My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available! Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680 Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680 Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023 Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495 Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
man i love how this series explains these cases so simply these cases are very important in American history, and it takes a lot to unravel how these cases happened and how they affect us today
While I agree that the infrastructure modifications didn't "take away" any private property that belonged to Barron in this case, it did still result in irreversible damage that could have been avoided if workers were more careful. He still deserved compensation, just not for the reason he argued in court.
Glad to see this series back. I hope it shows up more often. Sticking with the Marshall court, I suggest Laidlaw v Organ. It's an obscure case about contract law, a subject the Supreme Court rarely talks about. I would suggest Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, which is a personal favorite of mine, but I'm afraid it might tank your channel.
I can't tell you how much I appreciate your videos Mr. Beat. I'm currently working towards being a social studies teacher, currently in my undergraduate degree. My attention span is rather short with books so listening and watching your videos helps me get a basic grasp of a topic and than go into a further deep dive
Thanks for sharing that feedback. I appreciate the kind words. Viewers like you is why I make 'em! Best of luck on your quest to become a social studies teacher. It's an incredibly rewarding profession.
A worf is the half klingon security officer for the USS Enterprise-D and later the space station Deep Space Nine. So the kids DO actually talk about worf pretty often these days 👉👉
I'm absolutely obsessed with your Supreme Court Breifs series. Thank you for making them. Lawrence v. Texas, Lochner v. New York, and Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections would also make interesting videos.
I've been hearing about some important case called Moore v. Harper going on dealing with states rights. Also this is my favorite series! You should do Atkins v. Virginia and US v. Lopez
It's worrying for sure, but based on the oral arguments, it seems like it will be okay. Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett all seem willing to rule against North Carolina.
Moore isn't really about states' rights. It's about different parts of the state legislature and state courts in opposition to each other, not the state as a whole in opposition to the federal government. The former is checks and balances while the later is states' rights.
Other than "Mahanoy Area School District V. B.L.", I would recommend "Northern Securities Co v. United States. The first deals with student free speech on social media, and the other deals with the legality of monopolies in the US. Great video btw.
I thought the 5th amendment argument was quite clever and I thought perhaps the Supreme Court would rule on whether it constituted a violation of that amendment. I did not expect at all that they'd say states don't have to respect your constitutional rights. That came outta left field.
Enjoyed the video. Always knew the proposition of law Barron stood for, but did not know the facts. Having read a good book on Lochner called Lochner rehabilitated, you should do Lochner next, and then some of the other cases from the Lochner era, like Pierce v Society of Sisters, Adkins, and Meyer v Nebraska. Also of interest would be doing the Coach Kennedy Case from last term, Kennedy v Bremerton School District in part because it's relevant to your students and teachers in terms of free speech and religion rights, and also because it declared the Lemon test abandoned.
Favorite, I want to see more. I’ve seen all your Supreme Court Briefs. This made me interested in legal stuff (even if it’s not what I studied in school)
I would love if you could do Lawrence v. Texas! Ever since Dobbs it's important to know our rights before we lose them. I'm a high school sr going going to college to study constitutional law, and your series has been an amazing and funny help
Since you're making longer videos these days you should make a video explaining every amendment. You could also mention the clauses in them and important Supreme Court Cases dealing with them. It could gain lots of views.(I know you don't rally take suggestions from regular subscribers, I'd be a paetron supporter but I'm a broke college student)
I plan on making a course and series on that, as matter of fact! I just need to map up a schedule and maybe even look at getting some help so I don't get overwhelmed.
Great review! I wonder if you might review the Olmstead decision (Olmstead v. LC), which decreed that people with disabilities ought to be able to live in their communities, rather than institutions, whenever appropriate.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The fact that we need the 14th amendment to get this through is crazy.
"Supreme Court Briefs" are my favorites! Thank you for making another one. Hmmm....I wonder if I have seen all the other 68? Mr. Beat, could you do a video on how the Supreme Court decides which cases it will hear for an upcoming session? I am always curious how they decide which to hear and/or how they prioritize (?) them. Thank You.
