In this episode, David makes his triumphant(?) return to hosting duties as we discuss the state of succession law in the United Kingdom and ponder the possibility of a new round of religiously-motivated civil war in Britain. After that, we discuss the so-called “independent state legislature theory” in relation to the upcoming Supreme Court case Moore v. Harper and why Alexander thinks it should be called “independent state legislature fact.” After that, we make a trip once again to the whimsical world of Captain Kangaroo Court to hear about an attorney hauled before an ethics board for saying the word “gadzooks.” Alexander also has a really funny story that he can’t tell you because of professional ethics, so you’ll just have to take our word for it… it’s pretty funny, though. Introduction, and why the funeral of Queen Elizabeth has caused David personal inconvenience (0:00) British succession law and its recent alteration (7:00) Moore v. Harper (23:30) Captain Kangaroo Court (45:50)
In this episode, usual co-host, Lex Rex President, and constitutional attorney Alexander Haberbush is joined by special surprise host and Lex Rex VP of Marketing, Eric Hampton. (We’ll let the audience decide if he makes a better host than David.) They take a moment to mark the passing of Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom before diving into a pair of petitions before the Supreme Court that could result in some interesting implications for criminal procedure, before returning once again to Captain Kangaroo Court for more oddities and nonsense from the world of law. Along the way, they’ll explain why the only evidence that’s supposed to count is the evidence on the record, why Alexander might suggest that a defendant wear a bag over his head at trial, and why it’s actually not constitutional for the president to take money from the Fed to set up a parallel government. Introduction and observations on the death of the Queen (0:00:00) Shaw v. United States (0:05:00) Ruiz v. Massachusetts (0:25:00) Captain Kangaroo Court (0:41:30)
In this episode, we give an update on our case on behalf of the parents of the Los Alamitos Unified School District, break down the new California law that would strip doctors of their medical licenses for being (supposedly) wrong about COVID, discuss how President Biden’s speech gets some key elements of the American political system wrong, and wrap up our “Summer of the Revolutions” series by giving our final thoughts on the American independence movement and the French Revolution and asking the key question: exactly how alike are the two? (Spoiler: not very much at all.) All that, plus Alexander’s sister, Vanessa, joins us for Captain Kangaroo Court to share one of her strangest experiences as an attorney and help us figure out whether debtors’ prisons are still around. (They’re not supposed to be, but…) Los Alamitos case (0:02:40) California COVID misinformation bill (0:05:45) Biden’s speech and “democracy” (0:13:50) Final thoughts on America and France (0:34:50) Captain Kangaroo Court (0:47:40)
In this episode, we wrap up the story of the French Revolution by examining the Constitution of the Year III (which is 1795 for those of you who do not follow the Revolutionary Calendar), the collapse of the French Directory, and the rise of a certain short fellow with a world class ego from the Isle of Corsica. We discuss how the French tried to fix the problems that led to the Reign of Terror, why new problems led to the masses clamoring for one-man rule, and how Napoleon packed France to the gills with stolen art. Then, in Captain Kangaroo Court, we consider whether certain (pretty racist) memes qualify as “public comment on immigration” and learn how 12th century Icelandic warriors dealt with undead squatters (answer: initiate court proceedings to evict them). The Constitution of the Year III (2:25) Napoleon’s coup (35:00) Captain Kangaroo Court (52:00) Follow these links for our YouTube videos on precedent and stare decisis.
