The wording in Article 1 section 8 is "Promote the General Welfare" which is a far cry from Providing for the General Welfare. Promote and Provide are not the same thing and should not be conflated.
+Alma Gordon Correct. Further, the federal government is not allowed to exceed its authority in promoting the general welfare. It cannot, for example, force American citizens to buy health insurance by simply declaring that this promotes the general welfare. That is not an enumerated power the parent states delegated to its subordinate federal government.
Alma Gordon .. Not true.. section 8 states “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”. At the beginning of the Constitution it states promote, but not in section 8. I believe it should state it exactly the same as it does in the very first paragraph of the Constitution “..to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Notice at the beginning it states something distinctly different.. I believe they fd up when they wrote section 8 and meant provide defense and promote well being.. wish I could go back in time and tell them they fd up :-/
Justin Rodriguez - and now look where we are just from January 2020 (Virginia gun rally) to (today, easter sunday) april 2020.. covid-19 has us all under what i would argue as tyranny.
Easter Sunday I hid eggs with change in em at the park down the block and watched my kids and community kids find em. Just over a hundred bucks. And as for today. I ran into some one I hadn't seen in years at walmart. We hugged. I wore a bandana cuz my neighbor told me to. I felt like a gangbanger or biker and took it off. Then I went to help a friend fix his headlight. Just another day for me. Ignorance is bliss. I ignored and I was happy. Nobody listens when I bicker. So I won't listen to them bickering. Besides. I saw the queen's royal subjects out n about. Chillin in parks and on the beach. Shopping n whatnot. SUBJECTS. Not free individuals. Subjects defying "orders." You're only a sheep when you follow the crowd. Do you. Or someone else will.
Does the 10th amendment give the states the authority to regulate rights? What I mean is does the 10th grant the states the ability to regulate the 2nd amendment?
This is the question I was about to ask. Really curious to know if states actually have the power to mandate concealed carry laws or if that would be a violation of the 2nd and 10th amendment.
Keyword: "or" The State does not supercede the people as an entity. The State merely exists as general representative embodiment of the people. When we forget that a state that infringes on its residents and assumes dominion over them is unconstitutional due to an aforementioned clause in The Ninth, applying to Federal Rights and Freedoms as well, we wind up with feudalism. I can not stress the interpretation of "or" any greater at this juncture.
*Here's notes for those kids who are being told to take notes on this video, I did it for you:* Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. marriage is a reserved power by the 10th amendment think of reserved powers this way: if your parents were going to put everything that is needed to do on the fridge, where you were going to go for vacation, what food your parents are going to make for dinner- those are delegated powers, powers given to your parents if you had a poster in your room you'd assume what you wrote on it- is what you can do. 10th amendment limits the federal power by giving that power to the states and the people Separation of powers: an act of vesting the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of government in separate bodies.
The states grant powers to the federal government, not the other way around. This is why the powers of the states are 'reserved'. Those powers existed prior to the constitution.
Marriage licenses and fees are a violation of the constitution of article 4 section 2 paragraph 1,9th amendment enumeration clause,10th amendment,14th amendment section 1 no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states. No citizen needs permission from anyone especially the state or federal government to get married or should be extorted to exercise their natural and constitutional right to do so either.
We the people are supposed to be the power over the government not the government over us. By the people,for the people,of the people not by the government for the government of the government. All government officials need to be educated on the meaning of the words freedom,free, and Liberty.
I guess I must be Libertarian. Who knew? I cannot help be see the Constitution, along with the Declaration of Independence as a basis of the principles of our society. I see us drifting further and further away from being a Constitutional republic to a democracy leaning more and more to federal tyrannical control.
Interpreting the Constitution correctly does not make you a libertarian. It makes you literate. Don't accept what Mr. Hughes has to say. He wrong more than he is right.
89oi "Don't accept what Mr. Hughes has to say. He wrong more than he is right." he really made no comment about the controversial issues he presented a general understanding of the amendment and said we can debate the muddy issues
I believe if we were to strictly adhere to the 10th Amendment we would cure 97% of what currently ails our country. “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” ~ James Madison
What changes if any would you make to the 10th amendment? How would you "amend" the 10th amendment? There has been a lot of controversy about this amendment, where the "power" or the rights of the states are not specifically spelled out.
