Coast to Coast AM with George Noory
Weekdays 12am - 4am
Text Us: 22980
Phone: (913) 576-7798
| More
KMBZ>Audio & Video on Demand>>Closing Arguments 9.5.13 seg 3

Closing Arguments 9.5.13 seg 3

Sep 10, 2013|

Related Audio:

  1. Closing Arguments 10.3.13 seg 4

    Audio

    Thu, 3 Oct 2013

     

    same sex marriage found at 4:37

    believed in abortion or believed in in same sex -- relationships -- same sex marriage . It had to do with whether or not the intent of the founders. Was to create a system of freedom and whether
  2. Closing Arguments 10.3.13 seg 3

    Audio

    Thu, 3 Oct 2013

     

    criminal law found at 2:15, 2:46

    part about this because this is a question I don't practice and criminal law . But I know that criminal attorneys get this question a lot. You know they didn't read his Miranda rights don't they have
    an interest in little cases. And of course if you're involved in criminal law . It's important for a whole host of other reasons because it gets down to. What are the rights of the individual. And
  3. Closing Arguments 10.3.13 seg 2

    Audio

    Thu, 3 Oct 2013

     

    united states found at 6:19, 8:11

    Ended up moving back. It when he went in front of the Supreme Court . The United States Supreme Court declared that. All blacks regardless of whether they were slaves are free men were not and could not become. Citizens of the United States . Court also ruled the 1820 Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. Meaning that. Slavery would be constitutionally permitted throughout the entire country and its
    stating emphatically that that someone of color could never be. A citizen United States . And so it's it's proof that the court is. Humans and made up of humans and as such it's going to make mistakes from time to time. We can't assume that because the court makes a mistake -- because the court. Decide something that we don't agree with that it is inherently flawed and should be done away with. On. The hole as you look at the history of the Supreme Court and the decisions that they remain I think what you'll find is that largely over time. They do a whole lot more
  4. Closing Arguments 10.3.13 seg 1

    Audio

    Thu, 3 Oct 2013

     

    united states found at 2:29

    this is governmental system that had been set up. Almost entirely by Alexander Hamilton who was our first secretary of treasury and if you look back at this store local record I'm Ron churn -- wrote -- great book about this called Alexander Hamilton . If you -- about sixty hours to read that is a big one but it's a really fantastic book about. Somebody who wasn't born in the United States was born in the Caribbean islands. He was. That lives the son of a prostitute. And a a lower Scottish nobleman. Who
+

Automatically Generated Transcript (may not be 100% accurate)