In this episode, we discuss the latest news in one of the Lex Rex Institute’s biggest cases, as we represent a group of parents from the Los Alamitos Unified School District in a dispute against the district. You can find out more information about the case and contribute to the legal fund at https://www.GiveSendGo.com/LosAl. After that, we continue our “Summer of the Revolutions” series by examining the specific ways that the U.S. Constitution was designed to correct flaws with the Articles of Confederation. Along the way, we take a detour to discuss Edmund Burke’s analysis of the French Revolution and explain why it remains relevant for political philosophy today. Finally, we return to Captain Kangaroo Court to bring you the tale of the Roving Judge Gang of Indiana – hear what happens to a group of intoxicated judges who pick a fight in the parking lot of an Indianapolis White Castle – and Alexander tells the story of perhaps the worst judge he’s ever met. (She thinks the word “upon” is too fancy to use in a legal brief.) The Los Alamitos case (1:45) The Constitution and the Articles of Confederation (10:33) Captain Kangaroo Court (41:50) For those who expressed interest in the book on the French Revolution that David has been alluding to: https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-French-Revolution-ebook/dp/B07F37RP98/ref=sr_1_4?crid=2SHOJYCFTJFXO&keywords=history+of+the+french+revolution&qid=1661211691&sprefix=history+of+the+french+revolution%2Caps%2C93&sr=8-4
In this episode, we plunge once again into the murky depths of American jurisprudence to induct Korematsu v. United States, the case that upheld Japanese internment, into the Supreme Court Hall of Shame. After that, we revisit the trial of Alex Jones (where we previously made a pitstop to discuss his attorney’s predilection for obscene hand gestures) to discuss how discovery works in legal proceedings, how the 1st Amendment affects defamation cases, why some people argue (wrongly, we think) that imposing a limit on punitive damages is unconstitutional, and why you should probably say more than “please disregard” if you accidentally send the opposing party’s attorney a bunch of files you really shouldn’t have. All this, plus the debut of Captain Kangaroo Court, the new segment where we revel in the world of the legally bizarre: first up, what’s embarrassing John Bolton today? And why is a former court mediator wearing gloves while sending letters to congressmen? Korematsu v. United States (0:02:26) Heslin v. Jones (0:40:54) Captain Kangaroo Court (1:03:47)
In this episode, we bring you an investigation into lawyers and politicians behaving badly – our “Special Report on Pettiness and the Law.” We’ll also continue our series on the founding of America and the French Revolution by doing our best to describe the proposed French constitution of 1793 (which never went into effect because everyone basically shrugged and said “we don’t feel like it”) and what happened after that (spoiler alert: it’s called “The Reign of Terror”). Special Report on Pettiness and the Law (0:02:00) The French Constitution of 1793 (0:12:20) The Reign of Terror (1:05:08) Alex Jones Attorney Flipping the Bird: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer-flips-the-bird-at-opposing-counsel-after-judge-leaves-the-bench-in-alex-jones-defamation-case Thomas Carlyle's History of the French Revolution: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1301/1301-h/1301-h.htm
In this episode, we return to the Supreme Court Hall of Shame to discuss 𝘞𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘷. 𝘍𝘪𝘭𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘯, in which the Court determined that the definition of “interstate commerce” includes actions that are not commercial and take place entirely within one state (who knew!). We also continue our comparison of the French Revolution and the Founding of America with an examination of the first attempt at a constitution for the United States, the Articles of Confederation – its structure, its flaws, and the decision to replace it with our current Constitution. Plus, we’ll take another look at the hottest of hot takes from the world of online legal commentary and tell you why putting your drugs in an envelope does not necessarily prevent the police from searching you, and why the amendment that abolished slavery is probably not a magic bullet for abortion rights. Supreme Court Hall of Shame: 𝘞𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘷. 𝘍𝘪𝘭𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘯 (0:04:07) The Articles of Confederation (0:26:35) Hot takes (1:09:20) James Madison on the flaws of the Articles of Confederation: https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch5s16.html
In this episode, we track back to last month to discuss the Supreme Court’s decision in Carson v. Makin, which has major significance for parental rights in schooling, with the Court holding that public programs cannot discriminate against a school simply for being a religious school. After that, we continue our discussion of the French Revolution and why it actually doesn’t make much sense to liken it to the American movement for independence by comparing the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen to the American Declaration of Independence. Finally, we bring you the hottest legal takes from the internet. Topics include: why “the physics” don’t count as a witness in a trial, why overturning Roe v. Wade doesn’t automatically release all military personnel from their contracts, and why it’s not illegal for Supreme Court justices to be Catholic. Carson v. Makin (0:06:00) The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (0:28:00) Hot takes (1:17:50)
In this episode, we return to the Supreme Court Hall of Shame to talk about Griswold v. Connecticut and explain why bad laws aren’t automatically unconstitutional. We also discuss why American Hospital Association v. Becerra is a solid example of the Court’s restraint and review Vega v. Tekoh’s impact on Miranda rights (spoiler alert: it didn’t have any, but it might still be a disappointing decision). All this, plus a tour of some of the most blistering hot takes from the world of online legal commentary, including why there aren’t special “protected” parts of the Constitution, why it’s not true that “anything is legal if there’s a contract for it,” and the sad case of a Twitter user who should really have paid more attention in elementary school. Supreme Court Hall of Shame – Griswold v. Connecticut (0:06:00) American Hospital Association v. Becerra (0:35:20) Vega v. Tekoh (0:59:15) Hot takes (1:16:15)