+Luis Lopez There are a lot of laws that should be changed but it seems that the Supreme Court is giving us laws that affect the Country as a whole. The left over, residue not yet argued about, still remains to the States. Examples: Minimum wages not for everyone. DMV not the same in all states. Weed, not affected for all states. Texas hate on abortion/family planning, not the same for California. Until the Supreme Court say, 'this affect all citizens' then it's only for certain people. So, know your rights.
@@hiphughes wouldn’t the 10th Amendment nullify the General Welfare clause, Interstate commerce clause, and Elastic clause? Since they were apart of the original Constitution in it’s original unamendmend form which was ratified in 1788, but nullified when the 10th Amendment was ratified with the other Bill of Rights in 1791. Wouldn’t the 10th Amendment override and replace the the General Welfare, Interstate commerce, and and Elastic clauses? If there’s a conflicion between the any Articles of the Constitution (the base Constitution) and a Constitutional Amendments (the expansions), doesn’t the Amendments come out on top? This could make a *REALLY* interesting debate among the Supreme Court Justices if an issue regarding the General Welfare, Interstate commerce, and and Elastic clauses and the 10th Amendment make it to the Supreme Court. I would love to be a fly on the wall during that debate…
Walter, I want to thank you for your viewership and more importantly for your important comments. My intention was never to "cover" everything, I always knew I would have spirited commenteers to fill in blanks, bring up questions and clarify controversy. So thank you for bringing your light.
When someone tells you that you were allowed to argue the specifics in the comments. You know you were in a place that you might actually learn some thing.
The 10th Amendment and the redundant 14th Amendment. The state enacts laws that reach into the federal level, powers not delegated to the state. The primary example the 2nd Amendment.
In terms of the second amendment. It is a guaranteed right. A right that shall not be infringed. Mere possession of a firearm is not a state right. The where and when and how can be. But possession is not. Correct? Article 6
Why is it that a state judge must give an oath to uphold the constitution yet some of the amedments don’t pertain to state crimes? Am I missing something here?
To Hughes, or anyone else - If Congress can implement environmental regulation (interstate commerce clause), can states implement more stringent environmental regulations on top of that, according to the 10th Amendment?
There is a Section of the 10th you really didn't address well enough, its the part that says OR TO THE PEOPLE why would the 10th include OR TO THE PEOPLE if the States already represent The People???
Yeah, same, man. Gotta love Libertarians. One person when the prof. at my college asked what we thought of Libertarians said "drug addicts (or heads)." I was like, "Dude, I will fight you. Do I look like I'm on crack?!" That was all in my head of course, but what a narrow-minded view.
an amendment supercedes the powered of what came before it. It's true that the Commerce clause is vague and muddys up the 10th amendment if you assume they are equal, but they aren't. Amend means to fix or adjust. the Commerce clause specifically refers to interstate commerce alone not commerce within a state. It also only refers to regulation not legislation. The difference is that regulation is a specific type of legislation. Regulation means to make regular (consistant) Regulations are limited in power but wide in scope whereas legislation is wide in scope and power. also commerce means voluntary trade, or buying and selling. It does not mean labor relations or price or product quality controls.
Example it is illegal unconstitutional to use the commerce clause to tax the second amendment rights of the American people,or any other rights of the people.
@@dragonf1092 What do you mean enumerated but not written? That's the same thing? The commerce clause is about regulating things that are common to two or more states. That is what's meant by "interstate". and the commerce clause is about commerce. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with buying or selling anything. and the commerce clause is about regulation not legislation.
@williampennjr.4448 meaning the government cannot use something written in the constitution to violate or deprive another right written into the constitution or any human rights given by God and nature that was not written into the constitution they couldn't write every single right in existence into the constitution or it would be a mile long example the right to travel is a right that was not enumerated into the constitution but is still a human and constitutionally protected right under the 9th amendment. They are not supposed to use the commerce clause to violate the second amendment,the right to travel or any other rights to extort the American people out of money, right to hunt,fish for food or grow food to survive but they illegally do so.
@@dragonf1092 Basically that's rights. But an amendment means to fix. Like how the 21st amendment overturned the 18th. and how other amendments created Presidential term limits, put the VP on the same ticket as the president, and senators are now elected instead of being appointed by the the state legislature ect... This is why the Constitution has to be looked at as a whole. Amendment should be looked at as a change not just an additional law. The Constitution says there are rights not enumerated in the Constitution, but its states that decide what those unenumerated rights are, not the federal government or the supreme court.
