A filibuster is any action that prevents a bill from being voted on. Ever since the creation of our form of government, the filibuster has been used as a tool to prevent bills from being passed. This has had both good and bad consequences. Should we keep the filibuster? or would the world be better without it?

Things in this episode:
Sources on the filibuster:
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture.htm
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture/overview.htm
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture/resources.htm
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/98-425

Parks and Recreation clip

Patreon

You can support us by joining a tier on Patreon. Also, please leave us a rating and a review. We love your feedback and hope to always improve.

Support the show

Disclaimers:
1. Nearly all of our episodes are unedited. We want to give you raw footage, meaning there will be bumps, dings, and pops.
2. The information contained in these episodes is for educational purposes only, not to be used as legal advice.
3. If the information is used as legal advice, Law Schoolers is not liable for any legal outcomes.

You can support us on Patreon by going to https://www.patreon.com/twomancongress

In this episode, Chad talks about the famous "Hairy Hand" case. Hawkins v. McGee

Thank you for your support. This is our 7th episode! Most people say once you have 7 episodes, you're here to stay. Well, we're excited to be sticking around! We're also thinking of doing something big and different for our 10th episode, so stay tuned for that.

Please leave us a rating and a review wherever you listen to your podcasts.

Support the show

Disclaimers:
1. Nearly all of our episodes are unedited. We want to give you raw footage, meaning there will be bumps, dings, and pops.
2. The information contained in these episodes is for educational purposes only, not to be used as legal advice.
3. If the information is used as legal advice, Law Schoolers is not liable for any legal outcomes.

You can support us by joining a tier on Patreon! Follow the link to learn more. patreon.com/twomancongress

Previously, we talked about what speech is protected. In this episode, we talk about where speech is protected.

McCullen v. Coakley

Thanks for your support! Please give us a rating and review so we know how we’re doing!

Support the show

Disclaimers:
1. Nearly all of our episodes are unedited. We want to give you raw footage, meaning there will be bumps, dings, and pops.
2. The information contained in these episodes is for educational purposes only, not to be used as legal advice.
3. If the information is used as legal advice, Law Schoolers is not liable for any legal outcomes.

If you would like to support us, go to patreon.com/twomancongress/

Chad and I discuss the arguments for and against Originalism and Contemporary methods of interpreting the Constitution.

Because of current events, we felt like this topic is necessary today so that people understand how the Supreme Court works with its relationship to the Constitution.

Thank you for listening and for your support. Please share this episode with your family and friends. We love you all!

Support the show

Disclaimers:
1. Nearly all of our episodes are unedited. We want to give you raw footage, meaning there will be bumps, dings, and pops.
2. The information contained in these episodes is for educational purposes only, not to be used as legal advice.
3. If the information is used as legal advice, Law Schoolers is not liable for any legal outcomes.

To support us on Patreon, go to patreon.com/twomancongress and join a tier!

In this episode, Chad discusses Liebeck v. Mcdonald's. This case is famous for the compensation Ms. Liebeck received for her injuries from hot coffee.

Although not related to Constitutional law, this case serves as a reminder of how the actions of one party may influence judicial decisions.

We hope you enjoy this episode. Please leave us a 5-star rating and review.

Support the show

Disclaimers:
1. Nearly all of our episodes are unedited. We want to give you raw footage, meaning there will be bumps, dings, and pops.
2. The information contained in these episodes is for educational purposes only, not to be used as legal advice.
3. If the information is used as legal advice, Law Schoolers is not liable for any legal outcomes.

If you would like to support us on Patreon, go to patreon.com/twomancongress

In this episode, Chad and I discuss Plea Bargaining and whether or not it should be used in the court system.

We discuss the history and current system, including the Constitutionality of the cases, Rule 11, and other alternatives. Below are links to sources we used throughout our discussion and debate.

McCarthy v. United States
Brady v. United States
Bordenkircher v. Hayes
90% Statistic
Rule 11
Alaska Ban
The Waive Alternative

Most importantly, how does this information affect you? Well, now you have some idea of what plea bargaining is and the pros and the cons if you are ever found in a criminal court. Also, you have an idea of the alternatives to plea bargaining and some suggestions for changes that you can influence by being a voice.

Be sure to leave us a review on Apple Podcast. This will help us improve our rankings so more people can hear what we have to say. Thank you for your support as we are striving to become better at presenting this valuable material.

Support the show

Disclaimers:
1. Nearly all of our episodes are unedited. We want to give you raw footage, meaning there will be bumps, dings, and pops.
2. The information contained in these episodes is for educational purposes only, not to be used as legal advice.
3. If the information is used as legal advice, Law Schoolers is not liable for any legal outcomes.

If you would like to support us, become a patron at patreon.com/twomancongress

In our recent debate, Chad and I discussed censorship on social media. We proposed a policy suggestion that would bind social media to follow the First Amendment. However, there are a lot of questions about what is and what is not considered Constitutionally protected speech.

In this episode, Will hopes to shed a little bit of insight on that question. The Supreme Court has addressed this issue throughly and has discussed what kind of speech deserves First Amendment protection. Below are a list of cases that we discuss and use as examples in this episode.

Schenck v. United States
Gitlow v. New York
United States v. Carolene Products
United States v. O'Brien
Texas v. Johnson
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Support the show

Disclaimers:
1. Nearly all of our episodes are unedited. We want to give you raw footage, meaning there will be bumps, dings, and pops.
2. The information contained in these episodes is for educational purposes only, not to be used as legal advice.
3. If the information is used as legal advice, Law Schoolers is not liable for any legal outcomes.

To support us on Patreon, visit patreon.com/twomancongress

Should Social Media platforms be allowed to censor political information? Chad and I discuss that very topic.

In our debate, we discuss several arguments used by both sides of the aisle and reference multiple sources. Below is a list of sources we used throughout the episode.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
Miller v. California
Lochner v. New York
Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn
Miami Herald v. Tornillo
Jen Psaki Quote

There are several things you can do to be more involved. We have given you the information now it's your turn to take action. Speak with your representatives and make a difference by supporting those platforms that value your values.

Please leave us comments with suggestions on what we are doing well, what we can improve on, and what policy suggestions you might have.

Support the show

Disclaimers:
1. Nearly all of our episodes are unedited. We want to give you raw footage, meaning there will be bumps, dings, and pops.
2. The information contained in these episodes is for educational purposes only, not to be used as legal advice.
3. If the information is used as legal advice, Law Schoolers is not liable for any legal outcomes.

To support us on Patreon, visit patreon.com/twomancongress

Chad and I are pleased to introduce the Two Man Congress podcast! Starting a podcast has been a goal we have been aiming at for a while now.

In this episode, we discuss why we wanted to start this podcast and briefly explain what you may expect from each episode. We want to help you become politically informed, so you can make a positive impact on the world.

As we are learning to make quality content, we thank you for your patience. We hope to keep our content as raw as possible. You will see all our mistakes and our improvement. 

Support the show

Disclaimers:
1. Nearly all of our episodes are unedited. We want to give you raw footage, meaning there will be bumps, dings, and pops.
2. The information contained in these episodes is for educational purposes only, not to be used as legal advice.
3. If the information is used as legal advice, Law Schoolers is not liable for any legal outcomes.

Support the show

Disclaimers:
1. Nearly all of our episodes are unedited. We want to give you raw footage, meaning there will be bumps, dings, and pops.
2. The information contained in these episodes is for educational purposes only, not to be used as legal advice.
3. If the information is used as legal advice, Law Schoolers is not liable for any legal outcomes.