Year: 2020

*This Episode is not a new episode. It’s a remastered version of episode #15 about the 14th Amendment and Incorporation Doctrine. (Which has now been taken down).
So the episode that this was one meant to be leading into about the Tenth Amendment Center and the Incorporation Doctrine is not a forthcoming episode, it can be found here: https://youtu.be/cUPN3I-EijE
The information in this video is solid. This is strictly a legal;/historical account of the creation of the 14th amendment. So it’s also a great primer on the 14th amendment generally, whether or not you go on to watch the follow-up video this I tied to. This makes for a good introduction to the history and the law itself. The 14th Amendment has, in many ways, reshaped our entire country and is crucial to understand to navigate modern law and politics.
Enjoy!

14th amendment and Incorporation doctrine – What are they, why is it a crucial aspect of American Jurisprudence and how it affects us today

Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events, law, politics & culture.

Categorical Imperatives Videos
Bitchute – https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives
Categorical Imperatives on LBRY – https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives

Lockean Liberal on Social Media
Parler – https://parler.com/profile/Lockeanliberal

Categorical Imperatives – Episode # 28
“Legal standing, Texas v Pennsylvania addendum & why people who believe themselves to be the one true defender of Constitutional government have begun to be more destructive of Constitutionalism then the very people they believe they are protecting it from.”

After my last episode breaking down the Texas election lawsuit and why SCOTUS made the right call Constitutionally, it became clear from the responses I got that I should have spent some time explaining what Standing is. So I made a whole video about it. This video is also something of an appeal to Trump supporters out there. This is partly a response to many misconceptions widely held by Trump supporters still about this election and especially their reaction to the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Texas Election Lawsuit. It is also meant to be an olive branch as well. I don’t mean to attack anyone. I am making a direct appeal as a Constitutional Conservative to others who consider themselves Constitutional Conservatives.

These responses ran the gamut from people asking what standing mean ? And how does it work? How does it relate to citizens and government? To people under the impression standing is not actually a legal doctrine. People who didn’t understand the difference between a State and a citizen (seriously), people who mistakenly believed the Supreme Court was the right venue to handle election suits are meant to be decided in the Supreme Court, People who didn’t understand that the reason the Supreme Court didn’t take the case had to do with limiting our ability to seek redress of grievances (rather than a limit on the Court’s ability to hear the case), and people who thought that even if Texas didn’t have standing the Supreme Court should have taken the case anyway, and ruled on the merits. Which would be a vast and unprecedented expansion of Federal power. And a violation of some of our Country’s most important principles. Separation or Powers, Federalism, rule of law & limited government itself must be cast aside for them to get the outcome they want. These are values that I hope fellow Constitutional conservatives still actually value and still want to protect.
.

Amicus brief – https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163237/20201209155924009_2020-12-9TexasScotusAmiciBrief-FINAL.pdf

Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events, law, politics & culture.

Categorical Imperatives On Bitchute – https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives

Categorical Imperatives on LBRY – https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives

Lockean Liberal On Parler – https://parler.com/profile/Lockeanliberal

Episode #27
Today on Categorical Imperatives I endeavor to show why, conservatives who are upset over the Texas election case do not understand the Texas lawsuit they support, nor the entirely justified and predictable outcome of that case. That the Supreme Court was correct in dismissing the case for a lack of standing and explain WHY that decision is .Constitutionally sound. Why the Texas suit is entirely non-meritorious, how the procedural obstacles and lack of proof of jurisdiction required under original jurisdiction were not met and how the injunctive relief Texas was seeking was not only extreme, but insanely unconstitutional on numerous grounds. Violating fundamental tenants of Federalism, separation of powers, the anti-commandeering doctrine and the political questions doctrine to name just a few Constitutional principles this case runs afoul of.
How the only issue they mentioned was standing because it only takes one eliminating disqualification to leave the case as a whole lacking in merit.
I did not make this episode to be a dick or say “I told you so”… Because as I stated in the show, I have much respect for many of the people whose position I am criticizing.
I am doing this from a place of Textualist and Originalist Constitutional interpratation, because this is a philosophy many conservatives these days tend to claim to hold, This is a Textualist interpretation of the Constitution and an adherence to Originalism in the broader scope of Constitutional Law
I also consider myself a Constitutional Conservative. Which shouldn’t matter, since this is not a political opinion but a rigorous legal analysis. I just figure if there is anyone pissed off Republicans might be willing to listen to when they are told they misunderstand the case it would probably be someone like myself.
Which is the main reason I made this episode.So if you know someone who stubbornly holds onto the idea that the Supreme Court’s actions in this case were somehow an intentional slight towards Trump, or an act of cowardice and betrayal of the American people feel free to send them to this video for them to consider.

