The Constitution Study podcast

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.

Which came first, the states or the federal government? A better question should be who created whom? Did the federal government create the states? No, the states created the federal government when they ratified the Constitution. So if the states are the "parents" of the federal government, why are they not sovereign over it? One state legislature tried to pass legislation to reassert their position as sovereign over the federal government. Sadly, that measure did not pass... yet.

SCOTUS, supreme court, HHS, health insurance, obama care, health and human services, HHS, There is a quote pretty much sums up a recent Supreme Court decision regarding your healthcare. Oh what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to deceive -- Sir Walter Scott In the case Kennedy v Braidwood Management, inc. we see the tangled web the United States has woven when it practiced to deceive by claiming the power to regulate what is covered by your health insurance.

Earlier this year I wrote about the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the case Mahmoud V. Taylor. The case had to do with a parent's right to opt their children out of content in public school they found objectionable, and the Supreme Court was asked if the plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction preventing the school from teaching their children objectionable content until the court had decided the case. On June 27, 2025, the court published its decision.

All of western culture is at war. The fundamental point of conflict is whether a person's "gender" is determined by biology or psychology, reality or wishes. One of the latest battles in this war is the Supreme Court case _United States v. Skrmetti._In this case Mr. Skrmetti, as Attorney General of the State of Tennessee, is defending the state's law that prohibits the use of so-called "gender-affirming" care for minors. The answer the court came to will surprise some and infuriate others.

In the "Rock, Paper, Scissors" of our federal government, who wins? Does a federal court always get what it wants, or are there limitations? While hearing cases on the question of "birthright citizenship", several District Courts claimed the power to rule over the President. I don't remember seeing that in the Constitution. Now, the Supreme Court has weighed in, deciding in the case Trump v. Casa that lower courts are not all powerful after all.

There has been a lot of talk about due process lately, but little of it seems to be informed by proof or evidence. Five of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights are called the "Due Process Amendments". With a little bit of research, we can not only be sure of what due process is, but how the Constitution protects our rights to it.

Next year with be the 250th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Over the next 365 days I expect to see plenty of opportunities to remember the date. I want to start by remembering the reason why we declared independence in the first place.

When is discrimination not discrimination? While the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals would have you think that reverse discrimination is not only legal, but OK. However, discrimination is discrimination, even when it's used in an attempt to right some past wrong.

Imagine being awakened from a sound sleep by a group of armed men bashing in your door. Come to find out, it's the FBI. Oh yeah, and they have the wrong house. After the trauma, not to mention the damage to your house, at the very least you can sue for a redress of these grievances, right? That is the question before the Supreme Court in the case Martin v. United States.