Uploaded February 2024 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Episode # 69
There are few issues more partisan and controversial than the immigration issue. And where you find controversial issues, you find all manner of bullshit, half-truths, politically biased reporting and false narratives.
While I am not interested in, nor do I intend to discuss the immigration issue as a policy matter, there is one sense in which I do want to discuss it. That is as a legal matter. Because there is a pending immigration case right now you have probably heard of — Department Of Homeland Security v Texas. As is to be expected, there is no shortage of false narratives and melodramatics surrounding this case on all sides of the issue. So I am going to be taking on some outrageously biased legal arguments regarding this case and it’s subject matter. Breaking through the hard outer shell of lies, to get to the ripe, juicy truth at the center.
Along the way we discuss tips and tricks that you can employ to help you spot biased political arguments disguised as legal arguments. We also show how politicians and attorney’s often misuse Supreme Court precedent and twist case law to give you the impression a particular case supports their arguments when nothing could be further from the truth!
Show Notes Page For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-texas-border-crisis-what
Follow & Support
Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.com
Legalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com
“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX
Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com
Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
Episode # 69
There are few issues more partisan and controversial than the immigration issue. And where you find controversial issues, you find all manner of bullshit, half-truths, politically biased reporting and false narratives.
While I am not interested in, nor do I intend to discuss the immigration issue as a policy matter, there is one sense in which I do want to discuss it. That is as a legal matter. Because there is a pending immigration case right now you have probably heard of — Department Of Homeland Security v Texas. As is to be expected, there is no shortage of false narratives and melodramatics surrounding this case on all sides of the issue. So I am going to be taking on some outrageously biased legal arguments regarding this case and it’s subject matter. Breaking through the hard outer shell of lies, to get to the ripe, juicy truth at the center.
Along the way we discuss tips and tricks that you can employ to help you spot biased political arguments disguised as legal arguments. We also show how politicians and attorney’s often misuse Supreme Court precedent and twist case law to give you the impression a particular case supports their arguments when nothing could be further from the truth!
Show Notes Page For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-texas-border-crisis-what
Follow & Support
Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.com
Legalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com
“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX
Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com
Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.



![Stromberg v California [Remaster]
This video is a remastered re-release of a very old episode I did on the case of Stromberg v California (1931)... This video was the very first in my series of Today In Supreme Court History...
I noticed this video had started generating a bunch of new views the past few days, and I noticed, like many of my old episodes, the sound quality was absolutely terrible, So this is not a new video, I just did some post-product on work on the original audio track and got it sounding MUCH better than the original episode.
This was a pivotal case because it was the very first time the Supreme Court incorporated the First Amendment protection of free expression on a State, rather than Federal level in 14th amendment jurisprudence based on substantive due process.
Enjoy!
►00:00 Introduction
►05:13 Stromberg v California Case Brief
Follow & Support
Rumble.com/legalese
locals.com/legalese
categoricalimperatives.substack.com
odysee.com/@Legalese
anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives
youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23
Contact the show: Legalese@gmx.us Stromberg v California [Remaster]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Zo16BxtS_cU/mqdefault.jpg)






