Legale§e

Today we return to the kyle Rittenhouse case. I discuss why they dropped the misdemeanor gun charge and we assess the incredibly weak closing argument made by Kyle's attorney Mark Richards. Where did he go wrong and what possible effects might it have on the outcome of the case? Follow & Support To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ How to support the channel: Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month -: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture. 00:00 Introduction 01:30 Misdemeanor Gun Charge 08:15 Closing Argument

Today on Categorical Imperatives we are going to be talking about the Biden Vaccine Mandate in the form of OSHA ETS. The 5th Circuit recently stayed an injunction against the mandate's implementation until it can be assessed on the merits in the Circuit Court. We will discuss what the mandate actually purports to do, What the 5th Circuit had to say about the mandate, as well as the reason for their stay until the issue can be properly adjudicated and what comes next in the ultimate plan to get the court to issue a permanent injunction. We also talk about what the esoteric Circuit Court Lottery is, how it works and what it could mean in this case moving forward. Follow & Support To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ How to support the channel: Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month -: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Today on Categorical Imperatives we are talking about updates in the Kyle Rittenhouse case. The way the prosecution's star witness, appeared more like a star witness for the defense, the way ADA Thomas Binger manages to somehow fuck every day up more than the last and we discuss some of the trial commentary we have been hearing from other YouTube lawyers regarding the outcome of the trial and the quality of the defense. Plus we talk about why it's time to cancel the FBI Babylon Bee Article - https://babylonbee.com/news/prosecutors-move-for-mistrial-as-jury-has-been-tainted-by-clear-video-evidence-of-kyle-rittenhouse-defending-himself/?utm_source=telegram&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=telegram Thanks to Blue North Wind for sending me that article! Follow & Support To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal How to support the channel: Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month -: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Today on Categorical Imperatives we return to discussing the unfolding trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. In my last video we looked at how the corporate media had beclowned themselves with their ridiculous coverage and analysis of the case. All this week we have been watching the trial proper, in which the Prosecutor has been laying out his case for conviction.... or at least that's the idea.... The only problem is that absolutely everything this guy says and does either makes his argument look worse or makes Kyle's affirmative defense seem much more likely. He couldn't be doing a better job making sure Kyle walks if he was actually Rittenhouse's defense even more reasonable. Really, the prosecution's case has all the hallmarks of a politically motivated trial of an individual clearly being charged for reasons other than the merits of the case... Because there are none. I have a few observations to add to what is already a very lively discussion both online and in the real world that is taking place all over the country regarding this trial Follow & Support To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ Substack - https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal How to support the channel: Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

*Correction: In this episode I refer to the legal analyst as "Valarie Jarrett". Her name is Laura Jarrett. I also say Ms. Jarrett clerked for a Justice, when she clerked for a Circuit Court Judge* The media and their legal analysts prove once again they are not in the journalism business. They are political activists LARPing as journalists. We discuss what the media got wrong about the pre-trial motions that were heard and considered in Court for the Kyle Rittenhouse trial this last Friday.\ The media and their legal analysts prove once again they are not in the journalism business. They are political activists LARPing as journalists. We discuss what the media got wrong about the pre-trial motions that were heard and considered in Court for the Kyle Rittenhouse trial this last Friday. Follow & SupportTo find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ How to support the channel: Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month -: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

