The Constitution Study podcast

Studies show that the best outcomes for children is to live in a home with their married parents. If the world were perfect, then all children would have that chance. But the world isn't perfect, and either by accident or as the consequences of the actions of adults, children will be in need of people to step in for their parents. In our modern society, the role of finding homes for these children has been filled by the state government. What happens when those government entities place politics above the needs of their charges? A recent case in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts deals with that very topic. Plaintiffs Michael and Catherine Burke claim that the State of Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) discriminated against them in their application to become foster parents for religious reasons. When I looked at the case what I saw wasn't so much religious discrimination, but DCF placing political viewpoints above not only the Constitution of Massachusetts, but what is best for the children in their care.

As I write this, the United States is deep into the primary season for the 2024 Presidential Election. There is more than enough news, polls, allegations, recriminations, and influence peddling bombarding the American people, and will continue to do so, probably until the middle of next year. While most Americans have an idea of how the primary system works, it is usually superficial, incomplete, and ignores the fundamental purpose of election primaries, control of the election process.

For the last two years I have written showing you how much our current government in Washington, D.C. is acting exactly as King George III was back in the 18th century. While King George’s actions led the colonies to declare independence, the states have not shown themselves as willing to defend their rights and those of their citizens. Why is that? I think the answer can be found in the Declaration of INdependence: accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Could it be that all of the evils coming out of the federal government are still sufferable? Are the people will to suffer he ruling of judges, the monarchal actions of the President, Congress acting more like a House of Lords than the representative body it was created to be? Apparently they are. How long will this train of abuses have to grow before we throw off those in this tyrannical government and restore not only independence, but justice and liberty? What will it take for us to learn the truth of what Abraham Lincoln said: We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

Do you have a right to record people in public? A recent case out of Oregon asked that very question, can states restrict who and when people can record the conversations in public. Oregon law prohibiting recording public conversation except in certain limited circumstances was challenged by Project Veritas. As is so often the case, both the legal challenges and judicial opinion make some questionable constitutional claims. This is why we’re going to look at the opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court Panel and decide for ourselves, does recording the public conversations of others violate the law or does the law violate the Constitution?

Social media has become so much of everyday lives that we often don’t think about its use. This has led to what appears to be a large percentage of Americans developing what can at best be described as “interesting ideas” about the relationship between government and the various social media platforms. Some recent cases heard before the Supreme Court bring the question of the relationship between government actors and social media companies into question. Probably the best well known would be Missouri v. Biden, where the states of Missouri and Louisiana have brought suit claiming that members of the Biden Administration violated the First Amendment by attempting to influence what content would be deleted or deemphasized on various platforms. However, two other cases involving local officials focus on under what circumstances government actors can block access to their social media accounts. While most of the country seems to be focused on Missouri, these two cases bring up some questions the American people should really think about.