Legale§e

Legale§e

By Bob FiedlerNewsPolitics
Download on the App Store

Legale§e episodes

  • Ultimate Constitutional Law Guide To Unprotected Speech

    Episode #57

    Today On Legalese we are going to be discussing the 7 categories of speech that are not protected under the first amendment:
    Intro
    Incitement
    True Threats
    Fighting Words
    Defamation
    Obscenity
    Fraud and Perjury
    Speech Integral To Criminal Conduct
    Show Notes Page For This Episode
    This episode was created to be the ultimate guide to unprotected speech within our modern legal framework according to the First Amendment's protections of speech, expression and conduct.
    There are a great deal of misconceptions and misinterpretations of what classes or categories of speech fall outside the bounds of first amendment protection. In order to minimize, if not wholly eliminate the common causes of such misunderstandings and misinterpretations, I have done my best to excise any discussion that relies on contested claims or personal opinions, including my own.
    We look specifically and comprehensively at those categories of unprotected speech in constitutional law which the courts have concluded to be well-established exceptions. We look at the landmark cases that have established these categories and derive definitions, principles, doctrines and legal tests through a textual analysis of the controlling opinions of the court to provide everyone the information they would need to successfully defend their individual rights of free speech, expression and conduct within our existing legal and constitutional framework.
    Follow & Support
    Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/
    Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/
    “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX
    Contact Me - [email protected]
    Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
    00:00 Intro
    11:42 Incitement
    14:57 True Threats
    21:08 Fighting Words
    35:05 Obscenity
    36:34 Defamation
    37:51 Fraud and Perjury
    38:55 Speech Integral To Criminal Conduct
    39:29 What of Hate Speech?
    45:57 Outro
    46:18 Closing Announcement/Question

    50 min
  • First Amendment Beats Police Defendants

    Episode #55

    Today on Legalese we look at two recent cases that pit private citizens and the First Amendment against qualified immunity and police officers who believe themselves to be above the law.
    In Jordan v Adam's County Sheriff's Office a man was arrested for criticizing two shitty cops who got very upset when their inflated sense of authority was questioned.
    In Bailey v Iles we find a man whose only "crime" was to post a joke on Facebook. Which was considered enough of a crime by the Rapides Parish Police Department in Louisiana to send a SWAT team to arrest him and charge him with violating a state anti-terrorism law.
    In both cases the Tenth Circuit and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeals (respectively) would find in favor of these two citizens while holding the actions of these police to be so unreasonable these officers would not be allowed to cower behind claims of qualified immunity.
    Show Notes Page for "First Amendment Beats Police Defendants"
    Follow & Support
    Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter
    Legalese Homepage
    “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon
    Contact Me - [email protected]
    Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

    36 min
  • Federal Court Short Circuits Officer's Qualified Immunity Defense

    Episode #54

    A big win coming out of the Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals in the case of Rogers v. Smith. The Court affirmed that a police officer who deprived a citizen of their first and fourth amendment rights when they arrested that citizen for criminal libel, despite the police's prior awareness the criminal libel law in question, Louisiana Revised Statutes §14.47 had been ruled unconstitutional by both the Louisiana and United States Supreme Courts.

    For these reason the police officers being sued in this case were DENIED qualified immunity and held to have deprived the plaintiff of his civil rights under color of law in accordance with 42 U.S.C. §1983
    I also use this case to discuss one of the most common and problematic myths in constitutional law. The writ-of-erasure fallacy. This deals with the crucial distinction between a law that has been ruled unconstitutional by the Courts and the actual repeal of that law by the legislature. The confusion over this legal doctrine frequently has major real world consequences and we discuss what they are.
    Show Notes Page for Federal Court Short Circuits Officer's Qualified Immunity Defense - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/episode-54-fifth-circuit-short-circuits


    Subscribe to the Legale§e Newsletter You will get notifications for all new content, whether it’s articles, podcasts or videos!

    Visit the Legale§e Podcast homepage to learn more about the show, get updates, contact me, buy my book, find links to my social media & more!

    Follow

    • Rumble
    • Odysee
    • YouTube
    • Twitter
    • Substack
    • Anchor⁠

      • Support

      • PayPal.me
      • Venmo
      • Locals

        • 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 areas of law, politics & culture.
        Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

        Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, fifth circuit, supreme court, criminal libel, louisiana revised statute,§14.47, 42 USC §1983, rogers v smith, qualified immunity

        35 min
      • Qualified Immunity As Gun Control.... Really?

