Back in June I wrote about the oral arguments in Mexico's law suit against American gun manufacturers and distributors. While the court overall came to the expected decision, I think it's still worth some time digging into the logic and reasoning of the justices.

Most of us believe that our state legislatures are making our laws. But what if that is only partially true? What if a third-party was making the laws for your state? Would you be OK with that? Would you be concerned to find out that two private entities are making the laws your state uses regarding commerce?

There has been a lot of questions lately about the powers of the President. Can a President fire a member of an independent agency? Does the President have to spend money appropriated by Congress? Is it legal for the President to send the National Guard to our cities. Most of these questions can be answered by understanding a single constitutional point, the unitary executive.

When it comes to freedom of speech, there are two things that generate a fair amount of controversy. First is yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater and second is burning the United States flag. Recently, Donald Trump issued an Executive Order about flag burning. So let's take a look at the order and some of the history around flag burning.

Like any other profession, there are good law enforcement officers, and bad law enforcement officers. While I believe that most LEOs are good men and women, doing a difficult and dangerous job, often with little respect because of the actions of bad LEOs. For years, courts have been protecting these bad officers through their rules and doctrines. A recent Supreme Court case finds that one of those rules violates the Constitution of the United States.

Donald Trump's recent executive order declaring a crime emergency in Washington, D.C. has created quite an uproar, both for and against it. While there have been many claims on both sides, what I haven't seen, except for my radio program, is a real constitutional analysis of his actions. With his recent announcement post about sending National Guard troops to Chicago, I think it's time we do that type of analysis.

Benjamin Franklin wrote "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." What does it say about the American people who seem willing to give up their right to control their government in exchange for Internet access?

As a society, we've decided that certain things like alcohol, tobacco, and pornography are not safe for minors. When I buy wine at the grocery store, I have to show my ID to verify my age. Take a look at my picture on the website and you'll see I'm well over the age where I can purchase alcohol, but I'm still asked to verify my age. That's because my rights end when it infringes on the rights of another. However, the Free Speech Coalition thinks an adult's "right" to access pornography without age verification trumps the safety of minors. That is the basis of the case Free Speech Coalition, Inc., et el. v. Paxton, Attorney General Of Texas, which the Supreme Court decided this past term.

Congress created Medicaid in 1965 to subsidize state healthcare system for people unable to afford healthcare. South Carolina has a law the prohibits public funds being used for abortion. For this reason, South Carolina disqualified Planned Parenthood from participating in the state's Medicaid system. It should be no surprise that Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued. The Supreme Court's decision may surprise you.

Back in March, the Supreme Court argued the case Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc., et al. v. Wisconsin Labor And Industry Review Commission et al. I reviewed those arguments in my article Are You Religious Enough? In June, the court released its decision, and thankfully, the court came to what I believe is the correct decision. That's not to say they came to the conclusion for the right reasons.