Today on Categorical Imperatives we are going to be looking at the Electoral College. In this video, Part One of a two part series we will be looking at The electoral College as compared to a system put forward by the National Popular Vote Movement. In Part Two we will be examining the case law that compromises the Supreme Court's "One Person, One Vote" doctrine. What people think it means, why they are all wrong, what it actually means and what, if anything is the Constitutional basis to continue putting "one person, one vote into practice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PART ONE Why do we use this system to elect the president? Why do some people believe we should have a National Popular Vote and why is the NPV a terrible idea. We see how the National Popular Vote is a Trojan Horse being offered a "A more fair and Democratic system" when in fact it's an attempt by the left to swing elections to their side We will also be examining a number of common Fallacies about the so-called "One Person, One Vote Doctrine".... Why it is not in any way Constitutional, but is a pointless example of legislating from the bench. It's also a doctrine most people, conservatives and leftists alike, tend to completely misunderstand and misinterpret. So we will be examine the Landmark cases that comprise that doctrine and discussing them as a matter of Constitutional law, instead of the usual discussion that comes from tools like Chris Hayes on MSNBC... How they misread and misapply this doctrine in a way not at all consistent the law itself. Instead viewing it with a kind of prevented political redefinition that you find on the right and the left Categorical Imperatives on Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/channel/categoricalimperatives/ Categorical Imperatives on Parler - https://parler.com/profile/Lockeanliberal/pos Original Chris Hayes Segment - https://youtu.be/T1Dv25z480c A Defense of the Electoral College By: Rob Natelson https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/04/06/a-defense-of-the-electoral-college/ Did Founder James Wilson oppose the Electoral College and favor “National Popular Vote?” By: Rob Natelson https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/11/14/did-founder-james-wilson-oppose-the-electoral-college-and-favor-national-popular-vote/ The Electoral College is still right for America By: Rob Natelson https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/01/27/the-electoral-college-is-still-right-for-america/ Keep the Federal Courts Out of the Electoral College By: Tenth Amendment Center https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/10/keep-the-federal-courts-out-of-the-electoral-college/ Destroying the Electoral College Destroys Freedom By: Tom DeWeese https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/06/30/destroying-the-electoral-college-destroys-freedom/ The Plan to Circumvent the Presidential Election Process By: Bob Greenslade https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/09/01/the-plan-to-circumvent-the-presidential-election-process/ Constitutional Republic vs. Pure Democracy: How the U.S. Election Process Has Changed By: Sam Jacobs https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/08/17/constitutional-republic-vs-pure-democracy-how-the-u-s-election-process-has-changed/ Why the “National Public Vote” Scheme is Unconstitutional By: Rob Natelson https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/02/09/why-the-national-public-vote-scheme-is-unconstitutional/ Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that uses legal theory and moral philosophy to discuss current events surrounding law, politics & culture.

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/ 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¤cy_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.

Today on Legalese we will be discussing the issue dripping from everyone’s lis across the nation. The balancing act between gun rights and stricter gun control. Gun rights and gun control are not a new topic to this channel, In fact I have assembled a playlist of past videos touching on this subjects quite a few times from quite a few different perspectives (See List Below) Today’s video will be the first in a two part series looking at the best arguments for current gun control proposals, such as expanded background checks, assault weapons bans, Red flag laws, Discussing if it is indeed too easy for people with sinister motives to get their hands on a gun legally and more. Where this video will differ from past videos is that while my usual position when it comes to all individual rights, namely that I like my civil liberties the same way I likes my women. Strictly enumerated, vigorously protected and absolute… I will instead be adopting a more middle of the road position. Because this video is a genuine attempt to write an open letter to gun control advocates and meet them halfway. Which is why this video is premised on my uncritically accepting the assumption that: “If a policy for stricter gun control could be shown to have a demonstrable effect on numbers of gun violence and mass shootings, it would be worth curbing gun rights to implement that policy” I am doing it this way because I believe most gun control advocates are arguing their positions in good faith, under the belief their proposals will reduce future gun violence and I also believe it can be demonstrably shown these arguments are made off a lack of information that means their proposals would be entirely unhelpful and in some cases, they are arguing for policies that are already in practice and vigorously enforced. Past Episodes on Gun Rights & Gun Control - https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6NjbXOax5B01cxNekIOVZj-PQzyMY17c HR8 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/ 2021 Morning Consult Poll Background Checks - https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/10/house-gun-legislation-background-checks-polling/ Business Insider “I tried to buy a gun at Walmart twice, and roadblocks left me empty-handed both times” - https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-gun-buying-review-virginia-store-2019-8 Washington Free Beacon “Store Owner: Undercover CBS Purchase of AR-15 Broke Federal Law” - https://freebeacon.com/issues/gun-store-contacts-atf-virginia-police-undercover-cbs-news-purchase-ar-15/ Washington Examiner “Columnist fails gun check, blames store owners” - https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/columnist-fails-gun-check-blames-store-owners 18 USC § 922(d) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922 Meena Harris Tweet - https://twitter.com/meena/status/1529216221266079744 Uvalde school shooting: Teen gunman bought AR-15 style rifle day after he turned 18 - https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/uvalde-school-shooting-guns-17196715.php Why Background Checks Do Not Stymie Mass Shooters - https://reason.com/2022/05/17/why-background-checks-do-not-stymie-mass-shooters/ Public Mass Shootings: Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of U.S. Mass Shootings with Firearms, Generating Psychosocial Histories - https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/public-mass-shootings-database-amasses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings Follow & Support Rumble.com/legalese locals.com/legalese categoricalimperatives.substack.com odysee.com/@Legalese anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23 Contact the show: Legalese@gmx.us

Today on Legalese we have my fall Supreme Court Roundup. Of the cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this upcoming term I have focused on 5 which I believe have a high likelihood of becoming landmark cases in constitutional law jurisprudence. Including on case dealing with the State Legislature Doctrine, based on Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution. As well as 2 commerce clause cases, one dealing with the Indian Commerce Clause and another dealing with the dormant commerce clause as well as anti-commandeering doctrine under the tenth amendment. Finally we have 2 cases regarding Section 230, the statute often referred to as the Internet's first amendment. Moore v Harper – independent state legislature doctrine https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/moore-v-harper/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/moore-v-harper-2/ Haaland v Brackeen – Indian Commerce Clause case https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/haaland-v-brackeen/ National Pork Producers Council v. Ross –Dormant Commerce Clause https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-pork-producers-council-v-ross/ Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh – Section 230 https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/twitter-inc-v-taamneh/ Gonzalez v. Google LLC – section 230 https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gonzalez-v-google-llc/ Follow & Support Legalese Home Page - https://legaleseshow.com/ Rumble - https://www.rumble.com/legalese Substack - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/ Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/ Anchor - https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow To contact me for anything from topic requests, suggestions, feedback, to join as a subscriber to the Legalese newsletter or to support the show with a one-time donation or monthly membership through Locals/Patreon/PayPal/Venmo & more you can find all that in the "Links and Contacts" area of my homepage legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.