Month: December 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