YesToHellWith cover art

YesToHellWith

YesToHellWith

By: and may TRUTH reign supreme!
Listen for free

YesToHellWith is determined to expose the wrongful conviction and imprisonment of Orlando Carter. We are asking that President Trump review this injustice and exonerate Carter.

yestohellwith.substack.comyestohellwith Hourly Political Science Politics & Government
Episodes
  • Cardozo

    Cardozo
    Jun 27 2026
    It’s June 27, 2026. Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.There are books that explain the law.There are books that influence the law.And then there are books that change how judges think about themselves.One of those books is The Nature of the Judicial Process by Justice Benjamin Cardozo.For more than a century, it has shaped generations of judges, lawyers, and law students. It remains one of the most influential books ever written on the role of the judiciary.But influence alone does not make a philosophy correct.Before Cardozo, the American ideal of judging emphasized restraint.The judge was not viewed as the creator of law.He was not expected to shape society.He was not to determine public policy.His duty was to interpret and apply the Constitution and the laws within the limits imposed upon him.The Constitution separated powers for a reason.Legislatures were to make the law.Executives were to enforce it.Judges were to interpret it.Each branch was restrained by constitutional boundaries.Cardozo challenged that understanding.In The Nature of the Judicial Process, he argued that judges inevitably do more than interpret. They weigh precedent. They consider history. They balance competing interests. They evaluate public policy. They adapt legal principles to changing social conditions.In other words, judges participate in shaping the law.Many praised Cardozo for his honesty.But honesty is not the same as constitutional fidelity.The critical question is not whether judges exercise discretion.The critical question is whether they should.Once judges begin viewing themselves as participants in the development of public policy rather than restrained interpreters of delegated constitutional authority, the role of the judiciary fundamentally changes.The focus shifts.It shifts from constitutional limitation...to judicial judgment.It shifts from delegated authority...to institutional wisdom.It shifts from asking, “What does the Constitution permit?”...to asking, “What result best serves society?”That is a profound philosophical change.And history demonstrates that when constitutional limits yield to judicial discretion, governmental power rarely contracts.It expands.Just a few years after publishing his book, Cardozo authored the majority opinions in Steward Machine Company v. Davis and Helvering v. Davis.Those decisions upheld key provisions of the Social Security Act through a broad interpretation of Congress’s taxing and spending powers.Whether one agrees with those decisions or not, they became part of the constitutional foundation supporting the modern administrative state.That is why Cardozo deserves careful study.Not because he explained how judges think.But because his philosophy helped legitimize a broader conception of what judges believe their role to be.Now compare that with the Liberty Dialogues System.The Liberty Dialogues System begins from the opposite premise.It does not trust governmental discretion.It trusts constitutional limitation.It does not ask whether judges can reach wise results.It asks whether the government has first established lawful authority to act.The Liberty Dialogues System begins with a sequence that cannot be ignored.Authority.Jurisdiction.Status.Standing.Presumption.Obligation.Enforcement.Every step depends upon the one before it.If authority has not been established, jurisdiction cannot be presumed.If jurisdiction has not been proven, obligation cannot simply be imposed.If obligation has not been lawfully established, enforcement becomes constitutionally suspect.The Liberty Dialogues System rejects the idea that constitutional questions should yield to policy preferences, social needs, or administrative convenience.It insists that delegated authority must be demonstrated before governmental power may be exercised.That is the antithesis of Cardozo’s philosophy.Cardozo begins by asking how judges should exercise discretion.The Liberty Dialogues System asks who authorized that discretion in the first place.Cardozo begins with confidence in judicial judgment.The Liberty Dialogues System begins with skepticism of governmental power.Cardozo places the judge at the center of the analysis.The Liberty Dialogues System places the Constitution at the center.Because the Founders did not design a system that depended upon wise judges.They designed a system that depended upon limited government.Liberty has never been preserved because those in power exercised good judgment.Liberty has been preserved because those in power were confined by constitutional boundaries they could not lawfully exceed.That is the difference.One philosophy asks how power should be exercised.The other asks whether the power exists at all.And that may be the most important constitutional question any free people can ever ask.May truth reign supreme. Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    6 mins
  • Third Party Reporting

    Third Party Reporting
    Jun 26 2026

    The Hidden Power of Third-Party Reporting

    Most Americans have never heard of third-party reporting.

