Idiotic legal pleadings, sports law, and some news debunking... what could be happier?

Today's episode breaks down the three main provisions of the just-passed CARES Act in terms of (1) additional unemployment benefits, (2) tax relief in the form of advance $1,200 "rebate" checks to taxpayers, and (3) the $500 billion "slush fund" for corporate giveaways. While there's more in this 880-page monstrosity, we break down the key parts for you! We begin, however, with some good news about the impending retirement of Ohio Rep., Trump-supporting lunatic, and soon-to-be-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Does this violate the Ineligibility Clause of the Constitution? YOU BETCHA. Is it #ClearAsKushner? YEP! And this time, does it matter? YES IT DOES! After that it's time for a full breakdown of the main components of the CARES Act, including how much money you'll be getting and when, what the costs are, and what the provisions are that can come into play to prevent all of this from winding up in Jared Kushner's pocket. You won't want to miss it! After all that, it's time for a quick segment on IRS Form W-7, which allows you to pay your taxes if you're a nonresident alien. Patreon Bonuses There's so much right now! If you're a Patron, you can submit your questions for next Tuesday's LIVE Q&A scheduled for 3/31 at 8 pm Eastern / 5 pm Pacific, and you can also enjoy Andrew's Lecture, "We're All Gonna Die!" and the accompanying slides! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on the Daily Beans Podcast, talking President Leahy. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links On the Ineligibility Clause: check out Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 (1974) (restricting taxpayer and citizen standing) and Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority et al. v. Citizens For The Abatement Of Aircraft Noise, Inc., et al., 501 U.S. 252 (1991) (invalidating Congressional action pursuant to the Ineligiblity Clause). You can read the final CARES ACT for yourself, all 880 pages of it! Please do fill out IRS Form W-7 if it applies to you. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Today's episode is the second half of our double-length episode in which we tackle your questions about the coronavirus and the law. If you haven't listened to Episode 370 (Part 1) first, go check that out! We tackle: The extent of federal and state powers during emergencies, including the National Emergency Act, 50 U.S.C. Ch. 34, the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5121, and 42 U.S. § 264; And we contrasted that with state powers, such as 2018 Maryland Code, Public Safety Art., Title 14, Article 3. Whether the House of Representatives has to vote in chamber, or whether they can use technology; Whether restrictions on gatherings violate the First Amendment; Whether you can be charged with a crime for spreading coronavirus; And much, much more! No #T3BE this week as we jam-pack 2.5 hours of content for your self-quarantining listening pleasure! Patreon Bonuses If you’re at the $2 level or above, we have an amazing new Law’d Awful Movies featuring the Larry Klayman/Roger Stone deposition that must be heard to be believed! Cucker Carlson! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links As an overview to states of emergency, we began with Ex parte Milligan (1866). Federal powers: 50 U.S.C. Ch. 34, the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5121, and 42 U.S. § 264; the federal government has enumerated powers as per the 10th Amendment. Check out the Rules of the House of Representatives. On time, place & manner we cited Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989). -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Today's episode begins with a discussion of the recent dismissal of charges by the Department of Justice against Concord Management & Consulting, LLC (and Concord Catering) with prejudice. Is this another example of Attorney General Bill Barr's meddling? We explain that it... probably... isn't. Probably. After that, it's time for the first part of a double-length episode in which we tackle your questions about the coronavirus and the law. First up are all the questions involving elections, including whether and how Trump can suspend or eliminate the election, and what would happen if he did. If you've always wanted Vermont Senator Pat Leahy to be President, well, this is the episode for you! No #T3BE this week as we jam-pack 2.5 hours of content for your self-quarantining listening pleasure! Patreon Bonuses If you’re at the $2 level or above, we have an amazing new Law’d Awful Movies featuring the Larry Klayman/Roger Stone deposition that must be heard to be believed! Cucker Carlson! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links On Concord Management: you can check out the 2019 Motion alleging that Concord was abusing the discovery process as well as the 3/16/20 motion to dismiss. As an overview to states of emergency, we began with Ex parte Milligan (1866). On primaries: Check out the Ohio Supreme Court's denial of the writ of mandamus to hold the March 16 primary, as well as the lawsuit filed by the Ohio Democratic Party. Oh, and if you want to be depressed, read Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927). Election statutes: 2 U.S.C. §§ 1, 7 (“Time of Election”) and 3 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. And of course, don't forget Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), which we broke down way back in Episodes 3, 4, and 5 of the show! Presidential succession is governed, inter alia, by the 20th Amendment and the Presidential Succession Act, 3 U.S.C. § 19, and the Speaker of the House is required by Art. I, Section 2 of the Constitution and implemented by the House Rules. Pat Leahy as President was first proposed by journalist Ian Millhiser. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Today's episode features two deep dives: first, we have an interview with David Williamson of the Central Florida Freethought Community to discuss their successful (!) five-year lawsuit to permit humanist, atheist & non-clergy invocations before the Brevard County council meetings. Find out how this case developed and learn some strategies for successful grass-roots activism even in the age of Trump! We also take one more deep dive into the amazing Spirit/Led Zeppelin lawsuit, this time taking a look at the recent en banc decision by the full 9th Circuit that reverses the earlier panel opinion (and is a win for Led Zep). The 9th Circuit has some interesting things to say about the "inverse ratio" rule that really brings out discussion from the past two weeks (see episodes 365 and 367). We know you'll enjoy it! After that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 170, which matched Thomas up against the dreaded REAL PROPERTY QUESTION. Can he slay the beast? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses If you're a patron at any level, you can ask a coronavirus question to be answered on the next two episodes, and if you're at the $2 level or above, we have an amazing new Law'd Awful Movies featuring the Larry Klayman/Roger Stone deposition that must be heard to be believed! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Check out the Central Florida Freethought Community We first took a "Stairway to the Supreme Court (?)" back in Episode 236 and then did a follow-up in Episode 288. Of course, we also covered Riehl and Rubin’s project in Episode 365 (“Every Melody Ever, Part 1”) and interviewed Riehl and Rubin themselves in Episode 367. Finally, you can read the recent en banc decision by the full 9th Circuit for yourself. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Today's episode continues our discussion from Episode 366 on the political, criminal, and civil legal issues surrounding coronavirus and COVID-19 in the United States, including whether the CDC has the authority to waive the fees associated with testing for the virus (they do!) and how this is going to affect civil society (badly). You won't want to miss it -- and you'll be stuck inside your house anyway, so you'll have all the time in the world to listen! We begin, however, with some nuance regarding An Andrew Was Right, the line of Presidential succession, the 12th and 22nd Amendments, and whether Barack Obama can be Joe Biden's Vice-President. Learn that... apparently there's an argument that he could? After that, it's time for the main segment, which covers COVID-19 and the coronavirus, specifically (a) Rep. Katie Porter's amazing cross-examination of the CDC Director and the legal authority; (b) lawsuits against con artists like Jim Bakker and Alex Jones; (c) Congress's response; (d) more on private lawsuits and the specific example of SXSW; and (e) a really interesting question about jury duty and the future of jury trials. After all that, it's time for a dreaded REAL PROPERTY #T3BE. Can you get it right? Just share out this episode on social media, include the hashtag #T3BE, your guess, and your reasons therefor and we will shower the winner with... well, you know. Appearances Andrew was just a guest speaker at Houston OASIS, and we’ll be working to bring you the audio of his speech from that event. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links In the "A" segment on Presidential succession, we referenced this law review article from Peabody & Gant. Check out the video of Katie Porter's blistering cross-examination of the CDC Director as well as the text of 42 CFR § 71.30. And, of course, you'll want to listen to our original coverage back in Episode 366. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Today's episode is a continuation of Part 1, in which we discuss Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin's "All the Music" project and the history and future of music copyright. We've got a special treat for you in that Damien and Noah are both on the show to answer our (tough!) questions. You won't want to miss this fun discussion! We begin, however, with a listener question/comment about attending law school and balancing costs, risks, and budgets that many of our listeners will undoubtedly find timely. Then it's time to bring on Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin for a fascinating deep dive into the mechanics, the law, and the public policy behind their "All the Music" project. Where should our sympathies lie? What changes to copyright law would better benefit music creators? How do Riehl and Rubin see the fundamental issues in music copyright? You won't want to miss this! After the interview, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 169 involving a tainted witness identification and the permissibility of eliciting testimony in court. Can Thomas start a new winning streak?? Listen and find out! Appearances Andrew was just a guest speaker at Houston OASIS, and we'll be working to bring you the audio of his speech from that event. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Our basics on music and copyright were covered in Episode 236 and then with a follow-up in Episode 288. Of course, we also covered Riehl and Rubin's project in Episode 365 ("Every Melody Ever, Part 1"). For (some of) the details on Riehl and Rubin’s project, check out Riehl's fascinating TEDx talk. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Today's episode breaks down force majeure clauses in contracts and takes a look at what might happen in the next few weeks as the world prepares to deal with COVID-19 coronavirus. Along the way we also tackle the news of the week, including the baffling decision out of the DC Circuit not to require Don McGahn to testify. You won't want to miss this episode! We begin, however, with some recurring Vice Presidential/line of succession questions and take a mini-deep-dive into the absolutely bonkers elections of 1796 and 1800 that produced the 12th Amendment, and what it says about vice-presidential qualifications. After that, it's time for our main segment on coronavirus, which includes a deep dive into various cases where contracts have been broken due to "acts of god." Is a global pandemic an "act of god?" Listen, find out, and you'll soon be able to whip out four-part tests if your hotel tries to cancel your room due to coronavirus scares. Then, it's time to pick apart the D.C. Circuit's 2-1 baffling opinion that the House Oversight Committee lacks standing to go to a court to enforce its subpoena over Don McGahn. This is technically an "Andrew Was Wrong," because Andrew did not imagine that any judges with functioning brain cells could have authored an opinion this bad. Find out what's next! After all that, it's time for a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam involving a tainted witness identification. And remember that you too can play along by sharing out this episode on social media and using the hashtag #T3BE. Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links For all your Vice Presidential qualification questions, check out the 12th Amendment! Here's the D.C. Circuit's decision in McGahn, and we also referenced Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) and, of course, Opening Arguments's good friend Richard Nixon in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 696-97 (1974). Finally, you can read Josh Chafetz's law review article, "Executive Branch Contempt of Congress." -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Today's episode brings you our first look at the efforts by Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin to copyright "every melody ever" as part of a way of reconceptualizing copyright law as it applies to music. SPOILER: We're going to have Riehl and Rubin on the show to discuss their work in more depth. We also discuss Chevron deference and a recent dissent by Clarence Thomas that's No Laughing Matter. We begin with a deep dive into the Riehl and Rubin "Every Melody Ever" effort, which builds upon the music copyright episodes we've previously discussed in Episode 236 ("Stairway to the Supreme Court") and Episode 288 ("More on Led Zeppelin"). What exactly are Riehl and Rubin doing, and will it put an end to copyright lawsuits against musicians? Listen and find out! After that, we check out a case (Baldwin v. U.S.) in which the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari -- and the dissent filed by Clarence Thomas. That prompted a headline that got some chuckles last week -- "Clarence Thomas cites Thomas in overruling Thomas" -- and we learn that (of course) this turns out to be no laughing matter, but part of a concerted effort to roll back not only a 2005 Clarence Thomas opinion, National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Svcs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005), but Chevron deference itself. Find out why even the howler monkey contingent wanted to take a pass on this case -- but not Clarence Thomas! After all that, it's time for the answer to perhaps the easiest #T3BE ever -- or is it? (It is.) And remember, you can always play along with #T3BE by sharing out the show on social media! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Our basics on music and copyright were covered in Episode 236 and then with a follow-up in Episode 288. For (some of) the details on Riehl and Rubin's project, you can read the write-up in Vice. Finally, you can check out Thomas's cert dissent in Baldwin v. U.S. here. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Today's episode takes a deep dive into the just-filed briefs in the Trump v. Mazars litigation pending before the Supreme Court regarding the legitimacy of the House's subpoenas for Trump's tax returns. Is the law on the House's side? (Yes, yes it is.) Are we confident that the Supreme Court will rule the right way in a case this bad? (Maybe?) In any event, you'll want to listen! Announcements Don't forget our YouTube Live Q&A this Sunday, March 1, at 1:30 pm Eastern / 10:30 am Pacific! You still have two days to register for Voter Protection Law School Boot Camp! We begin with an Andrew Was Wrong(-ish) from our good friend Randall Eliason on the actual frequency of below-guidelines sentences in light of Roger Stone's downward variance. Then it's time for a deep dive into Mazars v. Trump, where we look at the briefs filed by the parties and evaluate the arguments made by the Trump administration that the subpoenas issued by the House are invalid. How bad are these arguments? They're bad. Then, it's time to tackle the recent defamation lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign against the New York Times regarding a March 2019 op-ed by Max Frankel, in which Mr. Frankel argued that the campaign didn't need to coordinate with Russia to benefit from foreign assistance. Does this pave the way for really good discovery? (No.) After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE involving a law prohibiting providing assistance to undocumented aliens. Can Thomas start a new winning streak? Listen and find out. And, of course, you can always play along on social media by using the hashtag #T3BE! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Remember to check out our YouTube Channel ! If you're thinking about Democratic Voter Protection Law School Bootcamp, check out the flyer and then apply online. n the opening segment, Andrew references the U.S. Sentencing Commission (2018) report on sentences. in Mazars v. Trump, check out the President's Jay Sekulow-penned brief as well as the just-filed response by the House of Representatives. You can also read the Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt (2019) decision. Finally, check out the Trump Campaign v. New York Times defamation lawsuit. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!