Part 2 of our first annual Independence Day Special features a line-by-line breakdown of the Declaration of Independence. We explain why the parts everyone remembers ("We hold these truths to be self-evident..." and such) are - while fantastic - just the introduction to the meat of the document. We'll break down why you should really think of the Declaration as a legal complaint against the Crown of Great Britain and why your high school teachers were wrong to tell you that the French Revolution was similar to the American independence movement. Instead of our usual hot takes segment, this week we wrap things up by remembering the sacrifices made by the men who signed their names to the Declaration, knowing they would be convicted as traitors and put to death if they failed in their bid for independence. Reading the Declaration of Independence closely (0:00:30) The Fate of the Founders (1:05:35)
It’s (almost) the 4th of July, and that means it’s time for the first annual Independence Day Special for the Lex Rex Institute Podcast! Because we (very predictably) ended up going way over time, we’ve split this episode into two parts, with the first releasing today and the second releasing tomorrow, on the 4th itself. In this part, we will give you a handful of reasons you should be grateful that America is now independent from Britain (things like: courts not allowing the police to use evidence against you when they obtained it illegally, knowing when the next election is for the chief executive, and not having your silence held against you when you’re interrogated) and also discuss the final ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District and why the media – as well as Justice Sonia Sotomayor – seem to be confused about what the Supreme Court actually does. Tune in tomorrow for our discussion of the Declaration of Independence and the sacrifices made by the men who signed it. Reasons to be thankful for independence (0:03:30) Kennedy v. Bremerton (0:36:00)
In this episode, we present the first edition of our Supreme Court Hall of Shame, highlighting some of the worst legal reasoning in American history – first up is National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. We also examine two enormously important decisions that were handed down by the Court this week, with massive impacts on gun rights and abortion (and also completely changing our original plans for this episode), as well as take a deep dive into the concept of “substantive due process.” All this, plus the economics of being an expert witness on “being of average intelligence” and why you shouldn’t bring your drugs with you to your drug trial. Supreme Court Hall of Shame: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (0:09:05) New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (0:23:30) Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (0:37:00) Substantive due process (0:58:48) Hot takes (1:14:00)
On this episode, we are joined by Attorney Zachary Jones to discuss his recent article for Lex Rex and why the 17th Amendment poses issues for federalism. We also discuss the decision in the recent case Denezpi v. United States and explain why the Supreme Court found that federal courts could try someone twice for the same crime without violating the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. All this, plus a deep dive into why keeping an elephant in the zoo isn't the same as imprisoning a person without a charge, a romantic guide to the Founding Fathers, and another batch of hot takes from the darkest corner of the internet. Sections: 0:03:30 - Happy the Elephant's habeas corpus petition denied 0:17:30 - Attorney Zachary Jones joins us for a discussion of the 17th Amendment 0:39:00 - Who Wants to Marry a Founding Father? 0:47:35 - Denezpi v. United States and double jeopardy 1:04:40 - Hot takes
In this episode, we explain why (under one California law, at least) bumblebees are fish and why you shouldn't laugh at the court for saying so, report on the abortive attempt on the life of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and consider the main alternatives to originalism as a judicial philosophy. We'll also reminisce about Attack of the Clones, brush up on our Kantian philosophy, and recount the linguistic theory behind Orwell's 1984. 0:01:13 – Bumblebees are fish 0:07:40 – Gunman apprehended outside home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh 0:19:10 – Judicial philosophy and judicial methodology 0:22:50 – Textualism… and all the rest 0:30:30 – Consequentialism 0:34:20 – Legal realism 0:41:17 – Purposivism 0:56:35 – Cooperative partnership theory 1:00:20 – Intentionalism 1:09:20 – The “Kantian judiciary” (Alexander’s name for it) or “moralism” (David’s) 1:15:08 – Hot Takes
In this episode, we get into some serious stuff about the shooting in Uvalde as well as some more light-hearted stuff, as usual. Fair warning. Topics include: Oregon's Department of Human Services was using an algorithm to trigger mandatory investigations without any human oversight (0:04:11) The police response to the Uvalde shooting, and whether anyone can be held liable for it (0:20:50) The Supreme Court reimposes a preliminary injunction against Texas's social media law (0:50:43) Hot takes from the internet (1:08:54) All this, plus far too many mentions of old sci-fi media and a deep dive into the legal validity of calling "shotgun."
In this episode, we revisit the saga of the Louisiana Lawyer Dog, update you on the January 6th Congressional Committee, discuss the 11th Circuit Court's ruling on Florida's new social media law, talk about interpretive methods for law, and dig deeper into the origins of (and alternatives to) the American regulatory system. All this, plus a fun(?) fact about the Jonestown Massacre, one man's valiant but misguided attempt to discover the secret to infinite free beer, and an explanation of why the movie Double Jeopardy comes up short in its jurisprudence. Sorry, this is a long one - it kinda got away from us. See below for a handy timestamp reference in case you want to skip around: Lawyer Dog (0:00:56) January 6 (0:11:45) Florida Social Media Law (0:17:13) Originalism and Interpretive Methods (0:50:33) Regulatory state (1:07:57) Legal Hot Takes (1:42:07)
In this episode, Lex Rex lead writer David Truschel and president Alexander Haberbush explore the wild, wacky world of state law, talk through the importance of abiding by legal procedure (even in unusual circumstances), and explain why you don't necessarily want to put the guy who knows the most about ketchup in charge of making all your laws. Links we mentioned in this episode: https://www.lexrex.org/news/eastman-lands-blow https://www.givesendgo.com/eastman https://www.lexrex.org/media/youre-wrong-about-the-constitution
In this episode, Lex Rex lead writer David Truschel and president Alexander Haberbush explore the "super super double secret" drone program of the Brockton, MA Police Department, review the latest from the House January 6th Committee, talk First and Second Amendment rights, and tell you why Justice Sonia Sotomayor doesn't get it when it comes to judicial review. All this, plus a discussion of Mexican food at buffet restaurants, how CSI has ruined criminal trials, and why the French Revolution preferred round numbers to sanity.
In this episode, Lex Rex Institute lead writer David Truschel and president Alexander Haberbush explore the hip-hop aspirations of Richard Milhous Nixon, recount the saga of two LAPD patrolmen fired for pursuing Pokemon instead of criminals, and review more of the hottest legal takes in the whole internet. Along the way, they also discuss the City of Boston's big loss in court and the leaked draft that would purportedly overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. But mostly the rapping Nixon and Pokemon stuff.