No..actually the state over road their power in this one...even from a smoker this should be ALL states or NONE same as for ALL GUN LAWS! (That with Any it becomes INFRINGEMENT)
i love your videos!! currently im an army vet attending a university on guam and majoring in poli sci. your videos are really unbias and explained in depth! =D im glued onto your channel!
By using the word "respectively" the 10th amendment also establishes that powers not explicitly delegated to the state within the states constitution also can not be exercised by the state and said power is reserved to the people.
State constitutions are moot they didn't exist when the constitution of the united states of America was written and adopted. State constitutions were written as a way to illegally go around the US constitution to try to usurp it.
OK here's possibly a stupid question..Does the 10th amendment reinforce the 2nd amendment and for that matter, all of the other amendments? And if it does, then isn't a violation of my constitutional rights to prohibit me from carrying a weapon to protect myself and my family? Isn't the 2 amendment essentially my carry permit and isn't that ensured by the 10th amendment?
What about federal minimum wage? Is that under a commerce clause? I've always hated the concept of a federal minimum wage. The dishwasher or realtor or whatever in Manhattan shouldn't make the same as the whatever in Fargo.
I know you probably not going to see this because the video is 7 years old but worth a try lol. So if I am not wanting this Covid Vaccine and my job mandated it. Will this help me out from not having to get it and be able to keep my job at the same time? Please let me know if you do see this. Thank you for your time.
The United States government issued a blanket immunity to vaccine manufacturers against any and all liabilities , please correct me if I am wrong , medical malpractice is prosecuted at state level . what gives the federal government power to cancel a civil dispute at the state level under state law ?
Great question! IMO if later it is determined that the federal government overreached by SCOTUS I believe that could happen. It is obvious that the Covid-19 vaccines effectiveness was misrepresented by the government. I’m not saying that it was not positive but the statistical data was not accurate.
@@mikeellis8394 There is many individuals out there who doubt the existence of the coronavirus in the first place , drug companies managed to embezzle over $160 billion from Humanity , talk about a hype .
Article 1 Section 8 says: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" What follows next is a list of things which are "included" as that which this section applies to. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Constitution appears to be a CONTRACT between 14 separate entities, the 13 States plus the new Federal Government. Under contract law, if a list of "inclusions" is provided as part of a contract element, all things NOT included are therefore SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED! By that rule, anything not listed is not covered by that element, therefore the "General Welfare" part only applies to those things listed, not anything and everything anyone anywhere might consider a good idea! Explain to me how I'm wrong...
The Constitution is NOT a contract between the states and federal government. The federal government did not exist. The Constitution was the compact among the states that created the federal government.
Wrong. The Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. The federal government wasn't established until the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.
So if there were no interstate commerce for drugs, i.e. what's grown in Colorado stays in Colorado, then technically the federal government has no jurisdiction?
I think it's important to distinguish that the commerce clause did not support upholding of the individual mandate of Obamacare, but was upheld under taxing power.
+Tiffany Hope If we accept that ACA is Constitutional because it is a tax, then why bother enumerating a few and limited powers in the Constitution. Any act of tyranny can be framed in these open ended terms. This is not the purpose of the Constitution. It is a violation of the Constitution.
I am pretty progressive and even I am glad we have the tenth amendment. lol. I wish I highlighted to "nor prohibited by it" language in clarifying how something like the 14th amendment can make the debate that much more layered. #rooster
To clarify, the preamble states "provide for the common defence, PROMOTE the general welfare." There's a huge difference between provide and promote, and the terms were used with precision.
Technically the tenth amendment should prohibit the state and federal government from having any jurisdiction or authority over anyone who doesn't vote,by not voting a citizen is not consenting to be GOVERNED therefore all powers over those should be to themselves the people.
Yes, here too, I have to use 5 data points per kids to calculate their estimated learning growth which is then used to measure my effectiveness. Its whack a mole with numbers, a colossal waste of time. Check out my "Teacher" playlist, I have a couple pointed videos addressed to Sir Duncan. I am also admin for the Badass Teacher Ass. on FB. We have 31k pissed off teachers and are seeking to raise our teacher voice to reclaim our profession. I am one of their meme men.
The best sanctuary criminals can have is using the threat of deportation by the cops to get their victims to not cooperate with the police. Cops who have serious concerns like trafficking people to be used as sex slaves have the right priority when they don't have to act as ICE agents, though when they catch the ringleaders but can't convict them it is handy to have the option to hand them over to ICE.
Regarding the contradictory nature of the 10th amendment and article 1 section 8, I think it all comes down to how you interpret the Constitution. In the historical context it was written, interstate commerce was de facto limited, so there the contradiction is nowhere to be found. But now, everything is interstate commerce (think of internet commerce), so the literal interpretation effectively nullifies the 10th amendment.
Marriage laws, and drivers licenses are unconstitutional in violation of the supremacy clause, article 4 section 2 paragraph 1,9th amendment enumeration clause,10th amendment,14th amendment section 1.
Completely agree. Here In LA our governor has bought the idea that education can be run like a factory assembly line. Arbitrary numbers ("data driven results") are generated for each kid, each year, for the standardized test. Of course this completely negates the human experiences such as home life, sudden traumatic events, etc. that factor in to those sorts of things.
Dude I'm 16 and I know most of the songs that you're playing on your videos like the good times intro or the Sanford and sons intro or the Barney Miller theme song I just know these off of reruns that I used to watch with my grandfather
It has been my experience that The Constitution is not what is flawed, it is the interpretation. The meaning is often dictated by whichever Party is running the Interpretation. That is where the Flaw is!
It doesn't get "kicked back to the States". It doesn't depend on the rights be challenged, they are innate. But the States might make up powers that really didn't exist before the Constitution and those are not reserved rights.
I think their use of fiscal federalism and basically using competitive grants skirts the issue a bit. I am in NY where common core is being implemented, its like a fat guys take a bath in a birdbath.... ugly, messy and quite unproductive. NY wants the cash so its implementing in the end its kinda fiscal blackmail. I believe in a Federal role for equity but I hate Duncan's corporate approach. I still believe in a public ed., schools arent the problem to learning, poverty is. thanks by the comment
promote and provide are definitely two separate words with unique meanings..but being that the 'Words at hand are both strong words as well as have the First letter of word in common" Perservance Perservance another extremely powerful word and I'd just like to throw that out there :)
Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. It doesn't say may be or might be entitled no it explicitly says shall be entitled,it doesn't say some or if the state or federal government allows no it explicitly says shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities,all rights protected under the constitution as well as not enumerated into the constitution are the privileges and immunities of every single individual natural born or naturalized American citizen.
Wow great job I mean take as much of my tax money you need. Talk about going the extra mile. I realy enjoyed this video/explanation , very professional and entertaining. Im going to watch this series just because of this video. Thank you
Oh, I wish you didn’t bring up the ACA. The act regulates the purchase of health insurance not healthcare (at least not directly). Healthcare could always be purchased across state lines but health insurance was never sold across state lines. It was (and is) regulated by the states. Justice Roberts ruled this isn’t interstate commerce but a tax. Even the Democrats were surprised by that.
No, you have to back up your idea with actual policy. I am not lobbing hypothetical ideas, I am presenting alternate policy, alternate methods of dispersing political power. To anyone reading this, it is you that is lobbing hypotheticals! :) The current system is broken, but saying "get money out of politics" with no rational proposal on how to do it does not help. Especially when asked one simple question on how you would do that you react like this. Less power to feds, more local.
Justice Scalia, and I'm paraphrasing, has said the 10th Amendment was redundant as it was inherent in the understanding of Constitutionalism that powers not delegated we're reserved. According to him that was, apparently not good enough for the anti-Federalists though as the insisted it be added to the Bill of Rights.
well shit i was told at my local gun shop here in commiefornia that the reason Commiefornia can ignore the 2nd amendment is because if the 10th amendment, but from what i see here, the guy who told me that would be wrong
It used to be that the 2nd only applied to the feds, so Cali back then could have gotten away with banning literally all guns. Now though the 14th has been interpreted to mean that states can't restrict constitutional rights, so they can only push it so far. In "DC vs Heller" the supreme court ruled that a handgun ban is going too far, so California could not outright ban handguns. But states still have a lot of leeway in what they can do before it gets too far, and even then a case about it would have to be brought up all the way to the SC
Gun possession is not a state right. See article 6 of the Constitution: All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this constitution, as under the confederation. 2. 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. 3. The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
One thing that affects certain states is minimum wage. Although people are pushing for a $15 minimum wage, it won't spread for all. Colorado & Georgia have lower than any minimum wage. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, South Colorado have no minimum wage, meaning they will pay you less or more than Federal wage. Notice that these are all Red (GOP) states. Sorry people, you're screwed because you like how badly you live because you continue to vote for it. The more you know and how it affect your personal life, the more you want to know. Is that energy flowing???
