Lex Rex Institute Podcast – Détails, épisodes et analyse

In this episode, we take you through Jeremy Bentham's view on the role of policing and what policing used to look like - in that mythical, pre-Benthamic society. Oh, and we'll also talk about his mummified head. It relates. We promise.

The delay was BAD in this one. We apologize for repeatedly interrupting each other.

VCA Lawsuit in Orange County: https://www.lexrex.org/post/voter-choice-act-lawsuit

Intellectuals by Paul Johnson: https://a.co/d/bXOHeQY

First off, as you can probably tell by the episode length, this is not a normal edition of the show. As Alexander was extremely busy with his day job "being a lawyer" and "defending Americans' constitutional rights," this episode only features David (for which he apologizes profusely). That being the case, we kept this one quick.

Thanksgiving was a bit more than a week ago, so we thought we might talk a little about the Pilgrims - specifically, whether it's accurate to say they were looking for "religious freedom." (Answer: depends on what you mean by that.)

We'll also delve into what the First Amendment means when it says "an establishment of religion," and why that's important for understanding the separation of church and state.

In this episode, we continue our Fall of Rome series with special guest Alex Bostic, the Lex Rex Institute’s resident Roman history buff. This time around, we’ll discuss Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus and the way their careers exposed flaws in the Roman constitutional system. After that, David and Alexander talk about a case that may or may not end up being heard by the Supreme Court (we think it shouldn’t be, but that’s just us), Daye v. Garland. We explore the meaning of “crimes of moral turpitude” and talk through the concept of unconstitutional vagueness.

Finally, we wrap things up with Captain Kangaroo Court, taking a special look at court cases with an inanimate object as the defendant. (Spoilers: inanimate objects usually don’t offer brilliant defenses.)

• Fall of Rome – the Gracchi Brothers (0:40)

• Daye v. Garland (33:00)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (47:25)

In this episode, we discuss a preliminary injunction against the Biden administration's plan to forgive certain amounts of student loan debt and why the judge (correctly, we think) ruled that the plan usurped congressional authority.

After that, we turn to a New York gun law drafted after the decision in New York State Pistol & Rifle Association v. Bruen and talk about the constitutionality of gun licensing.

Then it's time for a pair of cases dealing with "race conscious" admissions practices at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. We'll consider the meaning of the 14th Amendment, the distinction between "bonus points" and "plus factors," and the admission to Harvard of one John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Finally, it's Captain Kangaroo Court, featuring a couple of lawyers disbarred for some... colorful reasons.

• Stay on student debt program (0:00:55)

• New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act (0:07:35)

• Race in college admissions (0:19:00)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (0:54:50)

JFK's Harvard application essay

In this episode, we discuss the newly-revealed documents that show that the Department of Homeland Security collaborated with social media companies to suppress misinformation, disinformation, and “malinformation” – we’ll discuss why that’s concerning, and what exactly “malinformation” even means.

After that, we examine Bittner v. United States, in which how you think about interpreting legal language makes the difference between $50,000 and $2.7 million (at least, for one man in particular). Then we’ll talk about the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear a case brought by a group of American Samoans seeking automatic citizenship rights for people born in the territory – and why their own government thinks otherwise.

Finally, we return once again to Captain Kangaroo Court, where you can hear about a court reporter sentenced to the opposite of work-release, and a Maine attorney with a… creative… solution for dealing with required professional development.

• DHS social media program (4:00)

• Bittner v. United States (15:20)

• American Samoa citizenship issue (34:45)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (50:15)

In this episode… well, we tell you right off the bat: this one probably isn’t our best, but at least it's short! Alexander’s actual legal work got in the way of prepping for the podcast, so we had to make this a quick one. We return to “Allegator Alley,” our etymology segment, to talk about the difference between “barristers” and “solicitors.” Next, we discuss why some federal judges are refusing to hire clerks from Yale, and finally bring you back to Captain Kangaroo Court where, among other things, we consider one Kentucky judge’s habit of roaming the courthouse in his unmentionables.

• Allegator Alley (etymology time!) (2:45)

• Judges won’t hire Yale clerks (11:50)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (19:00)

In this episode, we bring you another installment of our Supreme Court Hall of Shame series, this time dealing with 1990’s Employment Division v. Smith – in which the Court’s desire to prevent people from using drugs creates some very real problems for the First Amendment.

After that, we bring you the very first part of our (probably) short series on the Roman Republic, “The Fall of Rome” (get it?... because it’s Fall!). We start things off with a look at the way the Romans handled voting, which just goes to show you that wrangling over voting districts and procedure is a very old problem, indeed.

Finally, because we went a bit over time, we take the quickest of trips to Captain Kangaroo Court, where we’ll learn about this one weird trick for handling a bar investigation. (Spoiler: it doesn’t work all that well.)

• Supreme Court Hall of Shame – Employment Division v. Smith (1:00)

• Fall of Rome – Roman Voting (27:15)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (1:01:45)

In this episode, we bring you a brief update on some of Lex Rex’s real-world legal work and discuss one of the cases before the Supreme Court in the new October term, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross. We’ll talk you through what’s meant by the “dormant commerce clause” and consider the implications of allowing one state to dictate policies to the rest.

After that, we have an extra-special, extra-long edition of Captain Kangaroo Court for you! Alexander relates his experiences defending a client before an actual kangaroo court before we consider the age-old question: what legal rights do trees have? (There’s a stealth edition of the Supreme Court Hall of Shame in there, as well, although in this case we’re looking at a dissenting opinion.)

• National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (3:50)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (26:45)

• Not-so-secret Supreme Court Hall of Shame: dissent in Sierra Club v. Morton (40:30)

In this episode, we bow to the wishes of you, the listener, and introduce a new segment on etymology, in this first edition covering the word “contract,” as well as a surprise word chosen by Alexander. (We will be hosting another poll to see if the audience has come to regret this decision already.)

After that, we take a tip from one of our listeners and weigh in on Rachel Maddow’s reporting on Moore v. Harper, which we previously covered. We’ll discuss why we think she got a few key details very wrong and explain why normalcy bias can make some people miss basic aspects of the Constitution.

Next up, we examine one man’s lawsuit seeking to block the Biden administration’s proposed plan to cancel substantial amounts of student loan debt. We’ll discuss some legal issues with the plan before looking at the Department of Education’s strategy in responding to the suit and, finally, asking whether there might not be a better solution to the student debt crisis.

Then we return once again to wrap things up in Captain Kangaroo Court, where we’ll introduce you to the legendary Florida Man.

• Etymology time (0:02:30)

• Rachel Maddow on Moore v. Harper (0:10:30)

• Biden’s student debt plan (0:29:00)

• Captain Kangaroo Court (0:48:45)

Ask an Attorney – “Can Biden forgive student loan debt?” (https://youtu.be/qH7-GUtncAw)

Our prior episode on Moore v. Harper (https://rss.com/podcasts/lexrexpod/623596/)