Welcome, and thank you for sharing this pretty
essential stack of sources with us today. Glad
to be here. We are diving into, well, quite a
collection, recent legal decisions, some audacious
political counter moves, and even visionary reform
ideas. Yeah. And they all seem to circle around
this core theme, right? The battle over executive
power, checks and balances, maybe the erosion
of those checks. Exactly. So our mission today,
as I see it, is to understand not just what's
happening in the courts or state houses, but
really why it matters. Especially this idea you
mentioned, the incentive structure for political
compliance. Precisely. We need to look at where
executive power is being, you know, successfully
challenged, but also where the system itself,
maybe the courts, seem to be failing, which forces
people to think about, well, entirely new structures.
It sounds ambitious. We're starting with a surprising
look at state -level action fighting federal
pressure, then hitting some key accountability
moments or failures. Right. One constitutional,
one criminal. And then that radical reform blueprint.
at Project 2029. Yeah, and we'll wrap with the
big issues hitting the Supreme Court right now.
It's a packed agenda. It really is. OK, let's
unpack this core idea first, the incentive structure.
The sources suggest that when the executive branch
pushes hard, the target may be a university or
a state agency, often just caves. Why is caving
sort of the default? Well, it often boils down
to a kind of basic political math. You know,
the upside to just going along seems high. You
avoid immediate punishment. Maybe you get some
vague promise of future benefits. You avoid a
big messy fight. And the downside. Crucially,
the downside of obeying often feels low, at least
to the person making the decision, because the
negative consequences don't hit them directly
or not right away. They get absorbed by others
down the line. Right. Which brings us to Governor
Newsom in California. He seems to have decided
to just rewrite that math completely. using a
very aggressive tactic. He really did. The idea
was you have to create a massive immediate negative
consequence for complying, change the downside.
And the case study is fascinating. This federal
compact sent to major universities a 10 page
deal for funding. But the strings attached were
well. Oh, absolutely. Highly political, you could
say radical. Things like forcing universities
to bring back SATAC testing. Yeah, and banning
them from considering things like sex, ethnicity,
race and admissions, or hiring. And even, this
one's wild. punishing academic units that supposedly
belittle conservative ideas. It's astonishing
overreach. And here's the kicker, the really
key structural bit. Compliance wasn't overseen
by the Department of Education, the usual channel
for funding. No, it was the Department of Justice.
Exactly. Which gives them immediate regulatory
muscle. They could threaten to cancel federal
funding like instantly for any perceived violation.
So if a department hired a qualified black woman
and race was, say, a tiebreaker. That could trigger
losing billions. Potentially. Yes, billions gone
instantly. That's the threat. It sounds like
straight up political blackmail. But Newsom's
counter move was, I thought, kind of brilliant
psychologically. He took their threat and just
threw it back. He did. He basically tweeted,
and the source quotes it, if any California university
signs this radical agreement, they'll lose billions
in state funding, including Cal grants instantly.
Wow. And he added, California will not bankroll
schools that sell out their students, professors,
researchers, and surrender academic freedom.
So he completely flipped the script. Suddenly
obeying the feds means instant financial ruin
from the state. Exactly. The upside of federal
money is maybe vague future stability. The downside
Newsom created is immediate catastrophic loss
of state funds. It forces their hand. They have
to defy the federal demand to survive. And this
idea, changing the downside, the source is suggesting
it can go much further using federalism, right?
blue states banding together. Precisely. Imagine
a block of states creating counter pressure.
So if the federal government threatens law firms,
say, denying them access to federal courts, if
they don't tow some line, then maybe 15 or 20
blue states could threaten to deny those same
firms access to their state courts if they do
comply with the feds. Exactly. Suddenly the firms
are caught. Or think about political compliance
for federal officials. What if a future administration
promised serious prosecution for things like
Hatch Act violations committed now? So, obeying
a questionable order today could mean prison
time later if the political winds change. Right.
It introduces a serious long -term personal downside.
Changes the calculation for obedience right now.
And the most aggressive idea mentioned was states
enforcing their own laws against individual federal
agents. like arresting ICE agents. Yeah, for
things like kidnapping or burglary if they raid
a home without a proper warrant or ID. But wouldn't
that spark a huge constitutional fight? The Supremacy
Clause? It would spark a fight, absolutely. But
it forces a definition. The Supremacy Clause
only protects lawful federal actions. If an agent
is acting unlawfully outside their proper federal
authority, then they're potentially committing
a state crime. That's the argument. And the threat
of local prosecution could make agents think
twice, maybe even look for other jobs. It changes
the incentive for the agents themselves. Okay,
so Newsom shows how you can flip the script politically.