Thanks for watching this series! I'm glad you dig it. I do plan on a livestream over the summer again to go over important cases from the latest session.
PBS once had a program called "Connections". A wonderful premise of taking a modern concept or tech, and how it's connected to some obscure ancient tech idea. This was a wonderful example. More of the unknown hidden court cases are needed. Great Channel! Thanks
For what the constitution and the United States as a whole was viewed as at the time, the supreme court's view makes total sense. because it was viewed as basically separate countries but united
SCB suggestions: Marcus v. Search Warrant and Quantity of Books v. Kansas. These are a pair of cases dealing with laws regarding obscene materials and, more specifically, established necessary procedures for seizures to not violate the First Amendment. The latter case was an important clarification of the former, despite coming only three years later. In addition to being important and interesting cases, the somewhat humorous names of the cases might help boost viewership on SCB videos. Another option for an important case with a humorous name would be the case One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, which extended Fourth Amendment protections to civil cases as well as criminal ones.
Love your videos ^^ have to mention the DreamBrief: Bob Jones University v. United States. Maybe too specialized to hold general interest (dunno if I'd find compelling had I not been raised in/kicked from Bob x.x)~~
I absolutely love this series! For your next case, talk about “Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson”, “Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer”, “Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States” or “Abington School District v. Schempp”.
You mentioned in another comment that these kinds of videos don´t perform that well, but if you ever stop uploading Supreme Court Briefs, I will take you to the highest court in the land! Keep the videos coming semi-regularly, or you will be hearing from my lawyers!
Hi, Mr. Beat! I love your content! For your next comparison video you should do Romania and Chad. These countries may have nothing to do with each other at first glance, but they do have the exact* same flag! Just a silly idea. *There are minute differences between their colors but you really have to squint to see them.
I doubt it would be too exciting, but a series showing the long and inconsistent history of "incorporation" would at least be instructive. Adamson v. California would be a good one to cover.
I think that Pennsylvania V. One 1958 Plymouth Sedan would make a great video! Important case (made it so that the Bill of Rights applied to civil law) plus the somewhat ridiculous name and story behind it could get a lot of views and be an interesting discussion.
I read your comment and glanced at your name and thought, "The Onion. Of course. It totally makes sense." It still does. So, basically, if I need therapy, you're way past due.
Oh, hey! I remember recommending this case. Great job! I'd love to hear what you have to say about Chisholm v. Georgia, which lead up to the 11th amendment
crazy they would say that, there had to be people who were alive who helped write the bill of rights to tell them otherwise. kills me how horrible the supreme court has been throughout history
Pretty sure there was a SCOTUS case that said the bill of rights applies to State and Local governments too pretty recently. Happened in the Roberts court too.
I'm glad we got an amendment to correct this mistake. It would make the bill of rights pretty toothless for this decision to stand. State government oppression is no better than federal oppression. Not sure I understood what private property was claimed to be taken though...
If we're explaining old fashioned terms, the owner of a "wharf" is known as a "wharfinger". Honest. It's in the Oxford English Dictionary (that's the one that spells "colour" with a "u").
I once saw a great movie where the hero dramatically saved their lover's life, and they were ready to conquer a foe they'd faced for the entire movie, but "The End" suddenly appeared on the screen. We burned the place down, so I won't tell you what the movie was. But ohmygod, what is the rest of the story. I rarely believe anything I hear on the internet, but I mostly believe you, and I'd like to hear about it from you.
This might be a little outside the scope of "supreme court briefs", but could you possibly look at (what might be) important cases that the supreme court turned DOWN? it always interested me when you talked about how the supreme court decides what to take and not take. Are there any examples of this? also, how does the court decide what to take and not to take in the first place?
I'm not a US citizen, but nonetheless I find these videos very, very interesting. I wonder from which point in history the court started leaning more towards a specific political spectrum.
I'd like to see United States v. Xavier Alvarez, No. 11-210 - Is Lying about receiving War Medals considered free speech, and does the Stolen Valour Act 2006 violate the 1st amendment?
While it would be nice seeing a video on the case, I'd love to hear your opinion on Gonzales v raich. I was surprised Scalia sided with the majority, and I personally think Thomas had it right, but again I'd like to hear your opinion
My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!
Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS
Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680
Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680
Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss
Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b
Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023
Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495
Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
This is EPISODE 69.
Nice.
Which Supreme Court case should I cover for this series next?
United States v. Lopez
Ex Parte Young, the reason why most cases involve suing the state, like Mr. Hodges, Mr. Dobbs and Mr. Wade
Illinois vs allen
Thats a nice number
NCAA vs Alston
My favorite series
Glad to hear it!
Same here
Same I love these
True
IKR
Mr. Beat, you should tackle the recent Supreme Court Case, in which a girl was suspended from her school, after making a Snapchat post criticizing it.
That one's on my list! Thanks for recommending it.
man i love how this series explains these cases so simply
these cases are very important in American history, and it takes a lot to unravel how these cases happened and how they affect us today
I appreciate this comment a lot. I am continuing to attempt to get better at translating legalese!
While I agree that the infrastructure modifications didn't "take away" any private property that belonged to Barron in this case, it did still result in irreversible damage that could have been avoided if workers were more careful. He still deserved compensation, just not for the reason he argued in court.
I agree with you
@@iammrbeat Not a terrible decision except he did deserve compensation.
Glad to see this series back. I hope it shows up more often.
Sticking with the Marshall court, I suggest Laidlaw v Organ. It's an obscure case about contract law, a subject the Supreme Court rarely talks about.
I would suggest Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, which is a personal favorite of mine, but I'm afraid it might tank your channel.
Thanks for the suggestion. This video is already my worst performing video in months, but this comment makes me happy. :)
@@iammrbeat this sucks. But if enjoying Supreme Court Briefs means I'm in the minority, then so be it.
@@alonkatz4633 Agree. My favorite playlist!!!!
In 1792, Aaron Burr was offered a seat on the New York Supreme Court, but declined the appointment.
Why did he decline? Dang I learn so much from you. :)
@@iammrbeat He declined it because he didn't want to leave the senate.
Can't blame him. The court wasn't what it is today.
@@aaronburrhistory2938scotus is more important than congress tho, right?
You should do Lochner v. New York to talk about substantive due process
I agree. To me, this is the prime example of an "OMG, what the heck were they thinking" case.
I reckon I will definitely make that one later this year. It's pretty freaking important.
I can't tell you how much I appreciate your videos Mr. Beat. I'm currently working towards being a social studies teacher, currently in my undergraduate degree. My attention span is rather short with books so listening and watching your videos helps me get a basic grasp of a topic and than go into a further deep dive
Thanks for sharing that feedback. I appreciate the kind words. Viewers like you is why I make 'em! Best of luck on your quest to become a social studies teacher. It's an incredibly rewarding profession.
@@iammrbeat Thank you so much!
A worf is the half klingon security officer for the USS Enterprise-D and later the space station Deep Space Nine.
So the kids DO actually talk about worf pretty often these days
👉👉
Top comment
Have you ever thought about covering the Jones Act and how it affects American shipping?
Absolutely. It's been on my list for awhile.
Yes, my favorite series. Another underrated case was brought to life by the talented Mr. Beat.
Also early congrats to 700k subs
Thank you so much, Jacob. I have many more episodes planned for 2023!
Please do West Coast Hotel Co. v Parrish
The switch in time that saved nine is prime for this series! Thanks Mr. Beat!
That case might just be the most important one that I haven't covered yet!
I'm absolutely obsessed with your Supreme Court Breifs series. Thank you for making them. Lawrence v. Texas, Lochner v. New York, and Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections would also make interesting videos.
I've been hearing about some important case called Moore v. Harper going on dealing with states rights. Also this is my favorite series! You should do Atkins v. Virginia and US v. Lopez
It's worrying for sure, but based on the oral arguments, it seems like it will be okay. Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett all seem willing to rule against North Carolina.
Moore v. Harper will be quite a doozy. I am nervous as heck about that decision. Thanks for the suggestions!
