Legale§e

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 - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-592_5hd5.pdf Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/ Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com 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 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 Episode 43 "Do The Supreme Court's Actions Constitute An Attack On Democracy?" Show Notes Page - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/ep-43-do-the-supreme-courts-actions Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/ Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com 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 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 for Chevron Deference supporters and detractors alike are both being sold two very 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 nd 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. Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/ Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com 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? The Negative-Implications Canon Excerpt from Reading Law by: Justice Antonin Scalia & Brian Garner - https://open.substack.com/pub/constitutionallaw/p/negative-implications-canon?r=jkc76&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web The Ninth Amendment: It Means What It Says - https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/842/ A Textual-Historical Theory of the Ninth Amendment - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=953008 The Lost Original Meaning of the Ninth Amendment - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=613621 The Intersection of Natural Rights and Positive Constitutional Law - https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2263&context=facpub ►00:00 Introduction ►02:10 Special Announcement ►06:03 Original Meaning of the Ninth Amendment ►12:38 Great Debate Over The Need For A Bill Of Rights ►23:30 Modern Meaning of the Ninth Amendment ►25:00 Constitutional law and legal precedent ►37:00 Is the Ninth Amendment the most important sentence in the Constitution Follow & Support Legalese Homepage - http://www.legalesepodcast.com/ Subscribe To Legalese - https://legaleseshow.com/ Contact the Show - Bob@LegaleseShow.com 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 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. Original Source: "North Hampton Chief Leaves After Investigation Into Questionable Arrest" https://nhjournal.com/north-hampton-chief-leaves-after-investigation-into-questionable-arrest/ By: Damien Fisher Published by: NHJournal Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow Bob@LegaleseShow.com To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership. 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 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. Clay v. United States - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_v._United_States Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow legalese@gmx.us - To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership. 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 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. He is embarrassingly wrong in that he not only relies on 2 cases as his evidence that have absolutely nothing to do with the supposed topic of his video... But somehow this expert in criminal justice has absolutely no idea what the Police Powers are & has never heard of the public duty doctrine. So I made this video to correct the record and irrefutably prove the police have no duty to protect you. Actual Justice Warrior YouTube Channel - https://www.youtube.com/@ActualJusticeWarrior Do Police Have A Duty To Protect You? (Full Video) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO3RIp4iQWs&t=178s Police Powers - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/police_powers Police Powers in Con L:aw - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law) Public Duty Doctrine - https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-duty-doctrine/ Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) - https://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/1981/79-6-3.html Warren v DC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia Lozito v New York (Case Brief) - https://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2013JUL/3001010882012002SCIV.pdf Lozito v New York - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree#Lozito_v._New_York_City DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/489/189/ DeShaney v. Winnebago County - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/748/ Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales United States tort law - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_tort_law Duty Of Care - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow legalese@gmx.us - To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership. 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 is the first of two videos covering the Trial of Muhammad Ali In this part we focus of the history of Conscientious objection in the United States, get a general overview of the events that unfolded over a period of several years as Muhammad Ali fought what could be seen as his toughest fight ever. Fighting for his right not to go and fight in a war based on his religious convictions. We also discuss some parallels between the Vietnam War and the present war in Ukraine. Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow legalese@gmx.us - To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership. 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 have the second half of my series on the Brunson case, more properly known as Brunson v Adams & also referred to as Docket: 22-380 On The last episode we looked at the Facts of the case, its judicial history and broke down the contents of a cert petition and his Question Presented. Today we finish going over his cert petition as we read the Statements of the Facts of The Case. We discuss why this case makes a mockery of Brunson's stated claims of "Defending the Constitution"... The Constitution is indeed under attack, but not by Congress (at least not any more than usual) It is under attack by Raland Brunson who seems to believe the only way to save the Constitution is destroy it himself before anyone else gets the chance to. Find Part One in my Brunson Case Series here: https://youtu.be/o9i-x-QRfh8 Supreme Court Docket for 22-380 (All filing and documents) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html Case text of district court opinion - https://casetext.com/case/brunson-v-adams Tenth Circuit order and judgement - https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110749788.pdf 28 U.S.C. § 636 - https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-28-judiciary-and-judicial-procedure/part-iii-court-officers-and-employees/chapter-43-united-states-magistrate-judges/section-636-jurisdiction-powers-and-temporary-assignment The Brunson Brothers Home Page - https://brunsonbrothers.com/ Rule 14. Content of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari - https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_14 Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow legalese@gmx.us - To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership. 