This video is the first in a series I plan to do from time to time covering the particular issues during the ratification period between September 1787 and July 1788. That topic will be approached with the best, most influential, most commonly held beliefs that divided the Federalists from the Anti-Federalists. Today we will be looking at A speech given by James Wilson on October 6th in Philadelphia. This speech was transcribed and reprinted immediately in newspapers, pamphlets & broadsides to be disseminated throughout the several States. It was the first great defense of the proposed Constitution. and a direct reply to many of the most contentious issues among anti-federalists. Including the accusation its aim was a new national government and not an expanded federal republic, this consolidated national government would require too much power to be overseen, its terms were far to vague such that no one could find a ground on which to stand against them, The Presidency was monarchy by another name & that there was no Bill of Rights. Wilson's speech then was akin to our notion of the Federalist Papers today. That is to say it was the most common and well known argument in favor of ratification. It is undoubtedly the most read and most influential of all Federalists at the time. Following that I will be reading from articles & speeches that were written or spoken as a direct rebuttal and refutation of James Wilson's October 6th speech. CHAPTERS ►00:00 - 08:32 - Introduction ►08:32 - 21:02 - James Wilson - Everything Which Is Not Given Is Reserved ►21:02 - 33:26 - A Democratic Federalist - What Shelter From Arbitrary Power? ►33:26 - 44:14 - Centinel II - To Avoid The Usual Fate Of Nations ►44:14 - 50:43 Cincinnatus I - How To Defeat A Monstrous Aristocracy? ►50:43 - 58:20 - An Officer Of The Late Continental Army - A Set Of Aspiring Despots Who Make Us Slaves ►58:20 - 1:04:23 - Plain Truth - I Have Answered All Objections ►1:04:23 - 1:10:11 - Cincinnatus V - Sense Where Is Your Guard! Shame Where Is Your Blush! ►1:10:11 - 1:13:16 - Conclusion Follow & SupportTo find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ How to support the channel: Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month -: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

The upcoming fall term for the Supreme Court has a number of important cases on the docket, including two very important Second Amendment cases. The first case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen. The case will decide whether the Second Amendment right to "bear arms" is an actual right. Or conversely, if law-abiding adults who pass a biometric background check and safety training can be denied a concealed carry permit simply because permitting officials only issue concealed carry permits when they feel that the applicant has a special need. Oral arguments for this case will be happening on November 3rd. Today I will be laying out the background on this case, we will go into detail about the question presented by the appellant as well as discussing why it is that no matter what the outcome of the case is, it will almost certainly be a true landmark case & is the first new case the court has granted cert on since McDonald v Chicago in 2010. I will be making a couple more episodes about this case between now and when it is scheduled to start, so make sure you are subscribed to the channel and have that notification bell checked so you can follow along with me as this case progresses. Supreme Court docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-843.html Follow & Support To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ How to support the channel: Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month -: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Episode #67 Today on Categorical Imperatives we have part one of what will be a two part episode About the theoretical origins of Judicial Review. Most people are familiar with Marbury v Madison (1803) Which is widely understood to be the first time the Court articulated a meaning of judicial review in fact, and when talking Marbury, virtually everyone will point to Hamilton's writing under the pen name Publius in the Federalist Papers, Federalist #78 specifically as the first example of when the doctrine of judicial review was articulated in theory. Which is all well and good, except that neither of those two things are correct. Judicial review before Marbury is a topic we will get around to discussing at some point in the future, but for today we are going to focus on the first place in the ratification debated we actually find Judicial Review being described which starts with Brutus' 8th Essay. Follow & Support To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ How to support the channel: Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month -: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture. Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Today on Categorical Imperatives we have part one of what will be a two part episode About the theoretical origins of Judicial Review. Most people are familiar with Marbury v Madison (1803) Which is widely understood to be the first time the Court articulated a meaning of judicial review in fact, and when talking Marbury, virtually everyone will point to Hamilton's writing under the pen name Publius in the Federalist Papers, Federalist #78 specifically as the first example of when the doctrine of judicial review was articulated in theory. Which is all well and good, except that neither of those two things are correct. Judicial review before Marbury is a topic we will get around to discussing at some point in the future, but for today we are going to focus on the first place in the ratification debated we actually find Judicial Review being described which starts with Brutus' 8th Essay.

