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
  • Common Ground

    Common Ground
    Aug 11 2026
    Common GroundOver the past two weeks, we have examined a simple question.If the Constitution limits government, what happens when government crosses that line?Judging from your comments, many of us recognize the problem.If government can encroach upon a right or freedom today, while you must spend years and thousands of dollars seeking relief, what practical value does that right have when you need it most?A right without a timely and effective remedy can become practically meaningless.But the comments have exposed another problem.We have difficulty talking to one another.I use the word “citizen.”Someone says, “I’m not a citizen. I’m one of the People.”I speak of human nature.Someone objects to the terminology.Before the thought is even completed, a word has triggered an assumption, and the assumption becomes the argument.That gets us nowhere.Ask the question.“What do you mean?”“How are you using that word?”“What is the proposition you’re asking me to consider?”We all bring prejudgments into a conversation—about words, government, law, and each other.But if I substitute my meaning for yours before understanding what you are saying, I’m no longer listening to you.I’m arguing with myself.And there is another distraction.Mention government exceeding its authority and someone immediately says:“Government is a corporation.”Someone else says:“It’s all commerce.”Then come the UCC, maritime law, legal fictions, birth certificates, capitalization of names, and any number of theories offered to explain government.But none of that is necessary to answer the question before us:Did government possess the authority to do what it did?And if not:What stops it?I’m not asking anyone to abandon what they believe.I’m asking them to distinguish between what they personally believe and what we collectively need to establish.Because we are looking for something Americans of vastly different backgrounds can understand and hopefully accept.And perhaps it is this simple:Government has limited powers.The People possess rights and freedoms that government does not create.When government exceeds its lawful authority and encroaches upon those rights and freedoms, there must be an effective remedy.Can we agree upon that much?Because consider what happens when government acts against you tomorrow.It takes your property.Closes your business.Freezes your money.Or takes your freedom.You object.Government says:“You have a remedy. Go to court.”How long?Years.How much?Perhaps a fortune.And what happens in the meantime?The governmental action continues.Justice years from now doesn’t protect you today.So the issue isn’t simply whether a remedy theoretically exists.The question is whether the remedy is available when the right or freedom requires protection.And that brings us to the practical objective of this discussion.The Sheriff.If we expect an elected Sheriff to protect the People of his county within the lawful authority of his office, we cannot first require him to accept someone’s theory about corporations, commerce, citizenship, maritime law, or anything else.Nor should we.The message must be simpler than that.Government has boundaries.The People have rights and freedoms.And public officials possess delegated authority, not unlimited power.That message can belong to everyone.Rich or poor.Educated or uneducated.Left or right.Whatever words we use to describe ourselves.That is why we must learn to ask questions before rejecting one another’s words.Not because definitions don’t matter.They do.But because understanding must come before disagreement can be meaningful.And if a particular theory isn’t necessary to establish the common principle, don’t allow it to destroy the conversation.Free people are going to disagree.They should.But disagreement over secondary questions cannot prevent agreement upon the fundamental one.Because while we argue about terminology and theories, government continues to act.So reduce the issue to its essence.Did government cross the boundary of its lawful authority?If it did:Where is the timely and effective remedy?And now we have a question that can be placed before an elected Sheriff without requiring either the Sheriff or the People to subscribe to anyone’s ideology:Sheriff, government has limits.When government crosses those limits and threatens the rights and freedoms of the People in your county, what can you lawfully do about it?That is the conversation we need to have.Not about labels.Not about theories.Not about who possesses the superior vocabulary.About a boundary.A remedy.And an elected official close enough to the People to be asked one simple question:When government crosses the line, who stands in the gap?If Americans can come together around that question, we have something we desperately need.Common ground.And finally, some people say:“This is all talk. Where’s the action?”This is part of the action.Before people can act ...
    Show More Show Less
    8 mins
  • The Court, Constitution, and Remedies

    The Court, Constitution, and Remedies
    Aug 10 2026
    THE COUNTERWEIGHTWelcome to YesToHellWith.com.Over the past nine episodes, we have followed one question.If the Constitution limits government...Where does the ordinary citizen receive the practical benefit of those limits?We began with the administrative tribunal.A citizen raises a constitutional objection.And the response is:“I don’t decide constitutional questions.”Government proceeds.The citizen suffers the consequence.And the constitutional question may be pushed somewhere else—to another proceeding, another court, another appeal, another year, another attorney, another hundred thousand dollars.That led us to the question underneath this entire series:What is the counterweight?If the administrative system possesses the institutions, personnel, money, and physical power to enforce its decisions immediately...What protects the freedom of the People when that system crosses the constitutional boundary?There are four parts to the answer.The People.The Second Amendment.The Declaration of Independence.And the Sheriff willing to stand in the gap and say NO.Let’s examine them.THE PEOPLEEverything begins here.We the People.Government did not create the People.The People created government.Government was entrusted with certain powers for certain purposes.Outside those delegated powers remains an enormous sphere of human freedom.But that relationship only works if the People understand it.If the People do not know where the boundary lies...How will they know when it has been crossed?That is why the first counterweight is not an institution.It is an informed People.People willing to ask:What is your authority?Where did it come from?What jurisdiction do you possess?What obligation does the law actually impose upon me?And what authorizes you to enforce it?Those are not radical questions.Those are questions a free people should ask anyone exercising governmental power.Which brings us to the second counterweight.THE SECOND AMENDMENTThe Framers understood something history had repeatedly demonstrated.Government ultimately possesses coercive power.A regulation is merely paper until someone enforces it.An administrative order is merely paper until someone enforces it.A warrant is merely paper until someone executes it.Behind governmental authority ultimately stands physical force.And the American constitutional structure did not contemplate a population rendered completely powerless before that force.The Second Amendment declares:“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”That right is not permission for lawlessness.It does not authorize violence because someone disagrees with a regulation, judge, tax, or public official.But neither should we pretend the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights without purpose.An armed People represent something fundamental to the architecture of freedom:The People were never intended to become helpless subjects of the government they created.But there is something even more fundamental.It was written fifteen years before the Bill of Rights.THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCEBefore there was a Constitution, Americans announced the principle upon which legitimate government rests.Governments derive:“their just powers from the consent of the governed.”Notice the direction of authority.It travels upward:from the People to government.And the Declaration says that when government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the People:“to alter or to abolish it.”That does not mean every political disagreement justifies revolution.The Declaration itself counsels prudence.But it establishes the ultimate relationship:Government is the creation.The People are the creators.And that brings us to the fourth counterweight.The one closest to home.THE SHERIFFImagine an administrative command arriving in your county.Seize this property.Enter this land.Remove this person.Someone eventually has to carry that command into the physical world.And at that moment, an extraordinary question arises:Does the person being asked to exercise that power have any responsibility to determine whether the authority actually exists?This is where the informed Sheriff enters the conversation.Not an all-powerful Sheriff.Not a Sheriff who invents his own law.Not a Sheriff who stands above the Constitution.Quite the opposite.A Sheriff who understands that he stands beneath it.A Sheriff who understands his oath, the source of his authority, and its limits.Someone says:“Seize this man’s property.”The informed Sheriff asks:Under what authority?“Enter this property.”Where is the lawful jurisdiction?“Remove this person.”Show me the lawful basis.And if the authority cannot be demonstrated...If the jurisdiction cannot be established...If the constitutional boundary has been crossed...Then perhaps one of the most important words available to a public official is also one of the simplest:NO.I will not participate.Not because...
    Show More Show Less
    9 mins
  • The Court, Constitution, and Remedies

    The Court, Constitution, and Remedies
    Aug 9 2026

    CAN RIGHTS EXIST WITHOUT PRACTICAL REMEDIES?

    Part 9 in the Series on Courts, the Constitution, and Remedies

    Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.

    Throughout this series, we have asked a simple but profound question.

    If the Constitution limits government, when do those limits actually protect the citizen?

    We have examined administrative tribunals, constitutional review, the Framers’ intentions, the constitutional oath, the Office of Sheriff, and the historical development of remedies.

    Today we bring those discussions together by asking perhaps the most important question of the entire series.

    Can rights exist without practical remedies?

    The answer begins with another distinction.

    There is a difference between possessing a right...

    ...and possessing a practical means of protecting that right.

    Those are not necessarily the same thing.

    Suppose the Constitution protects your property by limiting government.

    Suppose a public official exceeds the lawful authority entrusted to the office and your property is taken.

    Suppose you eventually prevail after years of litigation.

    Did your right exist?

    Certainly.

    But has your right been protected?

    That is a different question.

    A theoretical remedy exists because the law says relief may eventually be obtained.

    A practical remedy exists because the citizen can obtain meaningful protection while that protection still matters.

    The distinction is enormous.

    A remedy that arrives after the injury has already been completed may compensate.

    It may correct.

    It may even vindicate.

    But can it truly be said to have protected?

    If a citizen cannot afford the process...

    If the expense exceeds the value of the right being defended...

    If the delay itself becomes the punishment...

    Has the Constitution remained a practical safeguard?

    Or has it become a promise that exists primarily on paper?

    The Framers understood that rights without protection are fragile.

    A written Constitution alone preserves nothing.

    It depends upon institutions...

    Public officials...

    And a free people willing to insist that constitutional limits remain meaningful in practice.

    Otherwise, rights slowly become theoretical.

    They continue to exist in principle...

    Yet become increasingly difficult for ordinary people to enjoy.

    This is not merely a question of law.

    It is a question of constitutional design.

    Did the Framers intend constitutional protections to exist only for those possessing sufficient wealth, sufficient time, and sufficient endurance to pursue years of litigation?

    Or did they intend those protections to operate as practical restraints upon the exercise of public authority itself?

    The Liberty Dialogues System asks us to distinguish between theory and reality.

    Between rights that merely exist...

    And rights that are actually protected.

    Between remedies that eventually arrive...

    And remedies that operate when protection is needed.

    Those distinctions matter.

    Because if constitutional rights exist without practical remedies...

    Then freedom itself gradually becomes theoretical.

    In our next discussion, we will examine one final question.

    If administrative government possesses institutions capable of immediate enforcement...

    What institution was intended to provide immediate constitutional accountability?

    That is where we continue the conversation.

    May truth reign supreme.



    Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    5 mins
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.