Mr. Hughes I have loved your series so far, but why is it every time you bring up hay marriage you also bring up the 14th Amendment. That amendment as you so put it multiple times states that "the state" can not deny equal protection under the law, but in states where hay marriage is banned those bans were imposed by constitutional amendments to the state constitution. I would argue that the state isn't violating the 14th amendment is those cases since those bans were not imposed by the state legislatures but the people. Which by the 10 amendment a reserved power to be justified by the people and is not subject to the 14th amendment.
Danny, By no state they are referring to any process by which the "state" enacts public policy. "under the law"...The people are the state.... whatever process led to its ban was done by a law..... Surely a referendum in California for say seizing Mailbu Mansions to house the homeless would be unconstitutional. Therefore whether its a state amendment, law, referendum, paper/rock/scissors game; if it denies a citizen the same protection as another no matter how popular it is unconstitutional. You can't use democracy to vote on equal rights. At least that is how I see the cookie crumbling. I think the conservative argument is less in strict interpretation than original intent of the 14th (ie slaughterhouse cases) but its till a stretch. Great question by the way. And of course I am sure there are other ways of spinning that bottle. Peace, HipHughes
I can understand your argument and as you can tell I'm one of those "bible toting, evil, white, conservative, southern boys" as libs like to put it. I still don't see how the federal government or even the Supreme Court can overturn a state referendum that passed with a 4/5 vote of the people. See in your argument like with most libs out there then the government can and HAS used the 14th amendment to over ride the free exercise clause. As seen with the florist in Oregon, baker in Colorado, and photographer in Arizona. But how can they use the 14th amendment so liberally when I could in turn state that I have a right under the the free exercise clause to practice my religion through in all parts of my life. See in all three cases the individuals were not discriminating against homosexuals because the we're gay. All three had previously performed services for homosexuals and the lady in Oregon had even hired a few. See when you argue liberty I can say that the government can not tell me that I must perform services that violate my religious beliefs and if you attempt to interpret the 14th amendment in a way that's says they can then what do individuals have left to hold on to to prevent the government from shutting down churches? Which I promise YOU GLAD and FFRF want to do. See I've heard your quote Jefferson many times, but Jefferson, though very vague in his own religious beliefs, was a champion of religious liberty and I have to believe based on his own writing would support the right of religious liberty and the rights of the states in both cases.
Danny Britton The problem with you argument is that that is not religious liberty, that is religious tyranny. You're "practicing" your religion on other people. Also there are plenty of provisions that explicitly protect churches in the constitution.
MrSneakmind Incorrect, we are not practicing our religious/spiritual beliefs on other people, we are abiding in and holding to them ourselves, which under the free exercise clause, we have a right to. Find another bakery, there are 10 million of them and most would be willing to participate in that event.
"Why the Congress can still arrest people through the DEA is the commerce clause." First, Congress doesn't nor does it have any power to arrest people. Second, that power doesn't come from the misinterpreted and bastardized commerce clause it comes from jurisdiction. The federal gov't has exclusive jurisdiction over Washington, DC, military fa ilities (read: air bases, army posts, naval ports, docks, piers, etc) and federal enclaves within states. The federal gov't doesn't have ubiquitous jurisdiction throughout the U.S. His argument on that tio falls apart with one word: INTRAstate.
(1/2) Right on! The best Amendment! ...and the most ignored. I love your parents/fridge example, let's bring this example to the extent that "interpretation" has brought the Constitution: Deciding on where you go on vacation will be interpreted to mean any time you are not working or in school. Vacation really means free time, so parent control everything. Setting the curfew will be interpreted as controlling all your time, for it did not say "evening" curfew - they now control your day.
cool. I guess I am an international teacher too.
you're gay. we all know it.
The wording in Article 1 section 8 is "Promote the General Welfare" which is a far cry from Providing for the General Welfare. Promote and Provide are not the same thing and should not be conflated.
+Alma Gordon What a simple explanation that makes a world of different.
+Alma Gordon Correct. Further, the federal government is not allowed to exceed its authority in promoting the general welfare. It cannot, for example, force American citizens to buy health insurance by simply declaring that this promotes the general welfare. That is not an enumerated power the parent states delegated to its subordinate federal government.
I see you are a Federalist believer then.
