Constitution Thursday

This past week the Chief justice of the US Supreme Court ordered a stay in the beginning of the trial of the case, Juliana v US. this is the second time that the re has been a stay in the famous case, which seeks to force the US Government to pursue policies that would "keep warming in check." Both the Obama Administration and the Trump administration (which submitted a 103 page argument to the Court asking for the stay) have argued that the case is problematic, in that it violates the separation of powers in the Constitution. The plaintiffs, supposedly a group of young people, claim that their civil rights have been violated and they have demanded policy changes that would "protect their civil rights" from the effects of global climate change in the future. This raises a number of questions, one of which is, what exactly is a "civil right?"

The Congress shall have Power To ...regulate Commerce...with the Indian Tribes.... ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 3 That's how it always begins. Very small. A man living in Oklahoma has a girlfriend who has an ex-boyfriend who gets into it with the man. In a gruesome crime, the ex-boyfriend is murdered, his genitals left on his chest on the side of the road. Not being a criminal mastermind, the man, Murphy, is caught. As there is little doubt and much evidence that he did it, he is tried and convicted of capital murder. The sentenced is death. Not so fast... The crime was committed by a member of the creek nation. The victim was also a Creek. And it appears that the crime was committed on Creek land. That being the case, the state of Oklahoma would have no jurisdiction, it would be a Federal case, requiring a Federal 9not State) prosecution. Because of the laws and agreements with the Tribes, such a crime cannot have a death penalty unless the tribe agrees to it, which they almost never do. Not so fast... was

The one thing that you can say about the federalists is that they were optimistic. They truly hoped that, truly believed that Americans would see it for what it was and grasp their liberties firmly and protect them for generations yet to come. The Anti-Federalists weren't quite so rosy in their outlook. While some were firebrands and dedicated to the idea of State Sovereignty and Confederation, more of them were pragmatic and understood that things had to be changed. But was the proposed Constitution the best way to make that change? Perhaps the most lucid and well spoken of the Anti-federalist was an anonymous writer who went by the pen name "The Federal Farmer." his writings, which began this week in 1787, were a measured consideration of the proposed government. in fact, of the the three possible forms of government that he saw for the nation, the proposed Constitution probably made the most sense. But that didn't mean that there weren't some potential problems that, whoever he was, could foresee...

In 1971 a Senator from Alaska began publishing classified documents known collectively as "the Pentagon papers." The ensuing kerfuffle tested the limits of Article 1 Section 6. Dave & john take a look at the Constitution and The Pentagon Papers

After recent school shootings, the proposal was made to raise the age for purchasing guns to twenty-one. in at least two cases, challenges were filed and in at least one of those, the challenge was upheld as the practice was seen as being in violation of equal protection and various State laws. So now we move to the state of Louisiana. The Legislature there, deeply concerned about the well-being of young and vulnerable women who dance with exposed breasts and/or buttocks for money from patrons who must remain at least three feet away, must be twenty-one years of age in order to do so. Naturally, the dancers who performed with exposed breasts and/or buttocks and who were under 21 sued in Federal Court. They are claiming that the law would violate their Constitution right to dance with breasts and/or buttocks exposed for money from patrons who must be at least three feet away. Now look, there are a whole lot of issues here that we could get into, and perhaps we will tomorrow. But for now, the question is sim

In recent days, we have watched the debate over the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice. While the debate rages around things such as abortion, gay rights, women's rights, and so forth, the single fact remains that these things are rarely the meat and potatoes of what the Supreme Court does. Almost never are those things noticed until after the fact. indeed, very few (if any) questions of any nominee relate to them or to the understanding of how those things might end up affecting our day to day lives. In 1820, a Pennsylvania man was found guilty of violating a State Law that required him to report for duty as a part of the militia during the War of 1812. He had refused service in the Pennsylvania Militia, and now it was time for the state to lower the boom. But the Feds also wanted their pound of flesh, because they believed that the Congress has powers over the Militia, and this man has spurned those laws. The Court ruled that the 5th Amendment didn't apply because (a) there was no incorporation and (b)

