Legale§e

This is the first video in my annual Supreme Court Wrap Up. Today we will be revisiting a pair of cases from my Supreme Court Roundup last fall. These cases are: Twitter v Taamneh and Gonzalez v Google

The Supreme Court handed down two unanimous opinions on May 18th 2023 for both cases stating that the claims against Twitter & Google in regards to the Anti-Terrorism Act §2333 and the Communications and Decency Act §230 do not amount to "aiding and abetting" in a manner that would make these platforms liable for damages following a terrorist attack.

SHOW NOTES PAGE FOR THIS EPISODE

Follow & Support

“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.

Tags: Law,Constitution,Politics,legal theory,Moral Philosophy,Current Events,supreme court,Section 230,section 2333,anti-terrorism act,ISIS,twitter,google

Today on Legalese, we are going to be looking at a statement put out by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch as part of the Court's procedural decision in the recent case of Arizona v Mayorkas. This decision dealt with the abuse of civil liberties under emergency powers, specifically through the usurpation of the so-called "Title 42 Emergency Orders" that were issued to help prevent the spread of Covid-19, that were usurped by several different state governments and federal administrative agencies for their own designs. Trying to keep these emergency powers in place indefinitely because of a new imagined crisis that they were never meant to apply to.

Read the full procedural order here

Follow & Support

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,covid,supreme court,neil gorsuch,title 42,arizona,mayorkas,civil liberties,democracy,autocracy,administrative agencies,agency law

Today On Legalese we have the second video in my series about the Supreme Court's upcoming case that will reconsider chevron deference. Do their actions constitute some kind of usurpation of power and are they an attack on democracy itself? We discuss this while debunking an article from Vox that claims both of those things are correct. We also look at the real history of administrative law in regards to Chevron Deference

Ep. 43 "Do The Supreme Court's Actions Constitute An Attack On Democracy?" Show Notes

Follow & Support

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, Supreme Court, Administrative Law, Chevron Deference, Vox, Ian Millhiser, Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimando

Today on Legalese, we will be discussing the Supreme Court's grant for judicial review on the case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This case is controversial because of the distinct (though highly unlikely) possibility that it may see Chevron Deference overruled entirely.

Chevron Deference is perhaps the most prolific legal doctrine in the whole of administrative law. This doctrine arose from a landmark Supreme Court case known as:

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837.

Chevron was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers.

We have discussed the Chevron case here on the show before as well as it's doctrine of Chevron Deference.

This case is again worth discussing because Chevron Deference supporters and detractors are both being told two different, but equally fallacious, narratives about what the potential outcome of this case may be and the impact that they claim it will have on the entire system of federal regulations and administrative law.

Today's episode is the first of two I will be putting out about this case. Today's video will focus on the background information needed to understand the Loper Bright case as a matter of law.

The second video, which will be released tomorrow will be taking a look at one article from the conservative mainstream media and one article from the progressive mainstream media to understand how political actors are using this case to manipulate and misinform the public at large (whether this is being done intentionally, or is the result of innocent ignorance, I cannot say... but perhaps that doesn't matter.)

Either way we will be looking at the potential motives and goals of using the law as a weapon to further a political agenda.

Episode 42: Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimando (Part 1)

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

Episode 42: Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimando (Part 1)

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

Today on Legalese we are talking about the meaning and scope of the Ninth Amendment, What did this amendment mean to the framers and ratifiers who gave the bill of rights legal force? What role has it played in Constitutional law and case precedent? What does it mean in our own time and how is it applied today? And could this amendment be the most important sentence in the entire Constitution?

Follow & Support

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, ninth amendment, bill of right, natural rights, randy barnett, robert bork, kurt lash, james madison, inclusio unius, negative implications canon, rule of construction, substantive law, griswold v connecticut, the richmond newspaper case, carolene Products, footnote 4, footnote four, williamson v lee optical, substantive due process, rational basis test, enumerated rights, unenumerated rights

Legalese is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Today on Legalese, we continue my ongoing series "Ignorance of the Law" where I expose the fact that while politicians and police are often quick to tell people ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law, it's often an excuse for making and enforcing the law.

We discuss the North Hampton, New Hampshire police department, where several officers and the police chief beclowned themselves following an especially absurd arrest.

But this incident is only the latest in a disturbing trend of North Hampton police officers overstepping their prerogative to the extreme.

In October of 2022, a medical emergency led to an auto accident that ended on the front lawn of North Hampton resident Colleen Loud, 67, who had been in her home watching a baseball game. Ms. Loud did not know the driver, had nothing to do with the accident that occurred; and in fact, had not even been aware the accident had occurred until police officers arriving on the scene would question her about the incident.

During this encounter, North Hampton police followed the standard protocol of turning an innocent witness into a victim of the officer’s own making. What followed was a series of events leading to the eventual arrest of Ms. Loud on such a mind-bogglingly absurd basis, its hard to believe this was a real news story and not a satirical take on modern policing you might find in The Onion or The Babylon Bee.

Unfortunately for Colleen Loud, it was all too real and she was the victim of what I believe is the dumbest arrest ever made.

Original Source:
"North Hampton Chief Leaves After Investigation Into Questionable Arrest"
By: Damien Fisher
Published by: NHJournal

FOLLOW

Today on Legalese we have part two on my series about the trial of Muhammad Ali. In part one we discussed what it means to be a conscientious objector in accordance with American text, history and tradition. We also looked at the basic narrative of Ali's famous fight to get a conscientious objector exemption in accordance with his religious beliefs. Today we dive into the judicial history and do a deep dive legal analysis of the civil and criminal trials Ali faced on account of this personal conviction.

Watch Part One Muhammad Ali: Conscientious Objector

Show Notes

FOLLOW

 “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.

Today on Legalese, we discuss a very disappointing video from one of my favorite YouTube political commentators, The Actual Justice Warrior. Somehow this normally stellar YouTuber got it in his head that the police having no duty to protect you is a complete myth. So I made this video to correct the record and irrefutably prove the police have no duty to protect you.

FOLLOW

“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon

Today on Legalese, we examine the recent claims made by Joe Biden regarding guns and gun owners and scrutinize every single claim to comprehensively explain why Democrats should reject the Democratic Party's message on gun control.

Some clips from The Babylon Bee video: "Frightening But 100% True Facts About Guns" 

Where do you stand on the debate over protecting gun rights vs. imposing stricter gun control? I would love to get your thoughts on this topic. Leave a Comment!

Leave a comment

Legalese is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

FOLLOW

“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon

Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, guns, gun control, firearms, joe biden, al sharpton,2A, second amendment, cannons, assault weapons, weapons of war, ar-15, magazine, gun rights, democrats, democratic party

Welcome Back! Today on Legalese we finish discussing the Brunson Case (Commonly known as Docket: 22-380.) The first episode on The Brunson Case we looked at the background of the case and its judicial history. We also discussed what exactly a writ of certiorari is and broke down the first part of Brunson’s cert petition, including the all-important Question Presented.

Today we explore the other key part of any cert petition, the statement of the facts of the case, where one brings to bare the material evidence required to answer all topics raised by the QP. We will also discuss the wisdom of fighting battles to ostensibly “defend the Constitution” by sacrificing the Times, Places & Manner’s clause, The Presidential Elector’s clause, the Electoral College clause, The Presidential Vote clause, the Cases and Controversies clause, the Treason clause, and the 5th, 6th, 7th, 11th and 12th Amendments on the altar of convenience.

FOLLOW

“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon