Has anyone noticed that the instances of people referring to the United States as a democracy seem to be on the rise? Some people criticize those who don’t realize they are wrong, but I see this as a symptom of a much deeper and more consequential problem. The republic is crumbling. Not because of an increasing number of people who don’t know we are a republic, but because both democracy and aristocracy are taking over the nation, and no, that is not an oxymoron. As George Washington warned us in his farewell address:
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later, the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”
Just look around you. If we don’t have mobs trying to rule over us, we have politicians, bureaucrats, and “experts” telling us how to live our lives. And while the republic burns down around us, most of us are looking either toward the mob or the aristocrat to save us. What is a freedom-loving American to do?
https://www.americaoutloud.com/the-republic-is-in-trouble-what-will-you-do-to-help/
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 However, over the last few decades, the role of the parent in these decisions has been replaced by experts.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
The old saying goes, “There are only two certainties in life, death and taxes.” While that may be true, it should surprise no one some of the issues the Trump administration has been going through. I’ve already talked about using private applications for policy discussions, along with several of the lawsuits filed to obstruct Trump’s agenda. Today I want to point out a couple of unconstitutional actions proposed by Trump and some other actions taken both in court and outside of it. - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel @OutLoudNews
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
As a lifelong gun owner, I understand the awesome responsibility of owning a weapon. After getting my concealed carry license many years ago, I came to understand the greater responsibility of having a deadly weapon on my person. But as a constitutional scholar, I’ve come to realize just how badly states are infringing on our rights, simply because we decide to exercise one of them.
Today, I want to talk about “duty to inform” laws. After all, if the presence of a firearm is a threat to officer safety, than the officer’s firearm is a threat to my safety.
https://constitutionstudy.com/2025/03/31/467-duty-to-violate-your-rights/
One of the reasons I don’t jump on current news here on the Constitution Study is the need to both collect all the facts that we can, and have time to process them. This story about Trump’s National Security team accidentally including The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief in a Signal chat about the Houthis is a perfect example. There has been plenty of recriminations about how Mr. Goldberg was added to the chat, and even a few questions about the discussion happening on an open-source platform like Signal. But what I haven’t heard or read about is a much more serious question. Did Trump officials having policy discussions on non-government communication channels break the law? - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel @OutLoudNews
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
