This past week the Chief justice of the US Supreme Court ordered a stay in the beginning of the trial of the case, Juliana v US. this is the second time that the re has been a stay in the famous case, which seeks to force the US Government to pursue policies that would "keep warming in check." Both the Obama Administration and the Trump administration (which submitted a 103 page argument to the Court asking for the stay) have argued that the case is problematic, in that it violates the separation of powers in the Constitution. The plaintiffs, supposedly a group of young people, claim that their civil rights have been violated and they have demanded policy changes that would "protect their civil rights" from the effects of global climate change in the future. This raises a number of questions, one of which is, what exactly is a "civil right?"

The Congress shall have Power To ...regulate Commerce...with the Indian Tribes.... ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 3 That's how it always begins. Very small. A man living in Oklahoma has a girlfriend who has an ex-boyfriend who gets into it with the man. In a gruesome crime, the ex-boyfriend is murdered, his genitals left on his chest on the side of the road. Not being a criminal mastermind, the man, Murphy, is caught. As there is little doubt and much evidence that he did it, he is tried and convicted of capital murder. The sentenced is death. Not so fast... The crime was committed by a member of the creek nation. The victim was also a Creek. And it appears that the crime was committed on Creek land. That being the case, the state of Oklahoma would have no jurisdiction, it would be a Federal case, requiring a Federal 9not State) prosecution. Because of the laws and agreements with the Tribes, such a crime cannot have a death penalty unless the tribe agrees to it, which they almost never do. Not so fast... was it on Creek land? The Treaty of 1831 says that it is, but subsequent treaties (1966) make it less than clear. Did Congress intend to take the land where the crime occurred away? Did they actually do it? Did somebody make a big mistake and forget a sentence in a document more than a century ago? And if it is Creek Land, what does that mean to the State of Oklahoma? What if the State of Oklahoma, as we've known and loved it since 1907, isn't the state of Oklahoma? what if it's only half the size it is today? Absurd, you say? That's not what the 10th Circuit Court says. And depending on how the Supreme Court rules, it might not be so crazy. By next June there might be a new old Territory and fifty percent less of the State of Oklahoma. It's Constitution Thursday on The Dave Bowman Show...

The one thing that you can say about the federalists is that they were optimistic. They truly hoped that, truly believed that Americans would see it for what it was and grasp their liberties firmly and protect them for generations yet to come. The Anti-Federalists weren't quite so rosy in their outlook. While some were firebrands and dedicated to the idea of State Sovereignty and Confederation, more of them were pragmatic and understood that things had to be changed. But was the proposed Constitution the best way to make that change? Perhaps the most lucid and well spoken of the Anti-federalist was an anonymous writer who went by the pen name "The Federal Farmer." his writings, which began this week in 1787, were a measured consideration of the proposed government. in fact, of the the three possible forms of government that he saw for the nation, the proposed Constitution probably made the most sense. But that didn't mean that there weren't some potential problems that, whoever he was, could foresee...

In 1971 a Senator from Alaska began publishing classified documents known collectively as "the Pentagon papers." The ensuing kerfuffle tested the limits of Article 1 Section 6. Dave & john take a look at the Constitution and The Pentagon Papers

After recent school shootings, the proposal was made to raise the age for purchasing guns to twenty-one. in at least two cases, challenges were filed and in at least one of those, the challenge was upheld as the practice was seen as being in violation of equal protection and various State laws. So now we move to the state of Louisiana. The Legislature there, deeply concerned about the well-being of young and vulnerable women who dance with exposed breasts and/or buttocks for money from patrons who must remain at least three feet away, must be twenty-one years of age in order to do so. Naturally, the dancers who performed with exposed breasts and/or buttocks and who were under 21 sued in Federal Court. They are claiming that the law would violate their Constitution right to dance with breasts and/or buttocks exposed for money from patrons who must be at least three feet away. Now look, there are a whole lot of issues here that we could get into, and perhaps we will tomorrow. But for now, the question is simply this: does a law restricting the right to dance with breasts and/or buttocks exposed to twenty-one and older meet muster Constitutionally? It's not quite as clear cut as you might think, and it's what we talk about today on Constitution Thursday...

In recent days, we have watched the debate over the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice. While the debate rages around things such as abortion, gay rights, women's rights, and so forth, the single fact remains that these things are rarely the meat and potatoes of what the Supreme Court does. Almost never are those things noticed until after the fact. indeed, very few (if any) questions of any nominee relate to them or to the understanding of how those things might end up affecting our day to day lives. In 1820, a Pennsylvania man was found guilty of violating a State Law that required him to report for duty as a part of the militia during the War of 1812. He had refused service in the Pennsylvania Militia, and now it was time for the state to lower the boom. But the Feds also wanted their pound of flesh, because they believed that the Congress has powers over the Militia, and this man has spurned those laws. The Court ruled that the 5th Amendment didn't apply because (a) there was no incorporation and (b) the Constitution had not limited states from passing laws to punish people for failing to show up for the Militia and (c) Congress had passed such laws. Back in 1922, a man was found guilty in the State of Washington of violating the state's prohibition against the production and distribution of alcoholic beverages. Then the fed stepped in and after he was convicted charged him with violations of the Volstead Act, the national law against the production and distribution of alcoholic beverages. He protested, claiming that under the 5th Amendment this amounted to double jeopardy. The Court said that there were two systems of sovereignty, State and Federal. As a citizen, we voluntarily accept that we live under both sovereigns and therefore we can be punished by both for the same act, just not twice by either. And in 2015, a man was stopped for having a headlamp out in his car. The officer who stopped him smelled marijuana and found the driver was a convicted felon, so he searched the car, finding drugs and a 9mm handgun. The man (Gamble) does not deny this. The state convicted him of being a felon in possession of a handgun, and then the Feds also charged him with the same crime. And the Supreme Court has been asked, once again, to consider whether or not the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine is Constitutional.