Opinions expressed on the paid commercial program or those of the host or guest and don't represent the opinions of TMB easy or intercom Kansas City. Welcome back to closing arguments on Daschle Matthews again to learn more about Maine or the Matthews group law firm feel -- to go to our website Hollywood lawyers dot com. He can learn more amounts myself and many of the guests that we have on the program. You can also go to KM BZ that com to find. Recordings. Previous episodes of the show. Right now wanna talk about something McCain amounts. Just today. Department of Justice will not enforce law denying veterans benefits to same sex spouses. This is again one of these. We've gad ran a Supreme Court case recently. Wells recently as June. That struck down portions of the defense of marriage act and portion of the defensive marriage acts defined marriage as being. Between people of opposite sex. There is also. -- law that says that. Veterans' benefits shall not be given to same sex palaces. Regardless of whether those marriages are legal in the state where the parties from -- or where they live now and in the latter the Department of Justice. Released. A statement by air colder. Attorneys general saying -- you know we're not going to try to enforce this denial of benefits to same sex spouses. Because. The idea of same sex. Being. A reason. Or valid reason for denying benefits. Was -- he struck down in this other case in the defense of marriage act. And so immediately the Department of Defense announced that it would extend benefits to same sex couples. -- so that the won't be any issues with that this is one of those things of that. Really kind of catches in my craw that these cases keep coming up over and over again. That these issues keep getting pushed before the courts are getting pushed before the legislature's. So I mean it's just I can't possibly understand I don't -- it. Why people get so worried about these kinds of issues with regard to. What benefits are off -- whether or not the word marriage is used with regard to same sex couples. Certainly everybody's has a right to an opinion you have a right to -- to freely practice your religion there's no issues there. And and your church or her you -- synagogue or your place of warship. Certainly has a right not to be involve them or to. Recognize. A marriage that you find some B inappropriate under your religious doctrine. But when we're talking about things like veterans benefits when we're talking about things like tax benefits. Them the basis and the reasoning behind having those benefits behind having those tax advantages for married couples. What really talking about our financial considerations not. Theological considerations we do have a separation of church and state the courts don't need to be involved. And the government doesn't need to be involved in deciding what's right between you and someone else in your bedroom. This has -- and I think the sticking issue. For the Republican Party over the last few years and what's driving a wedge right now with and the party. What we've seen in the Republican Party are. Individuals and John McCain Mitt Romney who who've risen to the point where they can actually run for president. And they've gotten there by constantly being fiscally conservative. And constantly being pretty socially liberal. These are both guys who would tell you over and over again throughout their careers they didn't care about gay -- state didn't have a problem with gay marriage. I'm hell they actually get the nomination and tell they're actually on. On the road campaigning and it's not just Republicans of course it took and sell -- this last election before. President Obama admitted that he was open to the idea gay marriage he had in his original campaign. Said that. And he believed in equal rights. For gays but did not believe that at the institute of marriage should be extended to them. And of course that's just false. He absolutely believes that gays should be able to -- John McCain absolutely believes that gays should be able to -- Mitt Romney absolutely believes that gays should be allowed to marry. And and maybe not all for the same reasons that may be John McCain and Mitt Romney just don't care. And that's the issue what is it that the parties are carrying about what is it that the that -- that were talking about. In the political process. And is that. What we should be talking about where are we losing the constituents are we. Pressing so hard for an evangelical. Constituency for example. That you start to lose those folks who are. The followers of of Milton Friedman for example the great economist or or -- kayak. Who basically said that in order for government to prosper in order for. Top people to prosper he had to keep the government out of people's lives as much as possible allow for free markets. Allow for the market to determine the price. Allow for the services that are provided. By a company. To determine. What their level of success would be. And just keep the government out of it but also keep the government. Out of your homes keep the government out of your personal lives as much as possible because. Every time they wanna get involved every time they wanna poke -- head and it costs money. Every time they wanna look at that they've got to go ahead and say okay. We need a new. Investigative authority we need. New commissions to be drawn out we need to do research. And for what. There for what possible purpose who cares who is is is certainly what I think him. I don't ask you to agree with -- You might be -- home thinking. While -- that's a load of the gas because. Marriages is a sacred institution. It's not about whether or not. I think that marriage is a sacred institution. It's not about whether or not I think abortion is wrong. Because they do. It's about whether or not. Our federal government. The should be the ones getting involved and -- whether or not our federal government has ever done any thing for you in terms of services. That really make you believe that they are the most well proportioned. In to -- to trying to take on these issues. Answer that -- and I think it's you have to look at so much you have to ask yourself. Nonetheless these cases continue to come up I frankly am happy to see this one. More so at least and I am to see some of the others where for example we have federal laws that. Prohibit. Illegal immigration. And then we have some attorney general's telling the state of Arizona that. They're going to sue them if they continue to try to enforce those laws at a state level. Which just doesn't make a lot of sense to me but really comes down again to political differences. And I deals between. What is the law and what do we think the law should be there's another interest in case mostly for lawyers this week but. -- individual on the state of California. Who went to law school in California has passed the California bar exam. And thus far has been denied entry into the California bar association and the right to practice before California courts. -- because he's an undocumented alien. He's not in the country legally. -- he was brought here at seventeen months also certainly not something that he had any particular control over. But the question is. There are federal laws that don't talk about the fact as part of a part of the immigration law that say that. Him. Undocumented aliens cannot be. Allowed to it to practice in the professions. And things like doctors and lawyers and dentists. So. This is one where I think the Obama administration is is taking and a little different stance morally. True legal stance the state of California was prepared to go ahead. And allow entry to this individual under the bar. To allow on the go ahead and start practicing before the courts. The California bar association was okay with -- the Obama administration has said no we will prevented its we will file suit if necessary but. -- would be a violation of federal law to allow this individual to practice before the state courts now. There is something in that immigration law that does essentially you know the states the right to supersede parts of it. And so if there was a statute on the books in the state of California at San. We specifically. Allow. Undocumented aliens. To practice law to be admitted. To practice before the state courts in California. Then the Obama administration might back off of -- and and that part still unclear right now they -- not actually given a clear indication of now what their position would be effect came out but. It is a question her then that's out there right now. The state of California does not have a specific clause stating that that undocumented aliens can be implemented and therefore. Under the imam administration's. View. The main don't have the discretion to to let this person practiced law. So we'll see what happens with that over the next few weeks or months my expectation is that they do they'll all be put on the books or that something will change in such a way. As to ultimately who probably allowed us individual to practice law whether it's going to be this year or next year the year after. Kind of remains to be saying. When we come back we're going to be talking about a state planning some it's near endeared in my heart both from the standpoint of protecting. And transferring your state but also some asset protection issues. -- touch on some things relatively quickly we're gonna have a full episode on asset protection coming up in just a few weeks and so. I'd be sure to tune in for that there's some really interesting information particularly with regard to being in the Kansas City area where. The differences in what creditors can do and the differences and what a bankruptcy. Would result ten in the between Missouri and Kansas are showed diversion you've got really states and extreme opposite ends of the spectrum. And so some some some interesting stuff there but today we're gonna talk about some general issues -- -- -- state planning. Guardianship projects. For kids section. Once again I'm Josh Matthews this is closing arguments here -- came these.