In this episode, the guys analyze the recent Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty.
First, though, we discuss why the show rejected a potential sponsor.
Next, we answer a great listener question from our (only?) conservative listener, “Dan Dan the Conservative Man.” Dan wanted to know about the exclusionary rule, so-called “illegal” aliens, a recent Supreme Court decision, and how all of those things play in to “Sanctuary Cities.” We think we answered this.
In our main segment, Andrew breaks down the meaningless portions of the Trump EO and contrasts them with the Definitely Unconstitutional provision.
Then, we answer another listener question, this one from Shane Argo, who wants to know about the legal and philosophical reasons for treating “attempted murder” differently than regular murder.
Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #22 about a buyer who finds a priceless artifact at a yard sale and knowingly buys it for a fraction of its true value. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday’s show. Don’t forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)!
Recent Appearances:
None! Have us on your show!
Show Notes & Links
- In Episode 52 of the show, we linked to this Facebook post by an immigration lawyer about the term “illegal” immigrant. We recommend you revisit both!
- Here is a link to Utah v. Strieff, 136 S.Ct. 2056 (2016), the case Dan asked about.
- This is the text of President Trump’s Religious Liberty EO.
- And this is a link to David French’s delightful article in the National Review complaining that Trump’s EO doesn’t go far enough.
Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/
And email us at openarguments@gmail.com