Today on Categorical Imperatives we go back to discuss the case of Roe vs Wade. This is the latest video in my series "Today In Supreme Court History" Where I give a case brief presenting the history, facts and law that are relevant to understand the opinion handed down by the Court. Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) - https://youtu.be/6OB_ehOL6Uc Whole Women's Health v Jackson (2021) - https://youtu.be/KKIELHjNBuA Follow & SupportTo find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ How to support the channel: Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month -: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request you can e-mail the show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

There have been a lot of misconception and misunderstandings about the significance of the Supreme Court's decision to deny review for Injunctive relief in Whole Women's Health v Jackson. I try to tackle some of these misconception and how this case isn't nearly as big of a deal as people think. The main take away is that this case was not a decision on the Constitutionality of Texas' Abortion Law S.B. 8 This case did not overrule Roe This case does not put Roe in jeopardy of being overruled Texas' law is facially unconstitutional and when a Texas citizen brings a Constitutional challenge the Court will strike the case down. It's very worrisome that the entire Country thinks this case overruled Roe because it demonstrates a dangerous ignorance over the way the Supreme Court even functions. There was absolutely nothing that they could have done to "block" this law or "Strike down" this law.... That's not at all how the Court actually functions. I explain why that is and much much more in this latest episode of Categorical Imperatives. Follow & Support To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ How to support the channel: Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month -: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request you can e-mail the show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Episode #63 Today on Categorical Imperatives we go down a rabbit hole about how often police shoot and even kill other officers, why it happens and the disturbing trend I have found that its becoming common to blame a suspect for the death, despite the fact they never contest it was another officer who actually fired the shot that caused the death. This all sprang from what started as an article of a single, ongoing case where a woman named Jenna Holm is charged with manslaughter after one officer on the scene was hit by a cop car arriving on scene. These incidents of what I have dubbed "Blue on Blue violence" is something I discovered during my personal research for this video that only seem to be reported on as many separate & distinct instances. I found little data or reporting that has aggregated these instances and looked at them collectively. This episode is a preliminary attempt to compile these sorts of incidents. Since this information is nearly as new to me as it likely is for you. So as I learn more this will be a topic I intend to follow up on in future episodes. Follow & SupportTo find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ How to support the channel: Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month -: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request you can e-mail the show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

I talk with Scott Horton about the goings on in Afghanistan, our foreign policy, the media reaction to the withdrawal, the public outrage over the whole mess. You can follow Scott at: The Libertarian Institute - https://libertarianinstitute.org/ AntiWar.com - http://www.antiwar.com/ The Scott Horton Show - https://scotthorton.org/ Enough Already: Time To Win The War On Terrorism - https://www.amazon.com/dp/1733647341/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ref_=pe_3052080_397514860&linkCode=ll1&tag=scotthortonshow-20&linkId=a5eb35979325927537d9e8e9e11744d4&language=en_US Follow & Support To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives Substack - https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberalHow to support the channel:Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberalShow Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.comCategorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

For some ridiculous reason libertarian legal scholar Ilya Somin appeared on MSNBC to explain why libertarians support vaccine mandates. Today's episode we will be examining the clip of that appearance, discussing why the answers he gives are bullshit, why he should not have gone on to give some two-bit political progressive agitator posing as a journalist any sense of credibility and I will be giving my own response to the questions do libertarians support vaccine mandates. Follow & SupportTo find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal How to support the channel: Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Episode # 60 Today on Categorical Imperatives we arrive at the 3rd and final video in my series on McCulloch v Maryland (1819) This case is widely considered the most consequential, important case the corpus of Constitutional case law. It is foundational to the historical construction of the 'Necessary & Proper clause', it did more to shape the doctrine of judicial review than the more well known Marbury v Madison (1803) case. McCulloch also created a precedent for what we now refer to as the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine (which sounds so boring you could fall asleep just reading it's title) But, as we talk about in this video, it is a fascinating, controversial and defining concept. This is equally true for another rule of construction Marshall invented out of thin air in the McCulloch case known as "Obstacle Preemption" that I explain in this video.. Moswt of all, the misinterpretation and misconstruction of the ruling in McCulloch has created a devastating legacy ever since the Progressive Movement hijacked and weaponized Marshall's dicta in the case around the turn of the 20th century. We will be discussing all that & more in this episode. It really is a fascinating case and I have no doubt you will walk away fropm this thoroughly convinced that McCulloch deserves the distinction scholars and give have given it as the most important of all Supreme Court cases. Read the full case record Court Opinion In McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/316/ ►00:00 Introduction ►06:00 Maryland's Tax On The Bank ►15:17 Judicial Review ►27:05 A Destructive Legacy ►38:40 Conclusion

