Claim OwnershipLex Rex Institute Podcast
Subscribed: 4Played: 64
Subscribe
© Lex Rex Institute 2022
Description
The podcast for the Lex Rex Institute, a nonprofit constitutional advocacy organization.
"It's the finest podcast in all the land!" - Alexander Haberbush, President of Lex Rex Institute.
Visit us online at https://www.LexRex.org.
"It's the finest podcast in all the land!" - Alexander Haberbush, President of Lex Rex Institute.
Visit us online at https://www.LexRex.org.
41 Episodes
Reverse
In this episode, we take you through Jeremy Bentham's view on the role of policing and what policing used to look like - in that mythical, pre-Benthamic society. Oh, and we'll also talk about his mummified head. It relates. We promise.The delay was BAD in this one. We apologize for repeatedly interrupting each other.VCA Lawsuit in Orange County: https://www.lexrex.org/post/voter-choice-act-lawsuitIntellectuals by Paul Johnson: https://a.co/d/bXOHeQY
In this episode, we take you through Jeremy Bentham's reply to the Declaration of Independence. We'll explain why Bentham neither approves of, nor understands, the concept of "rights," why he simultaneously hates kings but thinks you have to do whatever they say, and why his reading comprehension skills are a bit suspect.If you missed it, please check out our last Independence Day episode (episode 11 of season 1) discussing the Declaration: https://rss.com/podcasts/lexrexpod/542617/
In this episode, we talk all about Jeremy Bentham: Who is he? A weird guy obsessed with round buildings, and also one of the most influential social theorists of the modern era (for the worse, in our opinion). Why should you care about him? Because he fundamentally changed the way people understand politics and law, in a really stupid way. What kinds of things did he do? Write lots of unwanted letters and have his body stuffed so no one would miss him when he died. This is the first part of our three part series on Bentham, so be sure to check back next time for his take on the Declaration of Independence!
In this episode, we bring you up to speed on a couple of important happenings at the Supreme Court, including a retrospective on the COVID-era of emergency powers and the Court's divided response to a key commerce clause case. After that, we give you a glimpse at the always thrilling, never confusing world of legal jurisdiction.Finally, we return once again to Captain Kangaroo Court, where David tests Alexander's knowledge of some of the most, uh, "creative" legal strategies around.0:03:00 - Arizona v. Mayorkas0:14:10 - National Pork Producers Council v. Ross0:39:20 - varieties of jurisdiction in American law1:04:00 - Captain Kangaroo Court
In this episode, we bring you up to speed on the latest activities of the Lex Rex Institute before diving into Groff v. DeJoy, a Title VII religious discrimination case that produced some... interesting... questions from certain Supreme Court justices. We'll explain why religious obligations aren't just a nice bonus you get for being a good person and, for the umpteenth time, explain how stare decisis works and wonder why Justice Elena Kagan seems to struggle with the concept.After that, we'll take a minute to address David's biggest pet peeve in legal interpretation: acting like the Constitution is just another law. Finally, we return to Captain Kangaroo Court to discuss a bankruptcy judge who writes pulp fiction and hear from a Twitter user impersonating the mistress of King Louis XV about why you don't have rights at school.0:01:45 - Lex Rex updates0:12:50 - Groff v. DeJoy0:45:10 - statutory law vs. constitutional law1:01:35 - Captain Kangaroo CourtLinksLRI's primer on paper ballotsAmicus brief on voting in San Francisco county
In this episode, we take a look at the 1924 "Lenin Constitution" and the 1936 "Stalin Constitution" of the Soviet Union. We'll discuss why communists love committees, how saying a right is guaranteed isn't enough, and the fact that the Soviet system was openly configured to focus power into the hands of a tiny elite. All this, plus an update on some of our cases and the story of a man who sued his date for the cost of her ticket to a superhero movie. Latest on LRI cases - 0:01:15 1924 Lenin Constitution - 0:06:55 1936 Stalin Constitution - 0:49:20 Captain Kangaroo Court - 1:13:00