Complete briefing index for Texas v Pennsylvania – https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

For Context, here is the link to the entire video put out by Bill Whittle of which I only played a clip. Please do not go there for any reason other than to get a fair context of the entirety of his argument. – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8L4vSTWmsI&t=74s

Full filing from Texas AG Paxton – https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf

Arizona v California Case Brief – https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/150orig_3e04.pdf

Donald Trump’s motion to intervene – https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163234/20201209155327055_No.22O155OriginalMotiontoIntervene.pdf

Amicus Curae brief filed by Missouri et al. – https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163215/20201209144840609_2020-12-09-Texasv.Pennsylvania-AmicusBriefofMissourietal.-FinalwithTables.pdf

Opposition to Motion for Leave briefs:
Wisconsin – https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163393/20201210150111653_Brief.pdf
Georgia – http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163383/20201210145849997_Georgia–BriefinOpposition.pdf
Michigan – http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163387/20201210145404465_22O155TexasMIBIO12-10.pdf
Pennsylvania – http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163367/20201210142206254_PennsylvaniaOpptoBillofComplaintv.FINAL.pdf

Amicus brief by Constitutional attorneys (The brief I read a section of) – https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163237/20201209155924009_2020-12-9TexasScotusAmiciBrief-FINAL.pdf

Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events, law, politics & culture.

Categorical Imperatives On Bitchute – https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives

Categorical Imperatives on LBRY – https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives

Lockean Liberal On Parler – https://parler.com/profile/Lockeanliberal

Categorical Imperatives Episode # 25
Happy Bill of Rights Day! Today on Categorical Imperatives I thought it would be fitting to celebrate Bill of Rights Day (The day in 1791 the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) by discussing very new research that is completely rewriting the history of our so-called Bill of Rights.We will discuss how the bill of rights wasn’t seen as a bill of rights until 941. That anytime someone tries to put this label on the first ten amendments it has ALWAYS been to justify an expansion of federal power at home, both nationally and among the several states. This recent scholarship which has only began to emerge within the last 5 years thanks to historian Pauline Meier and legal scholar Gerald Magliocca. We turn everything you thought you knew about these amendments on it’s head.
Today will be Part one, discussing the original understanding of the amendments in 1791 by those who drafted and ratified these amendments. As well as the first attempt to try applying this label to some of these amendments by figures like John Bignham and through the 14th amendment’s Incorporation Doctrine.
Tomorrow for pat two we will be looking at how the “Bill of rights” label was only truly applied to these 10 amendments by FDR as justification for his new deal and as patriotic cannon fodder to gin up fears of Hitler during WWII. Then we will finish by looking at it’s latest reinvention as a mean of giving the federal judiciary more power by using these amendments to justify a much greater expansion of Judicial Review than had ever existed before WWII
Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events, law, politics & culture.

Categorical Imperatives On Bitchute – https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives

Categorical Imperatives on LBRY – https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives

Lockean Liberal On Parler – https://parler.com/profile/Lockeanliberal

*CORRECTION* 12:30 – The text of the Tenth Amendment should read “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.”

Today on Categorical Imperatives We take a look at the landmark Supreme Court case Gibbons v Ogden (1824) That is one of the first cases to interpret the Commerce Clause. This opinion is a foundational case for modern Constitutional Law

How One Landmark Case Shaped the Commerce Clause
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/02/how-one-landmark-case-shaped-the-commerce-clause/

John Marshall, the Commerce Clause and Gibbons v Ogden
https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/john-marshall-the-commerce-clause-and-gibbons-v-ogden/

Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that uses legal theory and moral philosophy to discuss current events surrounding law, politics & culture.

On this episode of Categorical Imperatives We finish our discussion started last week about the Electoral College, why the National Popular Vote Movement i Unconstitutional and the meaning of “One Person, One Vote Doctrine”

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

Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that uses legal theory and moral philosophy to discuss current events surrounding law, politics & culture.

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.

I am hard at work on my next episode of the show that should be out tomorrow. But it’s been so long since I put out a video. I put this together just to share a few of my thoughts on the election we have today. Hopefully parts will make you laugh and other parts will get you thinking about not just the election itself. But the human psychology behind Why we participate in this Secular Religious Holiday. and what does it accomplish?

Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that uses legal theory and moral philosophy to discuss current events surrounding law, politics & culture.

On this episode of Categorical Imperatives we discuss the importance of Federalism as a mainstay of our government’s checks and balances.
Why calls for electoral reform from particular political party every election cycle because they are just sore losers, is more than selfish. Why it is a short-sighted grasp for power that they demand without considering any of the consequences of the changes they propose or the merits of the structure they want to destroy.
We will be going over and article from Vox.com about why they say they think the Senate should have proportional representation. Why they are no good liars who are really just pushing for a scheme of national government that would do far more than what they claim they want, which is “a better balance of power between the states and the people”. They want to do away with States entirely. replace our legislature with a single national legislature that would be nothing more than a rubber stamp for the President’s wishes.
Why this Wilsonian impulse is an eminently dangerous impulse and why we should cherish the Madisonian Republic we have.

Vox Article- https://www.vox.com/2018/10/13/17971340/the-senate-represents-states-not-people-constitution-kavanaugh-supreme-court

Chris hayes electoral reform- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1Dv25z480c&t=483s

Roger sherman
Biography.com Article- https://www.biography.com/political-figure/roger-Sherman
Encyclopedia Britannica Article- https://www.britannica.com/biography/Roger-Sherman
General information- http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/biographies/roger-sherman/
Yale Repository of “The Great Compromise”- https://archives.yale.edu/repositories/12/resources/3083
History of “The Great Compromise”- https://www.thoughtco.com/great-compromise-of-1787-3322289
Wikipedia Connecticut Compromise- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise
Encyclopedia Britannica Connecticut Compromise- https://www.britannica.com/topic/Connecticut-Compromise
The Great Compromise- https://historycooperative.org/great-compromise/

Saint George Tucker
Tucker on Wikipedia- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._George_Tucker
Saint George Tucker Society- http://stgeorgetuckersociety.org/
Encyclopedia of Virginia – https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Tucker_St_George_1752_x2013_1827
Tucker’s Jeffersonian Constitution- https://lawliberty.org/st-george-tuckers-jeffersonian-constitution/
Tucker’s Blackstone & Other Selected Works- https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/tucker-and-the-us-constitution
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/tucker-view-of-the-constitution-of-the-united-states-with-selected-writings

Current events, law, politics & culture through a lens of legal theory and moral philosophy

It seems like every election cycle people can’t wait to have all manner of pointless debates, where two factions engage in politics as team sport. Competing to see which team can talk the most while substantively saying the least and competing to see who can actively & most thoroughly dismiss their opponent’s arguments Prima Facie. I am speaking of the controversy over whether we are a Democracy or a Constitutional Republic.
I want to end this whole debate by proving that anyone who presents you with this choice is trying to sell you a false bill of goods… This holds true both when being discussed in the parlance of our times and then through an Originalist argument based directly on the arguments made by those who drafted and ratified the Constitution.
I will be doing this by re-enacting that Great Debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists over what our system of government should operate in alignment with our Nation’s founding moral philosophy, that is known as American Constitutional Republicanism

►00:00 Introduction
►02:35 Constitutional Republic or Democracy
►12:40 Historical Evidence
►17:58 Montesquieu’s Political taxonomy
►27:50 American Constitutional Republicanism
►30:30 The Great Debate – Advocates and Opponents of the Constitution

Articles by Eugene Volokh
https://reason.com/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-americ/
https://reason.com/2016/11/14/the-united-states-is-both-a-re/
https://reason.com/2016/12/16/is-america-a-republic-or-a-dem/

“A Republic, Not A Democracy? Initiative, Referendum, and the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause” By: Robert Natelson https://works.bepress.com/robert_natelson/24/

“How the U.S. Election Process Has Changed” By: Sam Jacobs https://www.silverdoctors.com/headlines/world-news/constitutional-republic-vs-pure-democracy-how-the-u-s-election-process-has-changed/

Baron de Montesquieu,
Complete Works, vol. 1: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/montesquieu-complete-works-vol-1-the-spirit-of-laws
The Spirit of the Laws (1748) https://thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/The-Spirit-of-The-Laws.pdf

The Federalist Papers: https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/The-Complete-Federalist-Papers.pdf

Collected works of Greco-Roman philosophers and historians of Classical Republicanism
Thucydides – https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/thucydides
Aristotle – https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/Aristotle
Tacitus – https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/publius-cornelius-tacitus
Plutarch – https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/plutarch
Livy – https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/titus-livius-livy
Cicero – https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/marcus-tullius-cicero