Episode #59 Today we continue with the latest video for my ongoing series "Today In Supreme Court History" with the second installment in a three part series I am doing on the foundational Constitutional law case of McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) A case which is considered by some of our most prominent lawyers, jurists & scholars to be the most important case in the corpus of constitutional law. People like Rob Natelson, Randy Barnett, Josh Blackman, David Schwartz. As well as not so prominent constitutional scholars like me. I endorse this view of this case. Episode One: Was a case brief on the with the historical and legal background relevant to the case. Episode Two: We will be examining the role the Necessary & Proper Clause plays in this case, as well as a deep dive into the Original Public Meaning of the Necessary & Proper Clause Part Three: Will be the legacy of McCulloch right up to today & why it is that the bad reputation this case has for constitutional conservatives who see McCulloch as the source of nearly unlimited federal power under the United States,. We will discuss how and why that reputation is largely unfair and inaccurate. This episode covers:: ►00:00 Introduction ►01:00 Textual Analysis of "Necessary" and "Proper" ►05:10 Original Meaning Of The Clause & The Three Great Purposes ►10:30 Interpretation of Necessary & Proper In McCulloch v Maryland ►23:27 Conclusion On The Original Meaning of Necessary and Proper Episode on Legal Tender Cases (1871) - https://youtu.be/tQYaftCQJ3c Court Opinion In McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/316/ Follow & SupportTo find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ Substack - https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal How to support the channel: Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Episode #58 Today on Categorical Imperatives we return to my favorite (and mot popular & requested by you, dear viewers!) series "Today In Supreme Court History" Because it is impossible to sit around and wait for a date celebrating the anniversary of the cases covered the "Today" in Today In Supreme Court History merely signifies today is the day I decided to make a video about a classic case of American Jurisprudence. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/316/ This case is considered by many Constitutional law scholars (and many of the best scholars like Rob Natelson, Josh Blackman & Steve Schwartz) to be the most important & foundational case in the corpus of Supreme Court case law (a claim I fully endorse. The same scholars will also say that McCulloch is also the most misunderstood case in the Court's history (a claim I largely, but not completely, agree with) That is why this will be a 3 part series. This episode is part one - We will be going through a case brief I put together that should provide you the essential background in history & the proceedings that are "necessary & proper" to understand before the more advanced topics of the upcoming episodes: Episode 2 will be to refute a very common complaint we hear from conservatives about this case; they depict McCulloch as justifying vast federal powers under a broad interpretation of the Constitution. They portray Marshall as a “big government” judge. That portrayal is wrong. McCulloch v. Maryland is sometimes claimed to be “the most misunderstood” case in American constitutional law . Episode 3 will be talking about how the picture of “implied powers” presented here, coming from John Marshall in the Courts opinion is the antecedent to any number of constitutional doctrines. Follow & Support Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Substack - https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture. ►00:00 Introduction ►03:12 McCulloch's History & proceedings ►06:41 Enumerated Constitutional Powers & the First Bank Of The United States ►14:30 The Second Bank Of The United States ►17:00 The Court's Opinion