In this episode, we continue our series on the Russian Revolution and the birth of the Soviet Union, but first we review oral argument in the pair of Supreme Court cases revolving around the Biden administration's plan for student debt relief.Finally, it's a special awards show edition of Captain Kangaroo Court! Alexander will award one nominee the coveted title of Most Plausible Lawsuit and another the even more coveted title of Most Creative Lawsuit.Student loan debt relief cases before the Supreme Court (0:05:10)The February Revolution (0:31:30)Captain Kangaroo Court (1:07:35)Link to the amicus brief in the San Francisco voting rights case: https://www.lexrex.org/news/lex-rex-president-alexander-haberbush-files-amicus-brief-in-voting-rights-caseOur “Ask an Attorney” episode on the Biden debt forgiveness program: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH7-GUtncAw&list=PL5BkZsnxImY163ZJLP5zOb4FFf9hRMERH&index=17Episode 29 of the podcast, in which we discuss the debt plan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrDkdJ7PNFw&list=PL5BkZsnxImY21-5sLx-P7BXgNws0fQ01R&index=27&t=2s
In this episode, we kick off our new series on the Russian Revolution and the rise of the Soviet Union. We'll start by telling you why this story is important for understanding American law, how the Tsars got things wrong, and why a group called "The People's Will" isn't necessarily a good barometer for, well, the people's will. Why is the Russian Revolution important? (0:03:03) The last years of the Tsars (0:08:30)Captain Kangaroo Court (1:02:30)
Welcome to the Season 2 of the Lex Rex Institute Podcast! We're now a video podcast (at least until enough of you complain about having to look at our faces that we switch back to audio-only), and we've got a new upload schedule that we'll tell you all about.In this episode, we bring you the top six (because David wanted a top five and Alexander wanted a top... more than five) developments in the world of American law from 2022.We'd also like to thank everyone for your generosity in our end-of-year matching fundraiser drive, with supporters of LRI contributing more than $20,000! It's thanks to your support that we can continue our efforts to defend the rights of the American public and, more importantly, equip them to defend their rights themselves.0:05:30 - Crackdowns on COVID-19 "emergency measures"0:11:00 - Election law in the spotlight0:21:40 - Conflicts between state and federal policy0:33:50 - The end of Roe v. Wade0:43:45 - New limits on federal bureaucracies0:58:05 - The death of the Lemon test in 1st Amendment jurisprudence(?)1:05:30 - Honorable mentions1:07:15 - Captain Kangaroo CourtVictoria Catano's Give Send Go fundraising page: https://www.givesendgo.com/G9QPC?utm_source=sharelink&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=G9QPC&fbclid=IwAR0uG9sPk1ALk3iaO4YFJGK8K8gsf5DBSr3Hkg6c3uvIMvW8tZwL1sASOd8
In this episode, we are joined again by Alex Bostic to conclude our "Fall of Rome" series while it's technically still fall. This time around, we'll talk about the civil wars between Sulla and Gaius Marius and between Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great. We'll discuss how the use of extra-legal means to restore the rule of law just ends up undermining it anyway, and consider some ways that the American constitution learned from Roman history.After that, it's back to Captain Kangaroo Court, where we'll ask hard hitting questions like "Is being a mean person a good excuse?" and "What is the value of time spent waiting for instant macaroni to thicken?"Finally, we'll let you know our plans for what we're calling "season two" of the podcast, which will be starting up sometime around February.We wish you all a good end to 2022, and we'll see you in the new year!Fall of Rome: the civil wars that ended the Republic (1:55)Captain Kangaroo Court (38:10)Season two announcement (51:00)
First off, as you can probably tell by the episode length, this is not a normal edition of the show. As Alexander was extremely busy with his day job "being a lawyer" and "defending Americans' constitutional rights," this episode only features David (for which he apologizes profusely). That being the case, we kept this one quick.Thanksgiving was a bit more than a week ago, so we thought we might talk a little about the Pilgrims - specifically, whether it's accurate to say they were looking for "religious freedom." (Answer: depends on what you mean by that.)We'll also delve into what the First Amendment means when it says "an establishment of religion," and why that's important for understanding the separation of church and state.
