When it comes to freedom of speech, there are two things that generate a fair amount of controversy. First is yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater and second is burning the United States flag. Recently, Donald Trump issued an Executive Order about flag burning. So let's take a look at the order and some of the history around flag burning.

Like any other profession, there are good law enforcement officers and bad law enforcement officers. I believe that most LEOs are good men and women, doing a difficult and dangerous job, often with little respect because of the actions of bad LEOs. For years, courts have been protecting these bad officers through their rules and doctrines. A recent Supreme Court case finds that one of those rules violates the Constitution of the United States.

Donald Trump’s recent executive order declaring a crime emergency in Washington, D.C. has created quite an uproar, both for and against. While there have been many claims on both sides, what I haven’t heard, except for my radio program, is a real constitutional analysis of his actions. With his recent post about sending National Guard troops to Chicago, I think it’s time we do that type of analysis.

Benjamin Franklin wrote “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” What does it say about the American people who seem willing to give up their right to control their government in exchange for Internet access?

As a society, we’ve decided that certain things like alcohol, tobacco, and pornography are not safe for minors. When I buy wine at the grocery store, I have to show my ID to verify my age. Take a look at my picture on the website and you’ll see I am well over the age where I can purchase alcohol, but I’m still asked to verify my age. That’s because my rights end when it infringes on the rights of another. However, the Free Speech Coalition thinks an adult’s “right” to access

Congress created Medicaid in 1965 to subsidize state healthcare system for people unable to afford healthcare. South Carolina has a law...

Back in March, the Supreme Court argued the case Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc., et al. v. Wisconsin Labor And Industry Review Commission et al. I reviewed those arguments in my article Are You Religious Enough? In June, the court released its decision, and thankfully, the court came to what I believe is the correct decision though that’s not to say they came to the conclusion for the right reasons.

Congress created Medicaid in 1965 to subsidize state healthcare system for people unable to afford healthcare. South Carolina has a law that prohibits public funds being used for abortion. For this reason, South Carolina disqualified Planned Parenthood from participating in the state’s Medicaid system. It should be no surprise that Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued. The Supreme Court’s decision though, that may surprise you.

Which came first, the states or the federal government? An even better question should be who created whom? Did the federal government...

There is a quote that pretty much sums up a recent Supreme Court decision regarding your health insurance. Oh what a tangled web we...

Earlier this year I wrote about the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the case Mahmoud V. Taylor. The case had to do with a parent’s right to opt their children out of content in public school they found objectionable, and the Supreme Court was asked if the plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction preventing the school from teaching their children objectionable content until the court had decided the case. On June 27, 2025, the court published its decisio

All of western culture is at war. The fundamental point of conflict is whether a person’s “gender” is determined by biology or psychology, reality or wishes. One of the latest battles in this war is the Supreme Court case United States v. Skrmetti. In this case Mr. Skrmetti, as Attorney General of the State of Tennessee, is defending the state’s law that prohibits the use of so-called “gender-affirming” care for minors. The answer the court came to will surprise some and infu

In the “Rock, Paper, Scissors” our federal government plays, 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 so powerful after all.

There has been a lot of talk about due process lately, but little of it seems to be informed by proof or evidence. Five of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights are called the “Due Process Amendments.” With a little bit of research, we can not only be sure of what due process is, but how the Constitution protects our rights to it.

Next year will be the 250th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Over the next 365 days I expect to see plenty of opportunities to remember the date. I want to start by remembering the reason why we declared independence in the first place.

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.

Imagine being awakened from a sound sleep by a group of armed men bashing in your door. Come to find out, it’s the FBI. Oh yeah, and they...

When people think of the American dream or what the Declaration of Independence means when it talks about “the pursuit of happiness,” what seems to come to mind most often is owning property. But do you actually own your property in America anymore? From taxes to regulations, it seems governments at all levels want to tell you what you can do with your own land. I want to take a recent experience I had as an opportunity to take a closer look at the question: Do you actually o

Birthright citizenship has been a very hot topic for the last few years. When Donald Trump signed an executive order that quoted both the...

Cities and states have been trying to put gun manufacturers out of business for decades with frivolous lawsuits, blaming them for the criminal use of their products. This got to be such a problem that Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Now Mexico has joined the fight, blaming Smith & Wesson for their drug cartel problems.