What does it mean to be a moral and religious people? Noah Webster defined “moral” as “Relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and with reference to right and wrong.” And he defined “religious” as “Pertaining or relating to religion;” So when John Adams said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”, what does that mean?
As I look around the United States, I am not only seeing a people that are not only more “tolerant” of, but encouraging immorality and antagonism to religion. Does this explain not only the ever expanding federal government, but its continued failures? Was Mr. Adams correct, that the Constitution of the United States, and by extension the government it created, was made only for a moral and religious people? As we have abandoned the restraints that morality and religion places on a society, have we seen the inadequacies come to light? Now that the America people look to government to provide for their hedonistic pleasures, what chance does the Constitution have to govern such a people? Are the United States of America doomed to fall like Rome? Will we learn from what we’ve witnessed the last couple of decades, or are we doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past? - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
@MalcolmOutLoud.
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 However, over the last few decades, the role of the parent in these decisions has been replaced by experts.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
We all have things we wish for. Maybe a car, a home, or a nice vacation. While those are generally safe wishes, we really should take some time to consider the second and third-order consequences of those wishes. Which leads to the axiom, “Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it.” - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel @OutLoudNews
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
Recent actions by the Trump Department of Justice are a sharp turn from what we’ve seen over the past few years. Are these attempts to correct pervious errors, or are they just more political activism in federal law enforcement? - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel @OutLoudNews
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
When is discrimination not discrimination? While the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals would have you think that reverse discrimination is not only legal, but OK. However, discrimination is discrimination, even when it’s used in an attempt to right some past wrong.
https://constitutionstudy.com/2025/06/30/480-ames-v-ohio-department-of-youth-services/