Moore isn't really about states' rights. It's about different parts of the state legislature and state courts in opposition to each other, not the state as a whole in opposition to the federal government. The former is checks and balances while the later is states' rights.
With Moore v. Harper happening, Mr. Beat should do a video on Smiley v. Holm (1932), which would be overturned if the conservatives win Moore.
as a Canadian, i must say, y'alls Supreme Court sure does do some interesting things
I'm glad you think so!
Mr. Beast! Please give me money!
Bro, your lung is good?
Wrong guy
I love your Supreme Court briefs, Mr. Beat! Also you are so close to 700,000 subscribers!
Thank you, Mr. Lincoln. And yes, so close indeed!
@@iammrbeat No problem!
Me beast can money
Just took a test with this case on it earlier today
WOAHNESS
Other than "Mahanoy Area School District V. B.L.", I would recommend "Northern Securities Co v. United States. The first deals with student free speech on social media, and the other deals with the legality of monopolies in the US. Great video btw.
I'll take that dare! I've only got like two to go but I'm saving them
Glad you took the dare. mwhahahahahahahaha
This is genuinely amazing. What a problem for the supreme court to wrestle with.
They have difficult jobs.
Got a Politics exam in a few days, this is going to come in handy! Love your videos, keep it up Mr Beat 👌
Mr. Beat are you still writing a book based on your Supreme Court Briefs series?
Why yes I am! I'm almost halfway done with it, as matter of fact. :)
@@iammrbeat Can't wait to buy it!
Underrated Supreme Court case.
Mos def
@@iammrbeat speaking of underrated, John Adams and Calvin Coolidge are underrated presidents.
Crazy to think that John Marshall was still sitting on the Supreme Court, for reference Abe Lincoln was 26 years old during this time
He was pretty old by this time 🙂
My favorite series on this channel is back 🎉🎉🎉
yes!
It's my worst performing video in months, but comments like these make me happy. :)
@@iammrbeat well I'm glad they do! :)
I thought the 5th amendment argument was quite clever and I thought perhaps the Supreme Court would rule on whether it constituted a violation of that amendment. I did not expect at all that they'd say states don't have to respect your constitutional rights. That came outta left field.
Enjoyed the video. Always knew the proposition of law Barron stood for, but did not know the facts. Having read a good book on Lochner called Lochner rehabilitated, you should do Lochner next, and then some of the other cases from the Lochner era, like Pierce v Society of Sisters, Adkins, and Meyer v Nebraska. Also of interest would be doing the Coach Kennedy Case from last term, Kennedy v Bremerton School District in part because it's relevant to your students and teachers in terms of free speech and religion rights, and also because it declared the Lemon test abandoned.
Favorite, I want to see more. I’ve seen all your Supreme Court Briefs. This made me interested in legal stuff (even if it’s not what I studied in school)
That's amazing to hear! It's my worst performing video in months, but this comment makes me happy. :)
@@iammrbeat Sorry, I meant my favorite series to follow. I still find it intriguing of a Supreme Court case that expands states rights.
I would love if you could do Lawrence v. Texas! Ever since Dobbs it's important to know our rights before we lose them. I'm a high school sr going going to college to study constitutional law, and your series has been an amazing and funny help
Great to see more Supreme Court briefs!
Merch idea: ACTUAL Supreme Court briefs
We actually already considered this! lol
I vaguely remember my middle school US History teacher talk about a similar or same event.
If you learned about this case in middle school, I would be super impressed.
The double meaning of "briefs" as a joke was used in the Black Adder TV series in the 1980s. Lol
Never heard of that show, but now it's my favorite show. :)
Since you're making longer videos these days you should make a video explaining every amendment. You could also mention the clauses in them and important Supreme Court Cases dealing with them. It could gain lots of views.(I know you don't rally take suggestions from regular subscribers, I'd be a paetron supporter but I'm a broke college student)
I plan on making a course and series on that, as matter of fact! I just need to map up a schedule and maybe even look at getting some help so I don't get overwhelmed.