In this episode, we continue our Fall of Rome series with special guest Alex Bostic, the Lex Rex Institute’s resident Roman history buff. This time around, we’ll discuss Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus and the way their careers exposed flaws in the Roman constitutional system. After that, David and Alexander talk about a case that may or may not end up being heard by the Supreme Court (we think it shouldn’t be, but that’s just us), Daye v. Garland. We explore the meaning of “crimes of moral turpitude” and talk through the concept of unconstitutional vagueness.Finally, we wrap things up with Captain Kangaroo Court, taking a special look at court cases with an inanimate object as the defendant. (Spoilers: inanimate objects usually don’t offer brilliant defenses.)Fall of Rome – the Gracchi Brothers (0:40)Daye v. Garland (33:00)Captain Kangaroo Court (47:25)
In this episode, we discuss a preliminary injunction against the Biden administration's plan to forgive certain amounts of student loan debt and why the judge (correctly, we think) ruled that the plan usurped congressional authority.After that, we turn to a New York gun law drafted after the decision in New York State Pistol & Rifle Association v. Bruen and talk about the constitutionality of gun licensing.Then it's time for a pair of cases dealing with "race conscious" admissions practices at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. We'll consider the meaning of the 14th Amendment, the distinction between "bonus points" and "plus factors," and the admission to Harvard of one John Fitzgerald Kennedy.Finally, it's Captain Kangaroo Court, featuring a couple of lawyers disbarred for some... colorful reasons.Stay on student debt program (0:00:55)New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act (0:07:35)Race in college admissions (0:19:00)Captain Kangaroo Court (0:54:50)JFK's Harvard application essay
In this episode, we discuss the newly-revealed documents that show that the Department of Homeland Security collaborated with social media companies to suppress misinformation, disinformation, and “malinformation” – we’ll discuss why that’s concerning, and what exactly “malinformation” even means.After that, we examine Bittner v. United States, in which how you think about interpreting legal language makes the difference between $50,000 and $2.7 million (at least, for one man in particular). Then we’ll talk about the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear a case brought by a group of American Samoans seeking automatic citizenship rights for people born in the territory – and why their own government thinks otherwise.Finally, we return once again to Captain Kangaroo Court, where you can hear about a court reporter sentenced to the opposite of work-release, and a Maine attorney with a… creative… solution for dealing with required professional development.DHS social media program (4:00)Bittner v. United States (15:20)American Samoa citizenship issue (34:45)Captain Kangaroo Court (50:15)
In this episode… well, we tell you right off the bat: this one probably isn’t our best, but at least it's short! Alexander’s actual legal work got in the way of prepping for the podcast, so we had to make this a quick one. We return to “Allegator Alley,” our etymology segment, to talk about the difference between “barristers” and “solicitors.” Next, we discuss why some federal judges are refusing to hire clerks from Yale, and finally bring you back to Captain Kangaroo Court where, among other things, we consider one Kentucky judge’s habit of roaming the courthouse in his unmentionables.Allegator Alley (etymology time!) (2:45)Judges won’t hire Yale clerks (11:50)Captain Kangaroo Court (19:00)
In this episode, we bring you another installment of our Supreme Court Hall of Shame series, this time dealing with 1990’s Employment Division v. Smith – in which the Court’s desire to prevent people from using drugs creates some very real problems for the First Amendment.After that, we bring you the very first part of our (probably) short series on the Roman Republic, “The Fall of Rome” (get it?... because it’s Fall!). We start things off with a look at the way the Romans handled voting, which just goes to show you that wrangling over voting districts and procedure is a very old problem, indeed.Finally, because we went a bit over time, we take the quickest of trips to Captain Kangaroo Court, where we’ll learn about this one weird trick for handling a bar investigation. (Spoiler: it doesn’t work all that well.)Supreme Court Hall of Shame – Employment Division v. Smith (1:00)Fall of Rome – Roman Voting (27:15)Captain Kangaroo Court (1:01:45)