        Episode #53
        Today on Legalese we are going to be discussing a new article that will be released in an upcoming volume of the Notre Dame Law Review entitled "Qualified Immunity As Gun Control".
        Law professors Guha Krishnamurthi & Peter N. Salib make one of the most evil and admittedly most brilliant calls ever to further a gun control agenda by using the doctrine of qualified immunity.
        This video is based on my article of the same name, recently published to Substack:
        https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/qualified-immunity-as-gun-control
        Even if you have read the article this video may well be worth a watch anyway, as I have elaborated on certain topics first discussed in the article, such as judicial scrutiny.
        The original article by Krishnamurthi and Salib was largely written as a response to a notable case filed by the U.S. Fifth Circuit on Feb 02, 2023
        ~United States v. Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443, 448 (5th Cir. 2023). https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/21-11001/21-11001-2023-02-02.pdf?ts=1675384240
        What makes U.S. v Rahimi so notable is that the Supreme Court has chosen to grant cert on this case, following a petition filed by the DOJ on the following question presented: "Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face."
        This case has a high likelihood of ending up as a landmark 2A case in their upcoming term...
        ORIGINAL ARTICLE
        Krishnamurthi, Guha and Salib, Peter, Qualified Immunity as Gun Control (July 5, 2023).
        Notre Dame Law Review Reflection (forthcoming 2023),
        https://ssrn.com/abstract=4500816
        SHOW NOTES
        For all other links and citations, as well as a full transcript of this podcast episode head over to episode show notes page - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/qi-as-gc
        FOLLOW AND SUPPORT
        Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/
        Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/
        Pick up a copy of my book - “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers”
        Now Available on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX
        Contact Me - [email protected]
        Legale§e is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law-- as well as current events in law, politics and culture.
        Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

        40 min
      • Supreme Court Solves Racisms In Affirmative Action Case

        Episode #52
        Today on Legalese we will be discussing the Supreme Court's landmark equal protection clause case dealing with the constitutionality of racially biased admissions discrimination policies on both public and private universities.
        The case: Students For Fair Admission v Harvard effectively puts an end to affirmative action in college admissions in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in it's opinion that the affirmative action policies fail the strict scrutiny standard in every regard.
        Follow & Support
        Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/
        Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/
        Contact Me - [email protected]
        Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

        22 min
      • Haaland v Brakeen: Supreme Court Landmark Indian Commerce Clause Case

        Episode #51
        Today on Legalese we have another video in my Supreme Court Wrap-Up. We discuss Haaland v Brackeen (2023). A landmark Indian Commerce Clause case that sought to challenge the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978.
        Show Notes Page For This Episode - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/haaland-v-brackeen-599-us-___-2023
        Follow & Support
        Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/
        Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/
        Contact Me - [email protected]
        Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

        38 min
      • Corporations Are People! - The Myths & Misconceptions Of Corporate Personhood

        Episode #50

        Today on Legalese we will be talking about corporate personhood. We examine a number of the most common myths and misconceptions surrounding the issues of corporations, of people and of rights.

        • Show Notes Page


          • Follow & Support

          • Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter
          • Legalese Homepage
          • Contact Me


            • Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

            35 min
          • Tim Pool Doesn't Get The Bruen Case

            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. 


            Past Episode Referenced In This Episode

            • 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?⁠
              • 36 min
            • Biden Beclowns Himself Over The Debt Limit

              Today On Legalese we are talking about the ridiculous arguments coming from Washington that suggest the debt limit is unconstitutional and that the 14th amendment authorizes the President to circumvent the Constitution and laws of the United States to pay off the US debts to avoid default.

              Show Notes Page For This Episode

              Follow & Support
              Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter
              Legalese Homepage

              Contact Me
              Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

              18 min
            • Old Lady Makes Minnesota Take It Good & Hard

              Today on Legalese we return to a case I discussed in January about home equity theft and the Supreme Court case challenging its constitutionality.

              Yesterday the Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion, enjoining Minnesota’s Home Equity Theft law as unconstitutional under the Takings Clause.

              We will be talking the case in question Tyler v Hennepin County, why and how the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, Geraldine Tyler, and what some of the likely ramifications of this decision will be when it comes to the government and further schemes of legalized theft.


              ⁠Show Notes Page For This Episode⁠


              Follow & Support

              • Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter

              • Legalese Homepage

              • Contact Me


                • 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,geraldine tyler,Hennepin county,home equity theft,minnesota,supreme court,john roberts,neil gorsuch,ketanji brown jackson,property rights,takings clause,just compensation,excessive fines

                26 min

              About Legale§e

              From the publisher's feed

              Legalese is a podcast discussing all things constitutional law, as well as current events in law, politics and culture.