But what about the courts? Are the existing tools
strong enough for accountability? Let's pivot
to that. We have two cases, one showing clarity,
one, well, spectacular failure. Let's start with
the clarity. Birthright citizenship seems incredibly
straightforward from the Constitution, but it's
still heading to the Supreme Court. It really
does seem clear. The 14th Amendment. All persons
born or naturalized in the United States and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens.
That's it. Right. Historically, the only real
exclusion was children of foreign diplomats.
Native Americans got citizenship later via statute
in 1924. The parents' immigration status just
isn't mentioned. Which is why the lower courts
have been unanimous, right? Saying the president
can't just change the Constitution with an order.
Completely unanimous. Judge Gould and the Ninth
Circuit was blunt. The president doesn't have
power to modify or change any clause of the Constitution.
And the First Circuit agreed. Even with a long
opinion. Yeah, Judge Barron wrote like a hundred
pages, but apparently admitted it wasn't a difficult
question. Same conclusion. Yet the Supreme Court
took the case, even with no circuit split. Why
do that? Well, it's speculation, but maybe it's
strategic signaling. If they rule nine and nilling
against the executive order, it's a powerful
performative display of judicial independence.
It reassures people they'll uphold the basic
text, even in politically charged moments. Okay,
so contrast that clarity with the mess in the
Georgia ICO case. This is a huge deal, right?
Alleged conspiracy to steal electoral votes,
pressure on Raffensperger, fake elector. Oh,
yeah, very serious case. And the sources say
they had four co -defendants ready to cooperate
to rat on Trump. It looks strong, built on Georgia's
tough ICO law. But then the blunder, a self -inflicted
wound, it seems. Completely. D .A. Fannie Willis
hired her then -boyfriend Nathan Wade. And his
experience? Yeah. Well, it wasn't really in complex
prosecutions like this. More divorces, contracts.
Not ideal. Yeah. And the result. The appeals
court called it a really bad look. Enough to
force Willis off the case entirely. And the judge
gave them just 14 days to find a new prosecutor
or the whole case could be dismissed. Dismissed,
wow. That's a huge win for the defense. Massive.
And the implication, it goes beyond just a bad
look. It shows how poor personal judgment, even
if not strictly illegal, can create devastating
procedural delays. It helps high -profile defendants,
slows everything down, maybe chills other DAs
from taking on similar fights. But was the punishment,
Willis being removed, proportionate to the bad
look? Or was the judiciary sending its own signal
there? That's the debate, isn't it? Was the error
fatal procedurally or just personally embarrassing?
The court focused on public trust. But whatever
the intent, the outcome delay, potential dismissal
shows how fragile accountability can be, even
with strong evidence. Speaking of fragility,
corporate accountability also seems shaky. Look
at Apple removing the ice block app. Right, the
app that crowdsourced ICE raid locations, meant
to protect vulnerable people, including citizens
who might get swept up by mistake. And AG Pam
Bondi took credit for telling Apple to remove
it. She did, proudly. The app's creator, Joshua
Aaron, compared it to ways alerting drivers about
police. He said it was about protection from
arrest without probable cause, even invoked Nazi
Germany. Pretty strong words. Yet Apple folded
immediately. Which brings us right back to the
start, doesn't it? The incentive structure. For
Apple, defying a powerful AG means regulatory
headaches, bad PR, potentially huge costs. While
removing the app, the downside is low, affects
a relatively small group. easier to just comply.
Exactly. Avoid the conflict, even if it means
compromising on certain principles or user protections.
It shows the same dynamic applies across sectors,
political, academic, corporate. That sense of
fragility, that the current system struggles
with consistent accountability, it sort of pushes
you towards thinking about bigger changes, right?
Which leads us to Project 2029, moving from reaction
to proactive reform. Yeah, this is Jonathan V.
Last's blueprint for a potential future Democratic
trifecta. And the goal isn't just winning, it's
structural. It's about strengthening democracy
itself, pushing power back to Congress, Article
1, away from the executive, kind of authoritarian
-proofing the system. The scope is really something.
Core ideas, making D .C. a state, expanding the
Supreme Court. Aggressively prosecuting past
lawbreakers to signal impunity is over. Eliminating
the Department of Homeland Security. New laws
limiting presidential emergency powers. And deeper
structural stuff, too, aimed at the mechanics
of democracy. Definitely. Things like ending
gerrymandering, maybe proportional representation.
A constitutional right to vote for all non -imprisoned
adult citizens. Strengthening Posse Comitatus.
That's the law limiting military use domestically.
Right. Requiring governor approval. Right. And
also specifically targeting executive power grabs,
like banning the impounding of funds Congress
appropriates no more rescissions. And critically,
allowing a president to be indicted after leaving
office for federal crimes committed while in
office. That's huge. It attacks the idea that
the presidency grants temporary immunity from
accountability. But the most maybe radical idea
in there targets the judiciary itself, trying
to get rid of those contentious 5 -4, 6 -3 decisions
overturning laws. This one is really provocative.
