Encountering law enforcement can be a nerve wracking situation, even if you've done nothing wrong. Imagine you've pulled over to safely deal with something in your vehicle, then have a police officer pull up behind you. Nothing to worry about, right? Then imagine, after providing your drivers license, you're pulled out of your car, searched, handcuffed, and "stuffed" into the back of the police cruiser while the officer searches your vehicle from stem to stern, even though you've done nothing wrong. Now image, after this arrowing abuse of power, the officer claims "qualified immunity" and asks the court to dismiss the case. That is what happened to Basel Soukaneh in Waterbury, CT. The current state of that case is certainly worth looking into.

There's an adage in the legal profession, "hard cases make bad law". It can also be said that bad cases make bad law, and the case of United States v. Rahimi is one of those bad cases. The question is legitimate. Does 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8), which prohibits a person under domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm or ammunition, violate the Second Amendment. However, for those of you who are thinking the answer is yes, Zackey Rahimi is not the person you would want leading this case.

There are certain lies told about the Constitution that repeatedly grind into me like salt in an open wound. One of those is the repeated statement that "The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, to the states." By which, the speaker usually means that, before the Fourteenth Amendment, none of the ten amendment in the Bill of Rights could be applied to the states. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a flat out lie, and I will prove it here.

The First Amendment protects our right to petition the federal government for a redress of grievance. But what happens when said federal government tells you that you don’t have the right to petition? Because that’s exactly what happened when the Supreme Court decided the case Murthy v. Missouri.

After the January 6th riots the U.S. Department of Justice began charging anyone they thought participated, but not just for the crimes they committed. According to the DOJ, anyone who showed up at the Capitol had corruptly obstructed or impeded an official proceeding, punishable by a fine and imprisonment for up to 20 years. Many claimed that the DOJ was overcharging these J6ers, misusing the law to punish dissenters. When it comes to 18 U. S. C. §1512(c), SCOTUS agreed.

Seeking redress of our grievances is an important right, protected by the First Amendment. Can the federal government deprive you of due process as a condition of seeking redress? While not talked about in that way, that’s pretty much what the case SEC v. Jarkesy is all about. After assessing George Jarksey J. civil penalties for violations of antifraud provisions, the SEC attempted to deny him of his right to a trial by jury. Could this be a start of reforms of unconstitutional administrative law courts?

There are certain legal terms and cases that most people don’t know about, at least until their used to bite someone in the backside. One of those terms is Chevron Deference, or Chevron Doctrine. It comes from a 1984 case where the Supreme Court came up with the great idea that, when Congress isn’t specific, the bureaucrats get to decide. While the court may have overruled Chevron, Looper may not be any better.

When the delegates to the Constitutional Convention debated the role of the chief executive, many expected George Washington to become our first king. Between Mr. Washington’s humility, and the delegates recent experience with a king, they decided we'd be better off with a President rather than a king. With the recent case of Trump v. United States, many have asked, have we turned the office of President into the office of king?