Episode #58 In this episode we will be discussing a statement put out by the ACLU claiming the second amendment is white supremacy and anti-blackness. So we will be touching on sill the ways that is a legal absurdity. Then we discuss why it is gun control, if anything, is inherently racist. Follow & Support PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All Paypal Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Substack - https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Episode #57 Today on Categorical Imperatives we will be discussion Julian Assange and Constitutional law. For those not following the legal battle being fought right now in both England and America by their respective government's solicitors general and the counsel for Assange, we recently learned that the governments main witness in the case brought against Assange for espionage admitted to completely fabricating his allegations. about Assange to the FBI. I thought I would take the unraveling of the case against Assange & run with it by discussing several ways the government's other allegations don't hold up to even a cursory amount of scrutiny. At it's core, we have 3 very common misconceptions . The first one being the useless argument about Constitutional rights. To Whom do they apply and what exactly do they protect. But disagreements of that nature are little more than a manufactured distraction from a greater truth. That the belief in Constitutional rights themselves is false. There is no such thing as a Constitutional right. Second, the idea that the first amendment's protection of the right to "freedom of the press" is a protection of a profession as opposed to press as technology or a general activity. And an honorable mention goes to a 3rd myth - That is the idea that to the extent Assange may qualify for press protections in the abstract, it doesn’t matter because his actual publications of specific material amounts to sedition, and sedition is not a protected right of free expression. I will not be talking about this today because I very recently put out a video and an article called “Sedition: An American Virtue” Podcast Episode: https://youtu.be/1lmkWCgrWIc Article: https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/sedition-an-american-virtue/ There you will find a very comprehensive understanding of why this "sedition isn't protected speech" is a bullshit argument. Follow & Support Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Substack - https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Originalism and Textualism are judicial philosophies few people have a good understanding of. In fact some of the more absurd misconceptions I have heard espoused about these methods of interpretation came from people who profess to be originalists or textualists. The fact is there is very little good information out there on which to base your opinion and understanding of these concepts unless you are someone who spends a great deal of time in law libraries and have an inclination to buckle down and figure these differences out. This video is meant to help with that lack of knowledge. Whether you don't even know what a judicial philosophy is or a law student getting mixed messages from different sources about what these philosophies entail, this video will be of use to you. We look at the two main forms of Originalism to understand where they do and do not agree, we then look at textualism and Originalism to find out what these mean individually, as well as on what they agree upon and where they differ. There are two very common misconceptions that I specifically take aim at in this video: First: Originalism and Textualism are just two different terms for one single concept Second- Originalism and Textualism and Originalism are fundamentally contradictory judicial philosophies These are both commonly espoused and neither of them is correct. You will learn WHY they are incorrect and so, so much more. Follow & Support Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Substack - https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture. ►00:00 Introduction ►03:29 Introduction – Originalism and Textualism ►05:45 Legal Formalism ►08:30 Definitions ►08:40 Definition – Original Intent ►09:30 Definition – Original Meaning ►10:00 Definition – Textualism ►11:56 The Constitution As A Legal Document ►14:09 Constitutional Interpretation ►14:55 Constitutional Interpretation - Original Intent ►19:45 The problems With Original Intent ►24:23 Constitutional Interpretation - Original Meaning ►27:57 Statutory Interpretation – Original Public Meaning ►33:22 Statutory Interpretation – Textualism ►34:10 Textualism & Plain Meaning Rule ►34:45 Speaker's meaning and sentence meaning ►35:40 Textualism and the general public ►36:40 Noted textualists - Frank Easterbrook ►38:10 Noted textualists – Antonin Scalia ►39:48 Early Forms Of Statutory Interpretation ►41:35 The Evolution Of Textualism ►49:25 Closing

While Second Amendment Sanctuaries are a fantastic idea, there is a big problem. People who believe they live in a 2A sanctuary city or state often are mistaken. Mike Maharrey of the Tenth Amendment Center joins me to discuss what the truth is about Second Amendment Sanctuaries, what are some myths surrounding them & what you can do to on a state or local level to prevent federal encroachment on your right to keep and bear arms. https://www.michaelmaharrey.com/ https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/ Path To Liberty "Six Fake 2nd Amendment “Sanctuary States”" - https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/six-fake-2nd-amendment-sanctuary-states/ Support The Tenth Amendment Center: https://shop.tenthamendmentcenter.com/product/donate/ My Episode with Mike Maharrey about voting: https://youtu.be/ewITeZHYVqk Second Amendment Sanctuary Model Legislation: State:: https://s3.amazonaws.com/TAClegislation/2nd-Amendment-Preservation-Act.pdf Local: https://s3.amazonaws.com/TAClegislation/2nd-Amendment-Preservation-Ordinance.pdf Follow & Support PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All Paypal Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Substack - https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture. ►00:00 Introduction ►02:46 Tenth Amendment Center ►05:34 What Is A Second Amendment Sanctuary ►10:12 Fake Second Amendment Sanctuaries ►18:58 Federal Funding and Anti-Commandeering ►22:15 Differences Between State & Local Enforcement ►25:40 What You Can Do To Create A Second Amendment Sanctuary ►28:10 Key Takeaways ►31:37 What 2A Advocates Can Learn From The Legalize Marijuana Movement ►37:50 Links To Tenth Amendment Center & Model Legislation in Video Description ►39:20 Conclusion

