The Constitution Study podcast

Join a group of Everyday Americans as we learn to read and study the Constitution, and teach the rising generation to live free.

452 - Criminal Census 12/16/2024

452 - Criminal Census /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/34208845

451 - Federal Tort Claims Procedure 12/09/2024

451 - Federal Tort Claims Procedure 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. /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/34099781

450 - Federalist and Antifederalist #1 12/02/2024

450 - Federalist and Antifederalist #1 I don't believe a serious study of the Constitution can be made without looking at the public debates over the documents. After the Constitutional Convention sent the proposed constitution to the states for ratification, a great debate was had over its pros and cons. Supporters of the document as proposed, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, published essays in New York State newspapers under the pseudonym Publius. These essays are collectively known as the Federalist Papers. Meanwhile, several authors published articles and essays opposing, or at least cautioning a rush to adopt the proposed Constitution, under many pseudonyms. In this article, we'll look at the first papers from each group. Both Federalist #1 and Antifederalist #1 deal with the same topic, should the states ratify the newly proposed Constitution? /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/33920847

449 - When is a gun a gun? 11/25/2024

449 - When is a gun a gun? /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/33841672

448 - San Francisco v. EPA - Oral Arguments 11/18/2024

448 - San Francisco v. EPA - Oral Arguments 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. /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/33751502

447 - A Constitution Catechism 11/11/2024

447 - A Constitution Catechism /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/33604002

446 - Importance of Jury Duty 11/04/2024

446 - Importance of Jury Duty Most of us have had the experience of pickup up the mail, only to get that pit in our stomach, maybe utter a small curse or two, and immediately being thinking of ways to get out of it. The piece of mail that has caused these reactions is a jury summons. Almost no one looks forward to jury duty, and the efforts to get out of it are legendary. Which makes me wonder, if We the People put as much effort into understanding jury duty as we did trying to get out of it, would America be a better nation? /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/33491932

445 - Importance of Voting 10/28/2024

445 - Importance of Voting Election day is just one week away. I'm sure many of you, like me, are ready for this election season to be over. For more than a year we've been hammered, badgered, and generally harangued with the idea of how important it is to vote. However, it has been my experience that the reasons given for our participation in the election process was more about getting their candidate election, or more often preventing their opponent from winning, than what actually makes voting so important. So as the day of reckoning for this crazy election cycle approaches, let's take some time and look at the importance of voting without all of the political party rhetoric. /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/33425552

444 - Bootstrapping or Malicious Prosecution 10/21/2024

444 - Bootstrapping or Malicious Prosecution 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. /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/33334752

443 - Blowing Holes in the Fifth Amendment 10/14/2024

443 - Blowing Holes in the Fifth Amendment 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. /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/33333867

442 - Interstate Firearm Possession 10/07/2024

442 - Interstate Firearm Possession 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. /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/33236797

441 - Constitutionality of OSHA 09/30/2024

441 - Constitutionality of OSHA 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. /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/33145072

440 - The Myth of the Military Style Assault Weapon 09/23/2024

440 - The Myth of the Military Style Assault Weapon 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. /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/32997257

439 - It doesn’t need to be rewritten, it needs to be reread 09/16/2024

439 - It doesn’t need to be rewritten, it needs to be reread There are plenty of attempts to rewrite the Constitution, and few of them involve actually involve amending the document. However, the “problem” with the Constitution is not the language of the document, but the fact those those who need to understand it the most have probably not read or, or simple ignore what it says. /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/32935437

438 - Legal firearm possession as probable cause 09/09/2024

438 - Legal firearm possession as probable cause Encountering law enforcement can be a nerve wracking situation, even if you've done nothing wrong. Imagine you've pulled over to safely deal with something in your vehicle, then have a police officer pull up behind you. Nothing to worry about, right? Then imagine, after providing your drivers license, you're pulled out of your car, searched, handcuffed, and "stuffed" into the back of the police cruiser while the officer searches your vehicle from stem to stern, even though you've done nothing wrong. Now image, after this arrowing abuse of power, the officer claims "qualified immunity" and asks the court to dismiss the case. That is what happened to Basel Soukaneh in Waterbury, CT. The current state of that case is certainly worth looking into. /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/32783557

437 - Should Rahimi be the poster child for the Second Amendment? 09/02/2024

437 - Should Rahimi be the poster child for the Second Amendment? 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. /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/32663417

436 - The Bill of Rights and the States 08/26/2024

436 - The Bill of Rights and the States 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. /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/32547837

435 - Rights Denied by Standing 08/19/2024

435 - Rights Denied by Standing 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. /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/32521107

434 - January 6th Over Charging 08/12/2024

434 - January 6th Over Charging 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. /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/32357147

433 - Administrative Law Goes to Court 08/05/2024

433 - Administrative Law Goes to Court 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? /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/32308702

432 - Chevron is Dead! Long Live Looper! 07/29/2024

432 - Chevron is Dead! Long Live Looper! 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. /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/32219347

431 - Presidential Immunity 07/22/2024

431 - Presidential Immunity 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? /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/32114972

430 - Biology at the District Court 07/15/2024

430 - Biology at the District Court 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. /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/31917477

429 - Bumping Into the Law 07/08/2024

429 - Bumping Into the Law When does a rifle become a machine gun? That is the question asked in the Supreme Court case Garland v. Cargill. When the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives suddenly decided to redefine bump stocks as machine guns, many Americans simply complied. However, when Michael Cargill surrendered his bump stocks to the ATF, he did so under protest, filing suit to challenge the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act. Those of us who enjoy and exercise our right to keep and bear arms owe Mr. Cargill a debt of gratitude, but the fight is not over. Thanks to Mr. Cargill’s determination and persistence, the ATF’s bump stock rule has been found to have not been created correctly, meaning we get our bump stocks back. However, it also leaves open the chance for Congress to do what the ATF could not, violate the Second Amendment one more time. /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/31887602

428 - Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor 07/01/2024

428 - Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor Things looked bleak for the colonies in 1776. The question of freedom had life and death consequences. Those 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence knew they were committing treason against their king. They knew that freedom would cost them greatly. Yet they still pledged to each other their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Today, groups of people around this nation are still fighting for their independence. Not from political affiliation, but from ever expanding governments dedicated to taking away our independence, our freedom, and our right to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness. Will you stand by while your birthright as an American is taken away from you and your family? Will you join with others to make sure this remains the land of the free by making sure we are the home of the brave? Will you pledge your life, your fortune, and your sacred honor, not to me or to this nation, but to your children and those who will follow? As we remember Independence Day and the 56 men who pledged themselves to purchase it for us, let us renew the call of freedom. Let us take this opportunity to remind tyrants and despots that the American people were not born enslaved to their governments. Let us declare that liberty and freedom will not vanish from this nation. That we will not allow tyranny and fear to rule us. We will not go silently into that good night of subjugation. This July 4th, let us loudly proclaim: /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/31829287

427 - Who's Protecting Our Children? 06/24/2024

427 - Who's Protecting Our Children? Probably the most powerful instinct as a parent is to protect our children. Parents work hard, sacrifice, and sometimes risk their own lives to protect their children. Most parents believe the government is there to help them protect their children, but is that true? Take, for example, the case of Parents Protecting Our Children UA v. Eau Claire Area School District Wisconsin. Parents Protecting, an association of parents, sued the Eau Claire Area School District to prevent them from enforcing guidelines that interfere with a parents right to make decisions for their child. However, both the District and Circuit Courts denied the parents, claiming that no child had yet been harmed by the school policy, and therefore do not have the right to petition their government for a redress of their grievance. If a court can tell parents they are not allowed to protect their children, then who is? Because it is not the school district. /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/31752217

426 - Fraternal Twin Court Cases Point to the Death of Justice Worldwide 06/17/2024

426 - Fraternal Twin Court Cases Point to the Death of Justice Worldwide Late May in the United States is usually a time of cook-outs and remembrance as we memorialize those who gave their lives in service to this country. 2024 however, should be remember for another death, the death of courts of justice. First it was the International Criminal Court. Prosecutor court Karim Khan sought arrest warrants for the leader of both Hamas and Israel, alleging he had reasonable grounds to believe they had criminal responsibility for war crimes. Then, barely a week later, Judge Merchan concluded his biased case against Donald Trump with biased instructions to the jury, which found Mr. Trump guilty on all 34 counts. After some consideration, I realized that these cases are so similar, they could be fraternal twins. /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/31633512

425 - Rights After Conviction 06/10/2024

425 - Rights After Conviction 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? /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/31562732

424 - When Did the Federal Reserve become the National Treasury? 06/03/2024

424 - When Did the Federal Reserve become the National Treasury? 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. /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/31444107

423 - The Treaty That Cannot Be 05/27/2024

423 - The Treaty That Cannot Be 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. /episode/index/show/constitutionstudy/id/31342112

The Constitution Study podcast

TOPICS