Embed judicial review the court's power to strike
down laws in a statute, but add restrictions.
Specifically, require a unanimous vote of all
justices to declare a law passed by Congress
unconstitutional. Unanimous. Wow. How does the
source justify that? That seems like a massive
shift. The argument is it forces judicial restraint.
If a law is truly, clearly unconstitutional,
shouldn't all nine justices, liberal and conservative,
agree? If it's 5 -4 or 6 -3, doesn't that suggest
the issue is political or interpretive, not clearly
constitutional? So if it's that close, the will
of the elected legislature? Article 1 should
stand. That's the theory. It's a direct challenge
to the power the court asserted for itself way
back in Marbury v. Madison. It aims to return
significant power to Congress. Which sets the
stage perfectly for the Supreme Court today.
They're back from their three -month vacation,
earning those, what, $303 ,000 salaries? Around
that, yes. And Chief Justice Roberts knows the
court's power, its legitimacy, depends on the
public believing it's fair. That might mean needing
some strategic rulings against the executive
this term. because the docket is loaded with
cases testing exactly that executive power versus
other branches or individual rights. Absolutely.
If Roberts can't rein in the executive through
existing doctrine, those calls for Project 2029
style reforms like court expansion or that unanimity
rule, they're just going to get louder. OK, let's
look at some key cases. Separation of powers
first. There's a challenge to using presidential
emergency powers for tariffs. This is huge. The
Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power
to lay tariffs. Article 1? If the president can
just declare an emergency and do it unilaterally...
Then the executive basically gets a massive taxing
power the founders gave to the legislature. Precisely.
It bypasses Congress entirely on a core economic
function. Major separation of powers implications.
Then there's the independent agency's question.
The Federal Reserve firing case. Yeah, the fundamental
question is... Can the president fire anyone
in the executive branch at will? Even heads of
independent agencies designed to be insulated
from politics, like the Fed. The test case involves
firing Fed Governor Lisa Cook. Right. If the
court says yes, the president has absolute firing
power over the Fed. Well, you could see markets
tank. The Fed's independence is crucial for economic
stability. Policy needs to follow data, not political
whims. And due process comes up again with immigration.
Yes. That case challenges ICE raids where people,
sometimes including U .S. citizens, are arrested
and shipped off without basic procedural rights.
No Miranda warnings, no lawyers, no judge. So
does the government have to follow fundamental
rules even during immigration enforcement? That's
the core constitutional question the court has
to answer. Then we have the social rights cases.
Voting Rights Act in Louisiana. Right, a challenge
to a map with two majority black districts, brought
by white residents claiming they faced racial
discrimination in the map drawing, a complex
VRA issue. And some really emotionally charged
ones too. Trans athletes? Conversion therapy?
Yeah, the case involving trans girls on field
hockey teams and another challenging a Colorado
law that bans therapy aimed at changing someone's
sexual orientation. These put the court right
in the middle of intense social debates. Finally,
we have to acknowledge that context, the potential
perception of ideology. The sources noted the
previous administration won, what, 18 out of
22 recent emergency docket cases. That kind of
win rate. Yeah, it raises red flags. It looks
potentially ideological. which is incredibly
damaging to the court's legitimacy. And the long
term danger. It's about stare decisis, the principle
of respecting precedent. If the court keeps overturning
prior decisions, especially seemingly along ideological
lines, it starts to look like law is just, you
know, the personal opinion of a past court. And
the public stops seeing them as objective arbiters.
And starts seeing them as just nine unelected
politicians in robes. That erodes the foundation
of their authority. Wow. Okay, so we've gone
from state governors playing political hardball
and changing incentive structures through accountability
failures in courts and corporations. looked at
a pretty radical blueprint for democratic reform.
All while the Supreme Court is sitting on cases
that could fundamentally reshape presidential
power, agency independence, and basic rights.
Yeah, it's quite a landscape. What's really fascinating
is that tension, you know, between the immediate
political moves like Newsom's tweet clever fixes
a specific problem and these much bigger long
term structural changes proposed in Project 2029,
like that unanimous review idea. And the Supreme
Court's decisions this term could really push
things one way or the other. Absolutely. They'll
signal whether the existing constitutional framework
is seen as strong enough to rein in executive
power, or if pressure for really fundamental
structural reform becomes, well, maybe inevitable.
It leaves you with a heavy thought. If the highest
court keeps chipping away at precedent, it's
stare decisis. Treating past rulings as just,
well, disposable opinions. What's left? What
foundational belief beyond the Constitution's
text itself can citizens rely on to keep faith
in the stability and fairness of the rule of
law?