Constitution Thursday

The new President, Gerald R. Ford, pardons the old Presedint, Richard M Nixon. Thirty-nine years later, Dave & John take a look at Article 2 Section 2, Opinions and Pardons

The Convention finally gets underway. First things first, rules have to be established and agreed upon. Then the business of reforming the Government can get rolling. The first presentations take on the problems the nation confronts, including the biggest danger facing America. The local Newspaper want a story, and somebody, just who isn't exactly clear, is giving them one. George Wythe and his rules committee approve two special rules that will serve to insure secrecy and flexibility.

To say that General Washington was angry would have been the understatement of the century. He was as close to losing his legendary cool as he had been since the war ended, and with his personal reputation on the line, he circulated the parties and dinners of Philadelphia's social network. He faced a barrage or questions about the rumors swirling through the City. "Do you mean to destroy the government?" The source of the rumors was the discovery that the Virginia delegation was meeting in secret each day as they waited for the rest of the delegates to arrive, to refine a plan that James Madison had written to do just that. Was this... treason? Of bigger concern, the small States were horrified that Virginia meant to swallow them up, through "addition, division, or impoverishment." The call went out as a letter was dispatched to John Dickinson of Delaware. He would arrive in time to fight to save the small States...

Today, May 14th is the 228th Anniversary of the Date set for the Constitutional Convention to begin in Philadelphia. The American Democracy, founded on the ideas of the God given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, was now on trial before the entire world. Anxious empires awaited the outcome of the Convention with their eyes on what would be left to take, should the Americans fail to restore good government and end up going their separate ways. The Philadelphia convention did not get off to a prompt start, as heavy rains had turned every road into the city to rivers of mud. By the assigned starting date, only eight delegates had arrived. It was an inauspicious beginning to the last ditch attempt to save the United States of America. Today we begin our look at the Convention itself. For the next few months, we will take a look at what happened at the Convention in the previous week. What was debated, discussed. We will meet the fifty-five men who wrote our Constitution, starting with one Dan

The 2nd Court of Appeals rules that the NSA exceeded its authority and the Patriot Act by the collection of Metadata. But the problem of Edward Snowden remains...

A Constitution Thursday look at the 14th Amendments protections of "privileges and immunities" and how that enters into the arguments for and against bans on gay marriage

As the nation awaits the Court Martial of Bowe Bergdahl, the question of his guilt seems obvious, but is it in light of the Constitution, the War Powers Resolution and the more than 130 times it has been used to establish precedents about what is "war for Constitutional purposes?"

A man is stopped for a broken taillight in a place where it is not illegal to have a broken taillight... from there things go down hill fast. What happens when a Police Officer makes a "reasonable error" in enforcing a law that doesn't actually exist as the basis for a search and seizure? And should the results of that search and seizure be admissible in Court?

"On this day, Yom Hashoah, we recall the millions who died as a result of a legal process and we ask the question, could such things ever happen here in the United States? The Espionage Act of 1917 was used to silence opposition to the Governments policy of War with Germany. In 1799 the Alien and Sedition Act was used to silence critics of the Government in the United States. But by the 1960's attitudes about dissent to Government war efforts had changed significantly. But what would it take to change them back and restore a scenario where ""dissent is [not] patriotism?"

"In Indiana, controversy reigns over the State's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, with accusations flying that it will allow rampant discrimination against gay people. So why did Indiana feel the need to pass such a law in the first place? What was it that compelled a Democrat Party controlled Congress to pass the first Religious Freedom Restoration Act by a unanimous vote in the House of Representatives and a 97-3 vote in the Senate before being signed by President Bill Clinton? And if the nations liberals saw good in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, what is it about Indiana's version that has them so worked up? In this episode we take a look at the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and how we got to the point where Indiana (and a lot of other States) felt compelled to pass such a law. The story begins in the migrant worker farmed fields of Texas in the 1930's, with a child born to migrant farm workers who will go on to fight for Civil rights and to freely express his religious beliefs..."

Two rebellions, the first in the 1760 and the second in the 1780’s lead to the Constitutional ideas of Establishing Justice and Insuring Domestic Tranquility

"The 1st Amendment protects citizens from the government when they exercise their speech and press rights. So was it “free speech” or “creating a hostile learning environment,” when the President of the University of Oklahoma expelled two students for what they sang on a bus? And when a local man rips down a neighbors offensive house decorations, is it protected? Share this:"

We the People ordained and established the Constitution in order to provide "for the common defense." In doing so, the debate was sparked over what was needed for that defense, and whether or not there any actual threats to the United States. How would the power of taxation, given to the proposed new government, be an great asset to provide for such a common defense? And ultimately, who decides what are the national security interests of the nation?

"What is the opposite of ""slavery?"" It's not actually ""freedom."" The Founders weren't fighting for freedom, they fought for Liberty. So what is the difference? The prohibitions contained in the Constitution allowed for the abolition of all forms of slavery, by prohibiting ex post facto laws, enshrined the writ of habeas corpus and prohibited Titles of Nobility. In all, these things did more to secure and protect liberties than anything that was contained in the State Constitutions under the Confederacy."

By 1786, the United States were on the brink of utter destruction as a nation. The government had no way to raise money, no way top defend the borders and no way to protect individual rights. Armed insurrection was a real threat, and armed invaders stood ready to pounce on whatever was left. The Philadelphia Convention was more than just “fixing” the government. It was, quite literally, the last chance for the American dream. In the Preamble, we see how the Convention proposed to save the nation, what it would accomplish and it took a direct aim at those who would support the fatally flawed government already in place. (Editors note: We apologize for the excessive background noise. Ben was home from school today, and he was just wound up and wasn’t going to calm down for anything. This 45 minute podcast took nearly six hours to record, but we powered through it and got it done as best we could…)

The Supreme Court issues several rulings in which the LPOV crew are particularly interested, including search warrants for cell phones, free speech and religion and the Recess Appointments made by the President.

In Yuba City, a Sikh man is told that he cannot serve as a juror as long as he refuses to remove his kirpan, a symbol of deep meaning and religious devotion to baptized Sikhs. This raises the question: Is there a "right" to serve on a Jury?" Does the need for public safety outweigh religious freedom? And what does it teach us about the jury system?

The LPOV takes the show on the road to the VFW Hall in Turlock to have the show in front of a live audience. An anonymous tip leads the stopping, searching and subsequent arrest of two men in California. Later the Supreme Court will take up the question as to whether or not an anonymous tip is sufficient probable cause to have stopped the truck, leading to the search and the arrest? Moreover, if the Court says that it is, what is the long range effect on American Society? A live audience means questions and interactions!

After a two year investigation, the Kaleys found themselves essentially destitute when the Government indicted them and froze all of their assets. The resulting case asked the question as to whether or not an ex parteforfeiture order based on the Grand Jury’s actions violates the 6th Amendments protections.  In this version of Kaley v United States, the LPOV debates and discusses the merits and disadvantages of the Criminal Grand Jury and asks what we can learn about the process going forward.

In this version, which features several extended moments in the first segment of silence from Chattroom Jeff who’s microphone failed to record, resulting in the canonical version presented above, the LPOV takes a different tack on the Kaley case and discusses what exactly is “effective” counsel?