founded, thus leading to decisions against the plaintiffs. I think a closer look will not only show the flaws in the case, but help others build better ones in the future.

while looking through recent oral arguments at the Supreme Court, I stumbled across the case FBI v. Fikre. At first, I thought it was another simple procedural case, but something about it caught my attention. The oral arguments held before the Supreme Court were about whether Mr. Fikre's case that his rights were violated when he was placed on the No Fly List was no moot because he ad been removed from the list. As I stated looking deeper into the case though, I found intrigue worthing of a Grisham novel.

I propose that all board elections for non-profit corporations should be run by the state at taxpayer expense. After all, we already have taxpayer funded elections for private organizations. We call them "Primaries". While this year's presidential primary is pretty much a fait accompli, there are still hundreds, if not thousands of primary elections that will be held over the next few months. In some cases the race is so partisan that the primary effectively decides the race and the general election is moot. What is the purpose of these taxpayer funded private elections? Why to limit your choices...

For decades, Congress has been turning over more and more lawmaking power to the Executive Branch. Frequently this is done by legislation giving the head of some agency or department the power to establish rules which have the force of law. What happens when the legislation doesn't explicitly say that such-and-such department has the power to make a certain rule? To deal with this, courts have come up with something called "Chevron Deference". While the case Loper Bright Enterprises, v Gina Raimondo, Secretary Of Commerce deals with who pays the salaries of federal observers on fishing boards, a more fu...

Have you noticed how often the government of the United States decides how you should live your life? It seems everything from food and drugs to the lightbulbs in your home are regulated by Uncle Sam. And whenever some bureaucrat deems it necessary, they simply roll out another "rule" or "regulation" to clamp down on the American people. It seems though, that one of those agencies may have bitten off more than they could chew, at least according to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In the case Louisiana, et. al. v. U.S. Department of Energy the court de...

Although I've talked about the recent attempts to keep Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot on the radio program, I realized I haven't taken the time to do an in-depth article here. I apologize for taking so long to broach this extremely important topic in this venue. Unless you've been hiding from everything politics in the United States, you are aware that there are actors in several states that have sued in their state courts to disqualify Donald Trump from being on their states primary election ballot for President of the United States. As of this writing, in only two...

One of the most common ways for an American to seek a redress for some grievance is to file a law suit. This has made the United States a very litigious society. I was not able to determine the number of lawsuits filed, but in 2023 there were more attorneys in the United States (1.33 million) than doctors (1.08 million). As you might imagine, it is unlikely that all of these lawsuits are legitimate. Take for examples the case of Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer. In this case, Acheson Hotels claims that Deborah Laufer filed a lawsuit against them not because she w...

There are certain words that are so commonly used we think they have a universal understanding. One of those words is "income". Think about it, what is income? Your paycheck? Dividends on your investments? Profits from your business? When does an increase on the value of something you own become "income"? The answer to that question is important to more than just the parties in the case Moore v. United States, but to just about every American. Can the United States tax you, as income, for the value of something you have not sold yet?

I don't "do" New Years Resolutions. To me, they're one step above a campaign promise. (At least you intend to keep your resolutions.) That said, the beginning of a new year is a good time to consider your future. What plans do you have for the new year? While I do not make New Years Resolutions, if you do, here are a few ideas I think you should consider.