Legale§e

Today on Legalese we are covering Joe Biden’s already catastrophic speech in Philadelphia.

Check Out The whole speech here!

While most of the critical coverage it has received is largely due to his schizophrenic messaging in which he couldn’t decide if he wanted to be the nation’s great uniter, or the guy who insists democracy is under threat from all those troublemakers who have a different opinion than Joe Biden on any issue. Because anyone who disagree with Joe Biden on anything is a dangerous terrorist extremist.

Therefore, obviously, the only way to save democracy is to destroy democracy by disenfranchising anyone who wouldn’t act as a rubber stamp for all Biden driven initiatives. Instituting a one party system. Saving democracy by guaranteeing every American have the right to vote for Joe Biden.

I want to focus on the other half of his speech that seems to have gotten almost no scrutiny from its detractors.

These include his claim that

These claims are all entirely unsubstantiated and fall apart under the thinnest of scrutiny.

Related Content

These are ideas and concepts I have discussed before in past videos and articles that I recommend checking out:

Full Scope Of The Second Amendment

Sedition: An American Virtue

Follow & Support

Legalese is community-supported venture that you can support with a one-time donation or monthly membership

Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law and currents events in politics & other areas of law.

Today on Legalese we have the latest installment of a segment I call: Ignorance of the law

This is where we discuss and make fun of laws that are arbitrary, hypocritical, ridiculous or sure to backfire in some hilarious way.

Because as we all know, ignorance is no excuse when breaking the law…. But it IS an excuse when making and enforcing the law.

Today we will be discussing how New York is finally recognizing the very serious problem it has with crime, homelessness and drug abuse by finally taking on the serious issues sure to make a critical difference in the quality of life of its law abiding citizens by banning people under 21 from being able to buy whipped cream.

Related Articles

Follow & Support

Legalese is community-supported venture that you can support with a one-time donation or monthly membership

Contact Me

Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law and currents events in politics & other areas of law.

Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, new york, whip cream, crime, law, ignorance, sean king, shaun king, george soros, real justice, PAC, statute, business law, drugs, social justice warriors, prosecutors, bail reform, Talcum X

There is all kinds of misinformation currently floating around about monetary inflation. Such as those who desperately try to convince you, in spite of all evidence to the contrary: 

Inflation is caused by rich, corporate fat cats who aren't "paying their fair share in taxes"… 

Or gas prices are up because those greedy corporate fat cats running oil and gas companies all suddenly got extra-greedy at exactly the same time somehow and are just price gouging us.

Obviously neither of those things are true and the politicians selling that bullshit are just desperate to put the blame somewhere, anywhere other than where it belongs. Because where it belongs is with those politicians.

They have to lie, because an honest appraisal would lead to the inevitable conclusion that they are at fault and that the only way to return to long-term prosperity will require a heavy dose of short term pain and they simply have too much to lose to actually admit that. I, on the other hand, have nothing to lose by being honest and can merely state the facts. 

In this video we will discuss the real definition of inflation, the real cause of inflation and the only cure for inflation.

Follow & Support

Order My Upcoming Book “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An Explicit History Of Implied Powers

Lgalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture.

Today on Legalese we will be discussing the full scope of the natural right of armed self-defense codified in the second amendment. Too often, the modern debate over the second amendment has to do with whether, and to what extent, may people engage in individual self-defense  when the government is either incapable or unwilling to adequately protect people.

However, they never question the legitimacy of the government's assertion of their monopoly on the use of violence. Moreover, should the types of arms individuals may own and carry be limited to those weapons suitable only for individual self defense.

Follow & Support

Order My Upcoming Book “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An Explicit History Of Implied Powers

Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture.

Today on Legalese, we finish our discussion on the Democrat's new "Assault Weapon" Ban bill (HR 1808)

We discuss, in greater detail what the ramifications of this legislation would mean for the future of the natural right of armed self-defense, codified in our Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms, as well as gun rights and gun culture.

We watch all the anti-gun democrats on the House Judiciary Committee beclown themselves in their frantic attempt to prove they know (quite literally) NOTHING about firearms, especially technical & tactical distinctions; making them the very last people who should be writing legislation about the thing they have proven they know nothing about.

