Have you ever been audited by the IRS, required to get a government license, or been stopped at a checkpoint? What do all of these actions have in common? Among other things, it is the government placing the burden of proof upon the people. You are expected to prove to the IRS that you filed your taxes correctly, that you are qualified for the license, or that you are acting legally at the checkpoint. But this is not how the framers of our Constitution had designed government to work.
Look at the Fourth Amendment; the government needs probable cause before they can search or seize or the Fifth Amendment’s protection that you receive due process. If the government has the burden of proof in these areas, why not in others? What does it mean that the burden of proof has been put on We the People? And what can we do to restore a proper order in such situations?
The Constitution Study with Paul Engel on America Out Loud Talk Radio can be heard weekdays at 4 pm ET. Listen on iHeart Radio, our world-class media player, or our free apps on Apple, Android, or Alexa. Listen to other episodes of The Constitution Study, available on podcast.
https://www.americaoutloud.com/the-burden-of-proof/
Who is in charge of your children? That has been a perennial question that has grown in importance over the last few years. When I was a child, it was understood that, with rare exceptions, parents were in charge of a child’s upbringing. This included medical, religious, and educational decisions. However, over the last few decades, the role of the parent in these decisions has been replaced by experts. What happens when the goal of the experts differs from those of the parents? Who decides the future of the rising generations? It was understood that the state acted in loco parentis, in place of the parents, only for the safety of the child. A recent case in U.S. District Court shows that be it health departments, child services, schools, or even the courts. Government not only believes they know better than the parents, they are more than willing to act in loco parentis tyrannis.
https://constitutionstudy.com/?p=8897
With the release of ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence (AI) applications, there has been a lot of speculation and downright assertions about our future. With over 30 years of experience in Information Technology (IT), not more than a passing understanding of AIs, I've come to the conclusion that much of what I've heard is more science fiction than fact. A recent court case decided in the D.C. District Court revolved around one very important question. Do AIs have rights?
In this third installment of the three-part series on the branches of government, we look at the role of the third and weakest branch. At least that is what our Founding Fathers thought of it. What is the role of the federal judiciary? What are the extent of their powers, how do they related to the other two branches of government, and why is a proper understanding of the role of the judiciary critical if the United States is to remain a constitutional republic?
https://constitutionstudy.com/?p=8575
In the news business, there’s a type of story call “Man Bites Dog!” It get attention because it’s different. No one is surprised when a dog bites a man, but when the tables are turned, that’s news worthy, or at least those in the industry think so. But that got me thinking of another, more wide spread saying, “The tail wagging the dog!” This is when the very small minority takes control over the majority. Which got me thinking, has our focus on man bites dog stories in this country led to the tail wagging the dog? - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel @OutLoudNews
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
I’ve been asked a few times lately about sovereignty in America. This is often asked expecting a binary answer, either this or that is sovereign. However, life is rarely that simple. That said, the answer is still pretty simple, and very important to understanding a lot of news today. - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel @OutLoudNews
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
I cannot count how many times I've said it, but words mean things. It's one of the reasons I keep referring back to documents to see the actual words used so I can find their definitions. In the case Garland v. VanDerStok, the issue seems to come down not just to what the definition of a firearm is, but who gets to decide. What seemed to be forgotten in the oral arguments is the fact that, an arm by any other name, is still protected by the Second Amendment.
https://constitutionstudy.com/2024/11/25/449-when-is-a-gun-a-gun/