@@iammrbeat You should do a Supreme Court Briefs video on United States v. Paramount Pictures. Would you mind covering that, Mr. Beat?
Over a freaking wharf
A wharf that made a man LOTS of money
Great review! I wonder if you might review the Olmstead decision (Olmstead v. LC), which decreed that people with disabilities ought to be able to live in their communities, rather than institutions, whenever appropriate.
Thanks Sam!
Well done. Enjoyed the video. I'd like to see you cover Marbury v. Madison if you haven't already done so.
Hello Mr.Beat! love this series from Egypt!!
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The fact that we need the 14th amendment to get this through is crazy.
MRBEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAASST!!!!
feels illegal to be seconds early, *in a Mr beat vid*
You're good. You didn't break any law that I could tell.
n3rd v. youtube speed police 😂😂
"Supreme Court Briefs" are my favorites! Thank you for making another one. Hmmm....I wonder if I have seen all the other 68? Mr. Beat, could you do a video on how the Supreme Court decides which cases it will hear for an upcoming session? I am always curious how they decide which to hear and/or how they prioritize (?) them. Thank You.
Thanks for watching this series! I'm glad you dig it. I do plan on a livestream over the summer again to go over important cases from the latest session.
PBS once had a program called "Connections".
A wonderful premise of taking a modern concept or tech, and how it's connected to some obscure ancient tech idea.
This was a wonderful example. More of the unknown hidden court cases are needed.
Great Channel! Thanks
One of the best series on RUclips has continued for another episode!
For what the constitution and the United States as a whole was viewed as at the time, the supreme court's view makes total sense. because it was viewed as basically separate countries but united
This is an amazing series. Cait, wait for more.
Many more to come this year, I promise you!
Look, I love all your videos, but I especially look forward to these briefs.
SCB suggestions: Marcus v. Search Warrant and Quantity of Books v. Kansas. These are a pair of cases dealing with laws regarding obscene materials and, more specifically, established necessary procedures for seizures to not violate the First Amendment. The latter case was an important clarification of the former, despite coming only three years later. In addition to being important and interesting cases, the somewhat humorous names of the cases might help boost viewership on SCB videos. Another option for an important case with a humorous name would be the case One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, which extended Fourth Amendment protections to civil cases as well as criminal ones.
Yesssss another episode
Love your shirt at the end, Rock Chalk Jayhawk!
Love your videos ^^ have to mention the DreamBrief: Bob Jones University v. United States. Maybe too specialized to hold general interest (dunno if I'd find compelling had I not been raised in/kicked from Bob x.x)~~
Great work as always. Wonder would you have a video planned about the Whiskey Rebellion or any other uprisings planned?
Eventually I hope so, and thank you!
United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians is a rather important case that I think would be interesting to have covered.
I absolutely love this series! For your next case, talk about “Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson”, “Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer”, “Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States” or “Abington School District v. Schempp”.
I love supreme court briefs you really need to do more of these including setting up a different youtube channel for this series.
Your accent is the best for story telling, unironically.
“You can scrap the S cause I’ve never missed a beat”
You mentioned in another comment that these kinds of videos don´t perform that well, but if you ever stop uploading Supreme Court Briefs, I will take you to the highest court in the land! Keep the videos coming semi-regularly, or you will be hearing from my lawyers!
Thanks buddy. I'll keep making them.
Hi, Mr. Beat! I love your content!
For your next comparison video you should do Romania and Chad. These countries may have nothing to do with each other at first glance, but they do have the exact* same flag! Just a silly idea.
*There are minute differences between their colors but you really have to squint to see them.
Thanks for the idea!
I doubt it would be too exciting, but a series showing the long and inconsistent history of "incorporation" would at least be instructive. Adamson v. California would be a good one to cover.
Why did it take you so long to post another case:((. This made my day
I think that Pennsylvania V. One 1958 Plymouth Sedan would make a great video! Important case (made it so that the Bill of Rights applied to civil law) plus the somewhat ridiculous name and story behind it could get a lot of views and be an interesting discussion.