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 going to be examining the case of Brunson v Adams (Also commonly referred to at Docket 22-380). Raland Brunson is suing 388 members of Congress, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris & Mike Pence seeking to kick them out of office then declare them traitors by judicial fiat and put Trump back in office immediately because he believes the election was stolen. This case is fascinating for many reason and I want to share those reasons. Whether you support this case, vehemently oppose it, or have simply never heard of it. Every one has something to gain from listening. Supreme Court Docket for 22-380 (All filing and documents) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html Case text of district court opinion - https://casetext.com/case/brunson-v-adams Tenth Circuit order and judgement - https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110749788.pdf 28 U.S.C. § 636 - https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-28-judiciary-and-judicial-procedure/part-iii-court-officers-and-employees/chapter-43-united-states-magistrate-judges/section-636-jurisdiction-powers-and-temporary-assignment The Brunson Brothers Home Page - https://brunsonbrothers.com/ Rule 14. Content of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari - https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_14 Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow legalese@gmx.us - To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership. 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 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 Icame from The Babylon Bee video: "Frightening But 100% True Facts About Guns" (Full Video) - https://youtu.be/YmyyEbvDgr8 Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow Check out my new book Constitutional Sleight of Hand: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX Follow on Amazon to get new release updates and improved recommendations: https://www.amazon.com/~/e/B0BLHX5MDZ Bob@legaleseshow.com - To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership. 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 will be taking a look at the legalized armed robbery that constitutes "Equity Asset Theft" - a legal action that is nothing more than the lesbian sister of "civil asset forfeiture". Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to grant cert on the merits for the case "Tyler v. City of Minneapolis". This case challenges the constitutionality of a Minnesota state law empowering local governments to seize the entire value of a property in order to pay off a much smaller delinquent property tax debt. The property owner in the case—93-year-old widow Geraldine Tyler—argues that this kind of uncompensated seizure of home equity violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires government to pay "just compensation" anytime it takes private property, and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. So how does home equity theft actually work? How does the government justify this policy which stands in clear contravention to the 5th and 8th amendment's takings clause & excessive fines clause (respectively). We will discuss the likely outcome of the case as well as the broader implications that this potential landmark 5th amendment case will have. Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow legalese@gmx.us - To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership. 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 will be discussing the recent case of Cargill v. Garland handed down by the Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals. This case was a big win for gun rights and a well-deserved kick in the teeth for unaccountable Administrative State Agencies. We will discus the case, what it means moving forward and look at several other important implications that can be deduced by researching this case. Cargill v. Garland, No. 20-51016 (5th Cir. 2023) - https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-51016-CV2.pdf Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow legalese@gmx.us - To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership. Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Our latest installment in today in Supreme Court history looks at the landmark case of Printz v. United States. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Bill) required "local chief law enforcement officers" (CLEOs) to perform background-checks on prospective handgun purchasers, until such time as the Attorney General establishes a federal system for this purpose. County sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack, separately challenged the constitutionality of this interim provision of the Brady Bill on behalf of CLEOs in Montana and Arizona respectively. •My Condensed Case Brief - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/898/ •Full Case Brief - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/898/ •Oral Arguments Audio and Transcript - https://www.oyez.org/cases/1996/95-1478 •Syllabus - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/898/#tab-opinion-1960202 Check out my new book “Constitutional Sleight of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” - https://www.amazon.com/~/e/B0BLHX5MDZ Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow Contact Me: legalese@gmx.us 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 will be discovering the common law origins of the 4th Amendment Check out my new book “Constitutional Sleight of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” - https://www.amazon.com/~/e/B0BLHX5MDZ Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow legalese@gmx.us - To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership. 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 going to be discussing a little known area of constitutional law known as the state legislature doctrine that will play a major role in a landmark case the Supreme Court will be hearing this term. This is Moore v Harper, almost certainly it has already become the most controversial case the Court will be hearing for their Fall 2022 term. Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership through Locals/Patreon/PayPal/Venmo & more you can find all that in the "Links and Contacts" area of my homepage legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Today we have the latest installment of my series "Ignorance of the Law". . This where we take come time to highlight stupid, pointless, hypocritical and useless laws passed by the government. To point out that, while the government will be quick to tell you ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law, they clearly consider ignorance IS an excuse when making and enforcing the law. This episode actually has 3 examples of ignorant laws being ignorantly enforced. First we look at the foster care system in the State of Maine and their regulations regarding bunk-beds; and we share the story of some sweet old grannie taking care of her grandkids and how Maryland's laws are bunk-fucking grannie with their rules against foster children sleeping in bunk beds. Md. Code Regs. 07.05.02.10 - Foster Parent's Home, Equipment, and Supply Requirements D. Sleeping and Living Quarters. (3) Each child shall have adequate bedding and an individual bed which may not be a cot, sofa, sofa bed, double-tiered bed, bunk bed, or any type of portable bed. Second, we look at a case from Minnesota where the 8th circuit Court of Appeals has granted qualified immunity to a government employee who exercises police powers despite not being a policeman and answer the question: "what are you supposed to do when a government employee who is not a police officer pulls you over, detains you for hours, and tries to perform a traffic stop, despite having no authority to do so?" Finally I discuss why certain Halloween costumes just might make any child wearing it a potential felon. Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership through Locals/Patreon/PayPal/Venmo & more you can find all that in the "Links and Contacts" area of my homepage legaleseshow.com 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 have my fall Supreme Court Roundup. Of the cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this upcoming term I have focused on 5 which I believe have a high likelihood of becoming landmark cases in constitutional law jurisprudence. Including on case dealing with the State Legislature Doctrine, based on Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution. As well as 2 commerce clause cases, one dealing with the Indian Commerce Clause and another dealing with the dormant commerce clause as well as anti-commandeering doctrine under the tenth amendment. Finally we have 2 cases regarding Section 230, the statute often referred to as the Internet's first amendment. Moore v Harper – independent state legislature doctrine https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/moore-v-harper/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/moore-v-harper-2/ Haaland v Brackeen – Indian Commerce Clause case https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/haaland-v-brackeen/ National Pork Producers Council v. Ross –Dormant Commerce Clause https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-pork-producers-council-v-ross/ Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh – Section 230 https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/twitter-inc-v-taamneh/ Gonzalez v. Google LLC – section 230 https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gonzalez-v-google-llc/ Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership through Locals/Patreon/PayPal/Venmo & more you can find all that in the "Links and Contacts" area of my homepage legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Today's videos is not your typical podcast episode. It's a project. In fact its a project I could use your help on. David Hogg, the darling of the anti-gun movement has a habit of trying to shoe-horn his personal opinion that guns are bad into the Second Amendment and into American Law all the time & while he often says he is willing to discuss why he believes that with gun right advocates he doesn't seem to ever actually do it. I have tried reaching out to him twice in the past year to offer a chance to change my mind about guns and get no reply. So I am Hoping all of you lovely people out there will take just a moment and head over to David Hogg's Twitter page and to a specific tweet he recently since that I respond to in this video & I am hoping you will share this video with him and respectfully ask him to find the time to join me here on the Legalese Podcast so we can have a discussion about the second amendment and about the morality of gun control David Hogg on Twitter: - https://twitter.com/davidhogg111 David Hogg's Tweet - https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status/1567529570966065153 The Largest Ever Survey Of American Gun Owners - https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-largest-ever-survey-of-american-gun-owners-finds-that-defensive-use-of-firearms-is-common/?itm_source=parsely-api Defensive Gun Use Study – https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4109494 Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership through Locals/Patreon/PayPal/Venmo & more you can find all that in the "Links and Contacts" area of my homepage legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership through Locals/Patreon/PayPal/Venmo & more you can find all that in the "Links and Contacts" area of my homepage legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Episode #23 In this episode we discuss a really stupid and porly written and executd law in New York that is meant to ban people under 21 from buying whip cream chargers Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership through Locals/Patreon/PayPal/Venmo & more you can find all that in the "Links and Contacts" area of my homepage legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

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. Economic Policy: Inflation (Ludwig von Mises) - https://mises.org/library/inflation Inflation: An Unworkable Fiscal Policy (Ludwig von Mises) - https://mises.org/library/economic-freedom-and-interventionism/html/p/123 Monetary Inflation and Price Inflation (Bob Murphy) - https://mises.org/wire/monetary-inflation-and-price-inflation How Inflation Hides Inflation (Robert Blumen) - https://mises.org/wire/how-inflation-hides-inflation An Inflation Primer (Melchior Palyi) - https://mises.org/library/inflation-primer Defining Inflation (Frank Shostak) - https://mises.org/library/defining-inflation The Cure for Inflation (Henry Hazlitt) - https://mises.org/wire/cure-inflation Inflation as a Policy (Henry Hazlitt) - https://mises.org/wire/inflation-policy Constitutional Sleight Of Hand Announcement: https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/exciting-announcement?r=jkc76&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web Order your copy of my upcoming new book: https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/constitutional-sleight-of-hand-book?r=jkc76&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web Follow & Support Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Locals - https://www.locals.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23 PayPal - https://paypal.me/categoricalimperativ?country.x=US&locale.x=en_US Venmo - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - Legalese@gmx.us Legalese 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. Constitutional Sleight Of Hand Announcement: https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/exciting-announcement?r=jkc76&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web Order your copy of my upcoming new book: https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/constitutional-sleight-of-hand-book?r=jkc76&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web Follow & Support Rumble.com/legalese locals.com/legalese categoricalimperatives.substack.com odysee.com/@Legalese anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23 PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - Legalese@gmx.us 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" Watch Part 1 - https://youtu.be/GDtNFQMHbtA Stop The "Assault Weapons" Ban - GOA Form Letter To Send To Your Representatives and Senators - https://oneclickpolitics.global.ssl.fastly.net/messages/edit?promo_id=17533 HR 1808 - Full Text of Legislation - https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1808/BILLS-117hr1808ih.pdf NYSRPA v Bruen (2022) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf Vanchoff V James Case Docket - https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nyedce/2:2022cv04075/482488 Vanchoff v James (Firearms Policy Coalition Complaint) - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6540/attachments/original/1657660295/Vanchoff_v_James_Complaint.pdf?1657660295

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. HR 1808 - Full Text of Legislation - https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1808/BILLS-117hr1808ih.pdf NYSRPA v Bruen (2022) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf Vanchoff V James Case Docket - https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nyedce/2:2022cv04075/482488 Vanchoff v James (Firearms Policy Coalition Complaint) - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6540/attachments/original/1657660295/Vanchoff_v_James_Complaint.pdf?1657660295