We also discuss a challenge in Federal Court on the New York "Assault Weapon Ban"

Related Links

Follow & Support

Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. 

Tags: assault weapon, ban, pistol, rifle, shotgun, silencer, trigger, joe biden, jerry nadler, david cicilline, david hogg, 2A, second amendment, civil liberties, bill, legislation, house judiciary committee, gun control, gun rights

The House Judiciary Committee has a new assault weapons ban they plan to vote on next week. This new bill makes the 1994 AWB that was in place for a decade look downright libertarian by comparison.

HR 1808 seeks to ban all semi-automatic sporting rifles, semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic shotguns as well as a ban on many types of triggers and silencers. All weapons which are in common use for lawful purposes. While this bill specifically exempts the very "weapons of war" it claims to be aimed at banning. This assault on our natural rights  acts with a breadth never before imagined.

In This episode we go through the bill to tell you everything you need to know about this bill.

Follow & Support

Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture.

Today on Legalese, as part of my ongoing series "Ignorance Of The Law" where we laugh at the fact that ignorance of the law may not be an excuse for breaking the law, but it's often an excuse for making and enforcing the law. Today we discuss the ignorance of Rent Control by looking at a recent John Oliver segment about the need for rent control and we look at a series of rent control laws passed in the Twin Cities that are considered to be the strictest Rent Control Laws in the country.

Studies and Related Links

Today by special request, we have a great episode that asks How can Substantive Due Process rights be transferred  to the privileges and immunities clause.

We look at the history of "Privileges & Immunities" from its common law and colonial American beginning, to the Articles Of Confederation, Article 4, Corfield v Coryell and reconstruction era civil rights legislation to inform us of what the Privileges or Immunities clause was understood to mean by those who gave it legal force. We also discuss a general framework under which enumerated and unenumerated rights protected under the due process clause could be transferred to the privileges or immunities clause.

Case Briefs and Legal Resources

Past Episodes Referenced In This Video:

Follow & Support

Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture.

Tags: supreme Court, scotus, due process clause, privileges or immunities clause, 14th amendment, civil rights, clarence thomas, Dobbs, jackson, abortion, originalism, textualism, articles of confederation, article IV, Corfield v Coryell, roe v wade, planned parenthood v casey

12:50 CORRECTION - Utility Air 573, U.S. is NOT a regulation. 

It refers to the case Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, (2014)

Today on Legalese, we are looking at 2 recent Supreme Court Opinions that curbed the  legal doctrine in administrative law known as Chevron Deference.

And how in both cases the Court finally made meaningful changes to begin to curb the seemingly endless power assumed to be delegated to Executive Agencies under Administrative Law

And we bid a fond farewell to Justice Steven Breyer!

Follow & Support

Show Homepage

Rumble

Odysee

YouTube

Anchor

Twitter

PayPal.me

Venmo

Contact Me

Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture.

Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - [email protected]

Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture

Stare Decisis is a Latin phrase, commonly used in law that roughly translates to:

 “Let wrong decisions of the Warren Court stand”

Regardless of your personal opinion in the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate , Roe v Wade was a terrible opinion bereft of even a modicum of legal merit and substantive due process is a garbage legal doctrine invented out of thin air by the Warren Court a century after the 14th amendment was ratified.

The only people who could disagree with that statement are people who have never read the actual case brief for Roe v Wade and never bothered to so much as read the 14th amendment, much less earnestly try to give it a good faith interpretation.

Clarence Thomas was right to say as much in his concurrence in Dobbs. This is a position He (and much less importantly I) have held for many years. 

A careful reading of Thomas’ opinion is, in many respects, less detrimental to the protection of unenumerated rights, secured by substantive due process than either Justice Alito’s majority opinion and Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion.

This is because he is the only one who suggests how the 14th amendment could be used in its original public meaning to secure many of the unenumerated rights that have been created with the imaginary theory of substantive due process , through the original public meaning of the 14th amendment’s Privileges & Immunities Clause 

AMENDMENT XIV, SECTION 1

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States....

In this episode we briefly discuss why Thomas is right and why those on the left who have turned into  violent racist bigots over this decision are demonstrating a new low in their pursuit of political ends through mostly peaceful violence and mostly non-racist racism

Follow & Support

Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture.

Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture