Cato Events Podcast

CATO'S 32ND ANNUAL MONETARY CONFERENCE —will bring together leading scholars and advocates for fundamental monetary reform to discuss:

• The bitcoin revolution and future of crypto-currencies
• How technology will drive further innovations so that private currencies become a reality
• The role of gold in a decentralized monetary regime
• The steps necessary to return to constitutional money based on the convertibility principle and free banking

When the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, its powers were limited and the United States was still on the gold standard. Today the Fed has virtually unlimited power and the dollar has no backing. Limited, constitutional government requires a rules based, free-market monetary system with a stable-valued dollar, not the topsy-turvy fiat dollar that now exists under central banking. This conference will examine the case for sound money and the reforms needed to realize it.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Pruitt v. Burwell and Halbig v. Burwell, federal courts have ruled that the Internal Revenue Service is misinterpreting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, unlawfully paying billions of dollars to private health insurance companies, and unlawfully subjecting more than 50 million individuals and employers to the Act's individual and employer mandates. In King v. Burwell, another federal court found the IRS's interpretation is permissible. A fourth lawsuit, Indiana v. IRS, is due a ruling at any time.

While these cases attempt to uphold the ACA by challenging the Obama administration's interpretation, supporters and critics agree they could have as large an impact on the law as any constitutional challenge. Is the IRS acting within the confines of the law? Is the ACA unworkable as written? Is it inevitable that the Supreme Court will hear one of these cases, or a similar challenge yet to be filed? What is the impact of the IRS's (mis)interpretation? What impact would a ruling for the plaintiffs have on the health care sector and the ACA? Leading experts, including the attorneys general behind Pruitt v. Burwell and Indiana v. IRS, will discuss these and other dimensions of this litigation.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Pruitt v. Burwell and Halbig v. Burwell, federal courts have ruled that the Internal Revenue Service is misinterpreting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, unlawfully paying billions of dollars to private health insurance companies, and unlawfully subjecting more than 50 million individuals and employers to the Act's individual and employer mandates. In King v. Burwell, another federal court found the IRS's interpretation is permissible. A fourth lawsuit, Indiana v. IRS, is due a ruling at any time.

While these cases attempt to uphold the ACA by challenging the Obama administration's interpretation, supporters and critics agree they could have as large an impact on the law as any constitutional challenge. Is the IRS acting within the confines of the law? Is the ACA unworkable as written? Is it inevitable that the Supreme Court will hear one of these cases, or a similar challenge yet to be filed? What is the impact of the IRS's (mis)interpretation? What impact would a ruling for the plaintiffs have on the health care sector and the ACA? Leading experts, including the attorneys general behind Pruitt v. Burwell and Indiana v. IRS, will discuss these and other dimensions of this litigation.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Pruitt v. Burwell and Halbig v. Burwell, federal courts have ruled that the Internal Revenue Service is misinterpreting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, unlawfully paying billions of dollars to private health insurance companies, and unlawfully subjecting more than 50 million individuals and employers to the Act's individual and employer mandates. In King v. Burwell, another federal court found the IRS's interpretation is permissible. A fourth lawsuit, Indiana v. IRS, is due a ruling at any time.

While these cases attempt to uphold the ACA by challenging the Obama administration's interpretation, supporters and critics agree they could have as large an impact on the law as any constitutional challenge. Is the IRS acting within the confines of the law? Is the ACA unworkable as written? Is it inevitable that the Supreme Court will hear one of these cases, or a similar challenge yet to be filed? What is the impact of the IRS's (mis)interpretation? What impact would a ruling for the plaintiffs have on the health care sector and the ACA? Leading experts, including the attorneys general behind Pruitt v. Burwell and Indiana v. IRS, will discuss these and other dimensions of this litigation.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Pruitt v. Burwell and Halbig v. Burwell, federal courts have ruled that the Internal Revenue Service is misinterpreting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, unlawfully paying billions of dollars to private health insurance companies, and unlawfully subjecting more than 50 million individuals and employers to the Act's individual and employer mandates. In King v. Burwell, another federal court found the IRS's interpretation is permissible. A fourth lawsuit, Indiana v. IRS, is due a ruling at any time.

While these cases attempt to uphold the ACA by challenging the Obama administration's interpretation, supporters and critics agree they could have as large an impact on the law as any constitutional challenge. Is the IRS acting within the confines of the law? Is the ACA unworkable as written? Is it inevitable that the Supreme Court will hear one of these cases, or a similar challenge yet to be filed? What is the impact of the IRS's (mis)interpretation? What impact would a ruling for the plaintiffs have on the health care sector and the ACA? Leading experts, including the attorneys general behind Pruitt v. Burwell and Indiana v. IRS, will discuss these and other dimensions of this litigation.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Police misconduct and abuse have been getting a lot of extra media attention lately. In just the past few months, Americans have been horrified by stories of grenades thrown in children's cribs, homeless men beaten to death, unwarranted anal probes, and more. The outrage in Ferguson underscored the rapid growth in police militarization, highlighting the perceived code of silence upheld by those behind the "thin blue line" and driving demand for more accountability among the nation's law enforcement officers. Could cameras offer a viable solution to the problems at hand?

Does filming police make for more accountable law enforcement? Will on-body cameras (such as those recently adopted by D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department as part of a pilot program) force accountability, or will they suffer form the same problems that have plagued existing cameras placed in police vehicles? What are your rights as a citizen journalist when it comes to filming police actions in a public space?

Join us for a lunchtime discussion about technological solutions to many common complaints about police misconduct. Jonathan Blanks, a research associate in Cato's Center for Constitutional Studies and a frequent commentator on criminal justice issues, Steve Silverman who founded Flex Your Rights to improve the constitutional literacy of all Americans, and Matthew Fogg, a 32-year veteran of the United States Marshals Service, will touch upon some of the biggest victories and concerns surrounding police work and cameras.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.