When the USS Caine, a fictional minesweeper in WWII, was in danger of foundering in a hurricane, the Executive Offer, with the encouragement of the Wardroom, relieved the CO and "saved" the ship. It was a clear cut case of mutiny, and as such a Court Martial would be required to resolve the matter. In the climatic moment, it becomes clear that though the Captain may be in trouble, the XO acted improperly and precipitously. He was not well advised and the Wardroom failed in its primary duty. The interesting thing is that the movie itself, and specifically was in the minds of the commission that gathered to consider the words of what would become the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution. Today you can buy a "25/45" T-shirt and you'll hear Talking Heads debating the whole idea of how the 25th Amendment could be used to rid the country of the hated Trump. What was once considered a ridiculous idea has gained enough steam that Vice President Pence had to specifically deny that he had conversations with the Cabi

One of the myths about the Constitution is that The Federalist Papers are a commentary, like Matthew Henry's, on the Constitution. They are not. They are simply and only a passionate written argument in favor of ratification of the Constitution. That doesn't mean that they are not without merit and not without lessons for us today. They do give us insight into the understanding of the document which the Framers - at least those in favor of ratification - held of the government plan which they had created. To that end, they are not only important, but they are required study for anyone who seeks a serious understanding of the Constitution of The United States. Which is why my ears picked up when I heard questions directed to Judge Kavanaugh yesterday regarding not just his personal favorite Federalist Papers (which did not include my personal favorite), but also his explanation of how Federalist 51 has impacted his personal Judicial philosophy. Federalist 51, famous for one particular phrase, reminds us of s

James Madison once wrote that "A Government is instituted to protect property of every sort...This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own." So what happens when a government, other then the national government, that is, decides that it wants what you have, even if they claim it's for a "public benefit?" In the Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, a nice old lady - she's even named Rose Mary Knick - owns a cute place on the edge of town that has a bit of property around it that - this is important - she owns. (Commence menacing music here) The Township loves its history and it wants to share it - all of it - with pretty much anybody who happens to saunter through the Township. And for reasons that will soon become the focal point of our discussion, it has decided that some of that history is on little old Rose Mary's property. So what's a Township to do? You might think that they would sit down with Rose Mary and have a nice ple

A few years ago there was a wonderful show on TV, "How the States got Their Shapes." Host Brian Unger takes you around the country and looks at.... well... how the states got their shapes. It's all based on the book of the same name (HERE). For what it's worth, the show is better than the book, but the information is the same. At any rate, why does any of that matter? Yesterday, the California Supreme Court ruled that the much heralded and discussed Prop 9, a vote by the people on whether or not to separate California into three States should be removed from the ballot because it "might" violate the States Constitution. Now... whether it does or not we have to ask some questions about this whole deal. Plausibly live, It's Constitution Thursday on The Dave Bowman Show!

On Constitution Thursday we delve into the statement by the current President to the effect that he could pardon himself, were such a pardon were actually needed. It isn't as clear-cut as you might want it to be - from a Constitutional viewpoint. But I would think that from a political viewpoint, it would create immense problems. Great problems. The biggest and best problems we've ever seen in this country. And that would be, of course, just the beginning...

In Danbury, Connecticut, the local Baptist congregation is deeply concerned about the ability to freely practice their religion. Sure, the Constitution says they can, but those words are only as good as the men who uphold them. They are pleased that Thomas Jefferson, a well-known fighter for religious freedom is now President. Still, they want to make sure where he stands, so they write him a letter. Two Hundred and twelve years later, the Grace Cathedral Church in Akron, OH, which didn't exist when Jefferson replied to the Danbury Baptists, decided to freely exercise their religion by opening, of all things, a public cafeteria on their own property. Much of the staff was paid and employed by the Church, but many of the service staff were volunteers from the church. They were there to "help" smoothly run things and to proselytize while they worked. You will not be surprised to learn that the government objected to this arrangement and filed a lawsuit alleging violations of FSLA rules. Mind you now, not one

In a ruling that surprised absolutely nobody - with the possible exception of the President himself - the Southern District of New York ruled that the President cannot block people on Twitter. Shocker. Let's spend Constitution Thursday digging into this and seeing what other things it might end up impacting...