    Yet it is one of the most powerful mechanisms in the entire federal tax system.

    When people think about the IRS, they imagine audits, investigations, or perhaps agents knocking on someone’s door.

    But that isn’t how the system primarily works.

    The system works because information arrives before you ever receive a letter.

    Think about it.

    Your employer reports.

    Your bank reports.

    Your brokerage reports.

    Your retirement administrator reports.

    Sometimes payment processors report.

    The government receives information from numerous third parties long before it ever asks you a single question.

    Why?

    Because Congress created a system that requires certain parties to report specified transactions to the government.

    Notice something important.

    The reporting obligation generally belongs to the payer or institution—not the recipient.

    That distinction matters.

    Most people never ask a far more fundamental question.

    What authority requires another private party to report information about me to the federal government?

    That is the beginning of the inquiry.

    Every reporting obligation should begin with another question.

    What statute created that obligation?

    Not an IRS publication.

    Not a form.

    Not an instruction manual.

    A statute enacted by Congress.

    Because agencies administer laws.

    Congress creates them.

    The next question becomes:

    Who exactly is obligated to report?

    Is it the employer?

    The bank?

    The broker?

    The business?

    Or someone else?

    The answer depends entirely upon the statute.

    Then ask:

    What event triggered the reporting obligation?

    Was it the payment?

    The relationship?

    The amount?

    The type of transaction?

    Every reporting requirement has statutory conditions.

    No reporting obligation exists in a vacuum.

    Then comes perhaps the most overlooked question of all.

    What legal effect does third-party reporting actually have?

    Many people assume that once a Form W-2 or Form 1099 is filed, the matter is legally settled.

    That is not what the reporting system is designed to do.

    An information return is part of an administrative reporting system.

    It supplies information.

    It allows the IRS to compare data from different sources.

    It may trigger notices, examinations, or requests for additional information.

    But it is not itself a judicial determination of tax liability.

    That distinction is important.

    Now ask another question.

    Can third-party reporting simply be stopped?

    Generally speaking, no.

    If Congress has imposed a reporting obligation on an employer, bank, broker, or other reporting entity, that obligation belongs to that entity.

    A private individual generally cannot instruct a reporting entity to disregard a statutory reporting requirement.

    Which leads us back to the most important lesson.

    Don’t begin with conclusions.

    Begin with questions.

    What statute creates the reporting obligation?

    Who is required to report?

    What facts trigger that obligation?

    What information must be reported?

    What authority governs the reporting process?

    What legal consequences flow from the report?

    Those are Liberty Dialogues questions.

    Because liberty is preserved when authority is examined—not presumed.

    Every governmental action should be traceable to lawful authority.

    Every obligation should have an identifiable source.

    Every exercise of power should be examined.

    And every citizen should understand not merely that something happens, but why it happens and by what authority.

    That is how disciplined inquiry begins.

    And disciplined inquiry is the foundation of the Liberty Dialogues System.

    May Truth Reign Supreme.



    Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    5 mins
  • What Price Would You Pay...

    What Price Would You Pay...
    Jun 25 2026

    When we think about the original American colonists who stood against the greatest military power on earth—the King of England—we should ask ourselves one simple question:

    What price would I be willing to pay for the defense and restoration of freedom?

    Not what someone else should do.

    Not what our Founders did.

    What would you do?

    Every generation is eventually confronted with that question.

    History remembers those who answered it with courage.

    What will your answer be?

    May truth reign supreme.



    Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    Less than 1 minute
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
No reviews yet
In the spirit of reconciliation, Audible acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect to their elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.