Speakeasy Ideas Presents

THE LAW WITH D.K. WILLIAMS

Giving the courts credit when they get it right. Holding them accountable when they don’t.

D.K. Williams is a rare bird. He’s a lawyer who understands economics, cherishes freedom, and loves ideas. That’s why he’s part of the Speakeasy Ideas crew!

In his weekly podcast, THE LAW, D.K. judges what the courts say about the law according to the standards of the U.S. Constitution as well as the timeless principles of individual freedom, private property, and natural justice.

THE LAW is part of the Speakeasy Podcast feed. Don’t miss an episode! Subscribe to Speakeasy Ideas podcasts on iTunes or your favorite podcast app. You can also find D.K. on Facebook and Twitter

D.K. is available for teaching, consulting, inspiring, & public speaking. He’s quite good. Just send an email to [email protected] and we’ll make it happen. 

The Law episode 47: New York Times v. Sullivan

The Law episode 47: New York Times v. Sullivan

In this famous case, L. B. Sullivan, a Montgomery, Alabama, City Commissioner, sued the New York Times for libel and won a $500,000 verdict in a state court. The Times had run a paid ad, that contain factual errors, critical of the way Alabama and some of its local police had treated civil rights activists. The Times appealed the half a million dollar verdict to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming its rights protected under the First Amendment had been infringed by the state court ruling.  The Supreme Court agreed. 
The Law episode 47: New York Times v. Sullivan

The Law episode 45: Gamble v. United States

Everyone knows that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment means you can not be criminally tried for the same thing twice, right? Well, you actually can. The “Dual Sovereign Doctrine” allows for a state court AND a federal court to punish you for the exact same thing. That’s what happened to Terance Gamble, who was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in Alabama state court where he was sentenced to one year of incarceration. Then, because the federal government does not have enough to do, he was charged for the same thing in federal court where he received a 46 month sentence.  
The Law episode 47: New York Times v. Sullivan

The Law episode 44: Tax Board v. Hyatt

How important is stare decisis? Two months ago the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, overturned a 40 year old precedent concerning the sovereign immunity of individual states. The majority opinion, written by Clarence Thomas, held that correcting the court’s constitutional mistakes outweighed the doctrine of stare decisis and the importance of abiding by precedent. The respect given to stare decisis and the willingness of the Court to overturn prior decisions will play a major role in upcoming Supreme Court decisions. 
The Law episode 47: New York Times v. Sullivan

The Law episode 5: Wickard v. Filburn

In episode 5 of The Law, D.K. Williams discusses the day federalism died, in the case of Wickard v. Filburn, in which the New Deal era Supreme Court held that Constitutional power to regulate “interstate commerce” authorizes Congress to regulate activity that is neither “interstate” nor “commerce.” Seriously. That’s what they did. 
The Law episode 47: New York Times v. Sullivan

The Law episode 4: Qualified Immunity

In episode 5 of The Law, D.K. Williams discusses the day federalism died, in the case of Wickard v. Filburn, in which the New Deal era Supreme Court held that Constitutional power to regulate “interstate commerce” authorizes Congress to regulate activity that is neither “interstate” nor “commerce.” Seriously. That’s what they did. 
The Law episode 47: New York Times v. Sullivan

The Law episode 3: Marbury v. Madison

In this podcast, D.K. discusses the peculiar idea of "qualified immunity," which basically means certain government agents are not personally responsible for their own bad choices and actions. 
The Law episode 47: New York Times v. Sullivan

The Law episode 1: United States v. Singleton

D.K. discusses the controversial 2010 case, Citizens United, that involves campaign finance laws, free speech, and government censorship. He also explains why most critics seem either to have never read Citizens United or intentionally misrepresent it in order to advance political agendas.