Just as your lower leg jumps in reaction to a thump on the right tendon, people tend to react in a certain way to a specific stimulus. For example, any mass shootings leads reflexively to a call for gun control, whether or not the proposed laws would have made a difference. Just as reflexively, whenever there is violence in Israel there are those who will jump to attack the Israeli people, even if it means defending atrocities against them. These are emotional reactions, generally based on a person’s prejudices. That is why, here at the Constitution Study, we generally don’t respond to the initial story, but give ourselves time to attempt to get the truth from the horses mouth.
Whether the Hamas attack or the Maine shooting, we should all take a breath, look for evidence of the truth, then try to make a rational decision on how to move forward. That is just as true for those who are opposing the reflexive reactions as those who are committing them. Before we start pointing the finger we should make sure we are standing on solid ground. - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
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 However, over the last few decades, the role of the parent in these decisions has been replaced by experts.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
Has the place where you worked ever brought in an “Efficiency Expert”? These people are generally hated by employees, either because they like to meddle in what you’re doing or because they like telling you how to do your job. No place is the idea of efficiency more hated than in government. I guess one man’s streamlining is another man’s racist attempt to deny people work. - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel @OutLoudNews
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
In the "Rock, Paper, Scissors" of our federal government, who wins? Does a federal court always get what it wants, or are there limitations? While hearing cases on the question of "birthright citizenship", several District Courts claimed the power to rule over the President. I don't remember seeing that in the Constitution. Now, the Supreme Court has weighed in, deciding in the case Trump v. Casa that lower courts are not all powerful after all.
https://constitutionstudy.com/2025/07/21/483-universal-injunctions-decided/
The talking points around Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” seem to talk about tax cuts. Then there’s the new recision bill. Is money the only cots of government? What about the costs to our rights, our liberty, and our morals? - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel @OutLoudNews
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