Episode #54 In this episode we discuss Section 230's Legal meaning Bootleggers and Baptists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists Section 230 Bootleggers and Baptists: https://reason.com/volokh/2020/05/29/section-230-bootleggers-and-baptists/ 47 U.S. Code § 230: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230' CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS 19-1046 PHAM, TONY H., ET AL. V. RAGBIR, RAVIDATH L., ET AL. ' https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100520zor_3204.pdf Follow & Support PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All Paypal Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Substack - https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture. CHAPTERS ►00:00 Introduction ►03:20 Political "Meaning" ►09:00 Legal Meaning ►11:16 Bootleggers and Baptists ►12:23 Section 230 Legal meaning ►13:05 Definitions ►15:00 Textualist Construction ►19:50 Traditional Law - Categories Of Protection ►24:30 Traditional Law - The Internet Before 230 ►29:45 Takeaway Lessons ►33:30 What's A Ron Wyden? ►37:30 Common Misconceptions of Section 230

Episode #53 In this episode we will be revisiting a recent controversy when Ocean City Police assaulted a group of people doing nothing wrong. I want to discuss how advocates who condemn the enforcement of the very law they insistently got passed. Campaign For Tobacco Free Kids tweet - https://twitter.com/TobaccoFreeKids/status/1404536501828993027?s=20 Maryland's "Stop and Identify" statute (Md. Criminal Code §4-206) Maryland Tobacco Use & Public Smoking Laws - (Article, 2-106(b)(4) and 5-312, Annotated Code of Maryland) What Is An Assault Weapon - https://youtu.be/FHt1hER8Las "Assault Weapons In America" (https://vpc.org/publications/assault-weapons-and-accessories-in-america/) Follow & Support PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All Paypal Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Substack - https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Episode #50 In this episode... Today we have another installment of a series that has consistently been some of my personal favorite episodes and that consistently get 2x or 3x the views of other videos. Today In Supreme Court History. As of the day I am recording this, June 8th in 2005 the Supreme Court issued their opinion in the case of Gonzalez v Raich (2005) This case has relevance to innumerable aspects of Constitutional Law. This case is regarded prima Facie, as a Commerce Clause case (Article I, § 8, Clause 3) - It was not only the first time that the court had expanded Congress' powers under the commerce clause since Wickard v Filburn in 1942, this was a case that did not hinge of the commerce clause, but instead enlarged the "Implied Powers" of the necessary and proper clause. Follow & Support PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All Paypal Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Substack - https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Episode #50 Justice Hugo Black famously said that the bill of rights is the heart of the Constitution. Contemplating what he meant by that is an interesting question to ponder. But even more compelling is asking the question what exactly is the Bill Of Rights? Because the first 10 amendments to the Constitution were never consistently even considered A bill of rights, and certainly not THE Bill Of Rights. This only occurs around the time Justice Hugo Black said these amendments were the bill of rights and they are the heart of the Constitution, but that was in the mid 20th Century. This series explores their drafting, their application throughout the country from the earliest days to modern day, it also follows their meaning during history which was something that changed over time as their applications began to be different Follow & Support Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58&currency_code=USD Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ Substack - https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/ Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/ Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture. ►00:00 Introduction ►02:20 Part 1 Recap ►05:40 III. The New Deal ►07:20 Section III part One: The Master Politician ►13:53 Section III Part Two The Bill Of Right Goes To War ►31:55 IV Judicial Review ►33:24 Section IV Part One The Rough Rider ►38:03 Section IV Part Two The Road To Barnette ►42:38 Section IV Part Three A Fixed Star In The Constitutional Constellation ►47:43 Section IV Part Four The Right To Privacy ►53:09 Section V Conclusion ►59:46 Conclusion