It's Constitution Thursday, and we take a look at Federalism and its evolution in The United states under the Constitution. What seemed at first to be a pretty clear distinction between state and Federal powers, has slowly morphed into a whole lot more Federal and less State. And the journey to get there started long before the Progressive era. In fact, it really stated the day after the Constitution was ratified. We'll take a short look at two cases in the news this week. One of them went before the Court and the law passed by Congress was stuck down, allowing for sports Betting to be opened up across the nation. It's the opinion in that case that has Progressives excited and one of them even exclaiming that "Federalism can be good for liberals!" The other deals with the laws being debated by Congress as we speck to make any attack on a Police Officer a Federal Crime. who would oppose that? After all, we "support" Law enforcement, right? Or do we support and defend the Constitution?

After their experience in the American revolution and years of watching Kings buy their way to policy, the Framers believed that a simple and even elegant solution was to simply ban the ability of a single person to hold Office both civilly and in the government. Makes sense, right? So how did we get to the place where the Article is routinely "ignored" and senators become Secretaries?

Live broadcast of Constitution Thursday looks at the limits of the 26th Amendment in the light of calls for raising the purchase age of guns to 21

Many years ago, back in the 1970's, you could, on rare occasions, actually learn something watching a TV crime drama. And so it was that way back when, Dave watched an episode of Quincy, M.E., during which he learned a fact about how Jury trials can work that he retains even today. That single fact is helpful when we recall the purpose of the Jury is to serve as a mighty bulwark against government. To make certain that government isn't allowed to just run roughshod over accused citizens. At the same time, that simple fact also makes certain that a person who is guilty can't hide behind confusion and misdirection. Back in 2012, a man stood accused of hacking into PriceWaterhouse and stealing the Romney's tax returns, which he threatened to release to the highest bidder if he didn't get paid $1Million in digital currency. The self-named "Dr. Evil," was about as competent as his nom de guerre, and ended up in the custody of the US Secret Service, who take a dim view of people threatening potential Presidents w

As the debates rolled on, the nation considered many elements of the proposed Constitution. In Rhode Island there was grave concern over the idea that the State would not be able to print its own paper currency. In Virginia the Kentucky Counties worried about the navigational rights on the Mississippi River. But nearly everyone agreed on one issue - the idea that if the nation went to war, it would be stronger united than not. On April 6, 1917, Congress gathered to vote on whether or not the United States should declare war on Imperial Germany. Four days earlier President Woodrow Wilson had made it clear that the United States was needed and ready for the fight against an evil and depraved monarchy that chose war over peace and threatened the entire world. But, he made he clear, that it would not be, it could not be, his decision alone to send the US into World War I. Despite the changes in the world since 1787, one thing remained the same. It was that one thing that the Framers had in their prescience fore

Imagine for the moment that you are living in Small Town, USA. Your life is pretty normal and while there are things about your life that you wouldn't want people to know, you aren't a pervert or a criminal. You're just a average person when it comes to your private life and your online activities. Maybe you have a friend, his name is... oh let's just call him John. John Q. Public. He lives in your town and runs his own contracting business. Heck, maybe you've even hired him once or twice. Like you he has a bank account and a line of credit for his business. He also likes to travel, having gone to Europe last year. It's something you'd like to do, but you're just too busy. One afternoon, there is a knock at your door. It's the local Police and they have a search warrant. A search warrant for your computer. Signed by a local Judge, they want your search engine history. All of it. They have no reason to believe that you did what they are investigating, but they have convinced the Judge that if they can just

In 44bce, following the death of Julius Cæsar, Mark Anthony wasn't really impressing people in Rome with his leadership and management. Despite his inspiring speech at Cæsars funeral pyre, he was basically making a pigs breakfast of things. Opposing him was Cicero. Here was a Constitutionalist, a leader and a man of words. And it was to words which Cicero turned in his very public condemnation and criticism of Anthony. He delivered a series of fourteen speeches, known as the Phillipics, in which he rips Anthony for everything from his management to his dalliances with women (even one beneath his station) and even implies that Anthony might be, just possibly, at least once or maybe twice, homosexual. For his impertinence and speeches, Cicero will be killed by Anthony. Well... not Anthony himself, he was busy. But some of his men took Cicero's head and hands, and nailed them to a wall in Rome. There Anthony's current wife (#3 of at least 4, maybe 5), pulled out his tongue and drove a needle through it. It