Congratulations on the 700k subscribers
What happened to John Barron? Did he repurpose his wharf, did he build another wharf, did he move to another business altogether?
We don't know
I appreciate you, thank you for making content.
John Barron sure has a lot in common with Anakin Skywalker. Both see sand as an issue because it gets everywhere
I read your comment and glanced at your name and thought, "The Onion. Of course. It totally makes sense." It still does. So, basically, if I need therapy, you're way past due.
That sand covering the screen was smooth starting at 0:52
Can you make a court case call "Roper v Simmons"?
Great suggestion!
Very interesting, I really enjoy your videos (especially enjoyed your oregon trail vid).
Oh, hey! I remember recommending this case. Great job!
I'd love to hear what you have to say about Chisholm v. Georgia, which lead up to the 11th amendment
I love this series!
I appreciate that Luis!
crazy they would say that, there had to be people who were alive who helped write the bill of rights to tell them otherwise. kills me how horrible the supreme court has been throughout history
My main takeaway from this episode was that Wonder Wharf from Bob's Burgers is not actually a wharf.
Pretty sure there was a SCOTUS case that said the bill of rights applies to State and Local governments too pretty recently. Happened in the Roberts court too.
I'm glad we got an amendment to correct this mistake. It would make the bill of rights pretty toothless for this decision to stand. State government oppression is no better than federal oppression.
Not sure I understood what private property was claimed to be taken though...
Long live the 14th!
If we're explaining old fashioned terms, the owner of a "wharf" is known as a "wharfinger". Honest. It's in the Oxford English Dictionary (that's the one that spells "colour" with a "u").
GOAT series 🐐
Glad you dig it!
Wait how is an infrastructure project somehow taking away private property? Can individuals own harbors in the USA?
Not a harbor...a wharf
Amazing video
Thank you!
HELL YEA THE SERIES IS BACK
I love you Mr. Breast
Mr beat, got a question. Do you think the SAFE T act will pass in Illinois or not? Live here in Chicago and honestly just wanted to know.
I think at least parts of it will pass, but I don't have a deep understanding of Illinois politics.
@@iammrbeat Alr 👍
I need money señor bestia
IS THAT......
MR BEAST?!?!!?!
Being from Baltimore I can confirm no one cares if you're from Baltimore or what happens to you while you're in Baltimore
I once saw a great movie where the hero dramatically saved their lover's life, and they were ready to conquer a foe they'd faced for the entire movie, but "The End" suddenly appeared on the screen. We burned the place down, so I won't tell you what the movie was. But ohmygod, what is the rest of the story. I rarely believe anything I hear on the internet, but I mostly believe you, and I'd like to hear about it from you.
Maybe we should cover a recent Supreme Court case like West Virginia v EPA
Have you thought about Youngstown Sheet and Tube vs Sawyer 1952?
This might be a little outside the scope of "supreme court briefs", but could you possibly look at (what might be) important cases that the supreme court turned DOWN? it always interested me when you talked about how the supreme court decides what to take and not take. Are there any examples of this? also, how does the court decide what to take and not to take in the first place?
This stuff used to be my government homework but these vids are so good that I just watch them because I want to now
Great Video!
Glad you enjoyed it
I'm not a US citizen, but nonetheless I find these videos very, very interesting. I wonder from which point in history the court started leaning more towards a specific political spectrum.
Have you ever heard of Haym Salomon and what he did during the American revolution? Just recently learned about him.
I'd like to see United States v. Xavier Alvarez, No. 11-210 - Is Lying about receiving War Medals considered free speech, and does the Stolen Valour Act 2006 violate the 1st amendment?
Just a quick heads up, but Baltimore county is next door to Baltimore city. They're legally distinct, so that's the wrong seal.
Bro i thought you were mrbeast😭😭😭
you are still a cool youtuber tho
Mr. Beat, can you please cover a Supreme Court case on United States v. Paramount Pictures in a future video?
While it would be nice seeing a video on the case, I'd love to hear your opinion on Gonzales v raich.
I was surprised Scalia sided with the majority, and I personally think Thomas had it right, but again I'd like to hear your opinion