A.J. Jacobs Spent a Year Living “Constitutionally.” What Did He Learn?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 июн 2024
- To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/Skeptic/ . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
The Michael Shermer Show # 443
In the wake of several controversial rulings by the Supreme Court and the on-going debate about how the Constitution should be interpreted, Jacobs tried to get inside the minds of the Founding Fathers by living as closely as possible to the original meaning of the Constitution.
He asserted his right to free speech by writing his opinions on parchment with a quill and handing them out to strangers in Times Square. Because women were not allowed to sign contracts-he attempted to take over his wife’s day job, which involves a lot of contract negotiations. He also delivered a handwritten petition to Congress and applied for a Letter of Marque to become a legal pirate for the government.
He also dived deep into originalism and living constitutionalism, the two rival ways of interpreting the document.
A.J. Jacobs is a journalist, lecturer, and human guinea pig whose books include Drop Dead Healthy, The Year of Living Biblically, and The Puzzler. His new book is The Year of Living Constitutionally: One Man’s Humble Quest to Follow the Constitution’s Original Meaning.
SPONSOR
This video was sponsored by Brilliant.
#michaelshermer
#skeptic
Listen to The Michael Shermer Show or subscribe directly on RUclips, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, and Google Podcasts.
www.skeptic.com/michael-sherm... 
Наука
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/Skeptic/ . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
The Constitution may not be perfect, but it’s better than what we have now.
"Why is it that I'm the only person I've ever met that is correct on every single issue?" 🤣
"... in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution ...."
-Thomas Jefferson
good topic
We don't have news now, we have opinion.
The point about having a monthly column vs daily pieces is something I'm turning over in my head right now too... Rick Beato just put out a video talking about how it's so easy to crank out music now, and the worth of working for music, both in the making and the aquisition and enjoyment. A monthly column not only gives me, the reader, a chance to digest like you said, to walk the world with it and integrate realizations and reflections, but it also is a product of you evaluating what's worth writing. You, with your experiences and insights notice what keeps coming up for you as you think about perhaps unrelated things in the world and events over the course of the month, and we get the benefit of your particular distillation. How to keep this aspect while everything speeds up with AI and all the societal changes that are challenging us on the horizon is something I'm mullling intently recently and this conversation was very interesting to many ends.
Longer info is required to explain complex concepts, broadly speaking. :)
He missed the entire point of the Bill of Rights.
It's not about what people are allowed to do, but about what government is forbidden to do. As in, it's not about freedom of speech/the press through handing out handbills written with a quill-- the technology is irrelevant since the whole point was that government is forbidden to meddle in the things placed out of reach of the government by the Constitution. If you don't understand the point, you'll come to the wrong conclusions every time.
(I am not a constitutionalist, believing instead that documents don't create or protect rights, and that the "right" to govern others can't exist or be created.)
This sounds right - but I am constantly annoyed by people who say "private platforms banning speech doesn't violate the 1st amendment!"
Yes, and banning all black people from your private home doesn't violate the civil rights act. But it DOES show that you failed to understand the ethical justification.
@@sulljoh1 And when platforms censor at the direction of government, as is usually the case, it absolutely does violate the First Amendment. This may be the case with this platform’s increasing crackdown on gun channels. Either way, it shows that those who run the platform are vile bigots.
Even in the case of so-called “hate speech”, I’d rather know who is reprehensible by letting them speak their minds than prevent anyone being offended by what they say so that no one knows who the monsters among us are. Freedom of speech is non-negotiable.
The good old days were good because they are gone... For now.
Other than Police at Airports etc, I've never seen a gun in the UK.
Sounds nice. The states literally has more guns than people and no realistic way to change that