In this episode, we bring you a brief update on some of Lex Rex’s real-world legal work and discuss one of the cases before the Supreme Court in the new October term, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross. We’ll talk you through what’s meant by the “dormant commerce clause” and consider the implications of allowing one state to dictate policies to the rest.After that, we have an extra-special, extra-long edition of Captain Kangaroo Court for you! Alexander relates his experiences defending a client before an actual kangaroo court before we consider the age-old question: what legal rights do trees have? (There’s a stealth edition of the Supreme Court Hall of Shame in there, as well, although in this case we’re looking at a dissenting opinion.)National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (3:50)Captain Kangaroo Court (26:45)Not-so-secret Supreme Court Hall of Shame: dissent in Sierra Club v. Morton (40:30)
In this episode, we bow to the wishes of you, the listener, and introduce a new segment on etymology, in this first edition covering the word “contract,” as well as a surprise word chosen by Alexander. (We will be hosting another poll to see if the audience has come to regret this decision already.)After that, we take a tip from one of our listeners and weigh in on Rachel Maddow’s reporting on Moore v. Harper, which we previously covered. We’ll discuss why we think she got a few key details very wrong and explain why normalcy bias can make some people miss basic aspects of the Constitution.Next up, we examine one man’s lawsuit seeking to block the Biden administration’s proposed plan to cancel substantial amounts of student loan debt. We’ll discuss some legal issues with the plan before looking at the Department of Education’s strategy in responding to the suit and, finally, asking whether there might not be a better solution to the student debt crisis.Then we return once again to wrap things up in Captain Kangaroo Court, where we’ll introduce you to the legendary Florida Man. Etymology time (0:02:30)Rachel Maddow on Moore v. Harper (0:10:30)Biden’s student debt plan (0:29:00)Captain Kangaroo Court (0:48:45)Ask an Attorney – “Can Biden forgive student loan debt?” (https://youtu.be/qH7-GUtncAw)Our prior episode on Moore v. Harper (https://rss.com/podcasts/lexrexpod/623596/)
In this episode, we review the 5th Circuit's decision on the Texas House Bill 20, which imposes restrictions on social media companies, and discuss why plans to set term lengths (and not "term limits" - we are nothing if not pedantic) for Supreme Court justices is a very counterproductive idea.After that, we return yet again to Captain Kangaroo Court to discuss the purchasing habits of attorneys who embezzle funds. It may surprise you to learn that they do not always make the most sensible of financial decisions.All this, plus how to instantly prove your superior knowledge to anyone who says people in the olden days didn't live as long!Texas social media law (4:05)Plans to impose terms on the Supreme Court (27:50)Captain Kangaroo Court (38:10)Note: the chart we referenced with the lengths of Supreme Court tenures couldn't be uploaded as art for this episode, but please check out our website or our Facebook page for the image.Link to the episode where we discuss the Florida social media law: https://rss.com/podcasts/lexrexpod/505303/
In this episode, we return to the Supreme Court Hall of Shame to discuss Gonzales v. Raich, in which the court decided that an activity that: 1) takes place entirely in a single state, 2) involves no commerce, and 3) can’t even legally be done across state lines nevertheless counts as “interstate commerce.” We’ll also discuss the proposed “Justice for Victims of War Crimes Act” and explain why, although probably very well-intentioned, it makes a real mess of American law.We’ll then wrap things up with Captain Kangaroo Court, covering the time the city of Riga put a statue on trial for witchcraft and a pair of Ivy League law professors whose position on law seems to be “do whatever you feel.” All this, plus a brief story about an implausibly French man David saw on the streets of Edinburgh!LRI’s legal challenge against vaccination restrictions at polling centers (0:03:45)Supreme Court Hall of Shame: Gonzales v. Raich (0:06:55)The “Justice for Victims of War Crimes” bill (0:32:05)Captain Kangaroo Court (0:46:00)Our episode on Wickard v. Filburn can be found here: https://rss.com/podcasts/lexrexpod/570868/
Comments
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States