When the USS Caine, a fictional minesweeper in WWII, was in danger of foundering in a hurricane, the Executive Offer, with the encouragement of the Wardroom, relieved the CO and "saved" the ship. It was a clear cut case of mutiny, and as such a Court Martial would be required to resolve the matter. In the climatic moment, it becomes clear that though the Captain may be in trouble, the XO acted improperly and precipitously. He was not well advised and the Wardroom failed in its primary duty. The interesting thing is that the movie itself, and specifically was in the minds of the commission that gathered to consider the words of what would become the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution. Today you can buy a "25/45" T-shirt and you'll hear Talking Heads debating the whole idea of how the 25th Amendment could be used to rid the country of the hated Trump. What was once considered a ridiculous idea has gained enough steam that Vice President Pence had to specifically deny that he had conversations with the Cabinet regarding the implementation of the 25th. In fact, many people still believe that he wrote the infamous New York Time Op-Ed as the opening shot of a 25th coup d'état. The problem is that the 25th was never intended to get rid of a President because some part of the country doesn't like the way he parts his hair...

One of the myths about the Constitution is that The Federalist Papers are a commentary, like Matthew Henry's, on the Constitution. They are not. They are simply and only a passionate written argument in favor of ratification of the Constitution. That doesn't mean that they are not without merit and not without lessons for us today. They do give us insight into the understanding of the document which the Framers - at least those in favor of ratification - held of the government plan which they had created. To that end, they are not only important, but they are required study for anyone who seeks a serious understanding of the Constitution of The United States. Which is why my ears picked up when I heard questions directed to Judge Kavanaugh yesterday regarding not just his personal favorite Federalist Papers (which did not include my personal favorite), but also his explanation of how Federalist 51 has impacted his personal Judicial philosophy. Federalist 51, famous for one particular phrase, reminds us of some very important ideas about the structure of our Government, many of which have been diluted and dissipated through the years. But Judge Kavanaugh has been very active during his time on the Federal bench in opposing that dilution. A fact that has not gone unnoticed by those paying close attention to the things that really matter rather than those protesting the things that really don't matter as much as they would want hem to matter. The bigger question that should come out of Judge Kavanah's answer is why is it that we have gotten so far away from the ideas and constructs that were established? and why then is it such an problem for some that a Justice Kavanaugh looks like he would seek a return to the separation of powers and unbalanced system the Framers intended? Ay, there's the rub...

James Madison once wrote that "A Government is instituted to protect property of every sort...This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own." So what happens when a government, other then the national government, that is, decides that it wants what you have, even if they claim it's for a "public benefit?" In the Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, a nice old lady - she's even named Rose Mary Knick - owns a cute place on the edge of town that has a bit of property around it that - this is important - she owns. (Commence menacing music here) The Township loves its history and it wants to share it - all of it - with pretty much anybody who happens to saunter through the Township. And for reasons that will soon become the focal point of our discussion, it has decided that some of that history is on little old Rose Mary's property. So what's a Township to do? You might think that they would sit down with Rose Mary and have a nice pleasant conversation - probably over tea and milk and homemade cookies that she would make for the occasion - about the importance of this particular piece (or pieces) of history that might be on her land and work out a way that would benefit the Township, Rose Mary Knick and all the history loving wanderers who go gallivanting through the Township of Scott. Yeah... you might think that. So of course, that isn't what the Township of Scott, Pennsylvania decided to do... And it's our case for this week on Constitution Thursday, somewhat tongue in cheek titled: Grandma's Haunted History...

A few years ago there was a wonderful show on TV, "How the States got Their Shapes." Host Brian Unger takes you around the country and looks at.... well... how the states got their shapes. It's all based on the book of the same name (HERE). For what it's worth, the show is better than the book, but the information is the same. At any rate, why does any of that matter? Yesterday, the California Supreme Court ruled that the much heralded and discussed Prop 9, a vote by the people on whether or not to separate California into three States should be removed from the ballot because it "might" violate the States Constitution. Now... whether it does or not we have to ask some questions about this whole deal. Plausibly live, It's Constitution Thursday on The Dave Bowman Show!

On Constitution Thursday we delve into the statement by the current President to the effect that he could pardon himself, were such a pardon were actually needed. It isn't as clear-cut as you might want it to be - from a Constitutional viewpoint. But I would think that from a political viewpoint, it would create immense problems. Great problems. The biggest and best problems we've ever seen in this country. And that would be, of course, just the beginning...