Alma Gordon .. Not true.. section 8 states “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”. At the beginning of the Constitution it states promote, but not in section 8. I believe it should state it exactly the same as it does in the very first paragraph of the Constitution “..to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Notice at the beginning it states something distinctly different.. I believe they fd up when they wrote section 8 and meant provide defense and promote well being.. wish I could go back in time and tell them they fd up :-/
Byron Hobson welfare did not mean then what it means today.
Thank you for this! It really helped me understand the amendment. I'll do great on my project now thanks to you!
why do we have the tenth amendement if we are not going to use it?
Alejandro Hernandez 5 years ago you made this comment. Look at Virginia and its governor. Welcome
Justin Rodriguez who are blatantly violating rights bestowed in the Bill of Rights?
Justin Rodriguez - and now look where we are just from January 2020 (Virginia gun rally) to (today, easter sunday) april 2020.. covid-19 has us all under what i would argue as tyranny.
Easter Sunday I hid eggs with change in em at the park down the block and watched my kids and community kids find em. Just over a hundred bucks. And as for today. I ran into some one I hadn't seen in years at walmart. We hugged. I wore a bandana cuz my neighbor told me to. I felt like a gangbanger or biker and took it off. Then I went to help a friend fix his headlight. Just another day for me. Ignorance is bliss. I ignored and I was happy. Nobody listens when I bicker. So I won't listen to them bickering. Besides. I saw the queen's royal subjects out n about. Chillin in parks and on the beach. Shopping n whatnot. SUBJECTS. Not free individuals. Subjects defying "orders." You're only a sheep when you follow the crowd.
Do you. Or someone else will.
Like wearing a mask
Does the 10th amendment give the states the authority to regulate rights?
What I mean is does the 10th grant the states the ability to regulate the 2nd amendment?
This is the question I was about to ask. Really curious to know if states actually have the power to mandate concealed carry laws or if that would be a violation of the 2nd and 10th amendment.
No, shaĺl not be infinged.
Keyword: "or"
The State does not supercede the people as an entity. The State merely exists as general representative embodiment of the people. When we forget that a state that infringes on its residents and assumes dominion over them is unconstitutional due to an aforementioned clause in The Ninth, applying to Federal Rights and Freedoms as well, we wind up with feudalism. I can not stress the interpretation of "or" any greater at this juncture.
As well as they forget the meaning of the key words freedom,free, and Liberty.
*Here's notes for those kids who are being told to take notes on this video, I did it for you:*
Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
marriage is a reserved power by the 10th amendment
think of reserved powers this way:
if your parents were going to put everything that is needed to do on the fridge, where you were going to go for vacation, what food your parents are going to make for dinner- those are delegated powers, powers given to your parents
if you had a poster in your room you'd assume what you wrote on it- is what you can do.
10th amendment limits the federal power by giving that power to the states and the people
Separation of powers: an act of vesting the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of government in separate bodies.
Thank you so much
The states grant powers to the federal government, not the other way around. This is why the powers of the states are 'reserved'. Those powers existed prior to the constitution.
Marriage licenses and fees are a violation of the constitution of article 4 section 2 paragraph 1,9th amendment enumeration clause,10th amendment,14th amendment section 1 no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states. No citizen needs permission from anyone especially the state or federal government to get married or should be extorted to exercise their natural and constitutional right to do so either.
We the people are supposed to be the power over the government not the government over us. By the people,for the people,of the people not by the government for the government of the government. All government officials need to be educated on the meaning of the words freedom,free, and Liberty.
What is the difference between the 9th and 10th Ammendment?
I guess I must be Libertarian. Who knew? I cannot help be see the Constitution, along with the Declaration of Independence as a basis of the principles of our society. I see us drifting further and further away from being a Constitutional republic to a democracy leaning more and more to federal tyrannical control.
Interpreting the Constitution correctly does not make you a libertarian. It makes you literate. Don't accept what Mr. Hughes has to say. He wrong more than he is right.
89oi
"Don't accept what Mr. Hughes has to say. He wrong more than he is right."
he really made no comment about the controversial issues
he presented a general understanding of the amendment
and said we can debate the muddy issues
And the cycle is almost complete.
Have you heard of Jo Jorgensen?
yeah saying states have to treat people equally is tyrannical control. moron.
I believe if we were to strictly adhere to the 10th Amendment we would cure 97% of what currently ails our country.
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” ~ James Madison
What changes if any would you make to the 10th amendment? How would you "amend" the 10th amendment? There has been a lot of controversy about this amendment, where the "power" or the rights of the states are not specifically spelled out.
+Luis Lopez There are a lot of laws that should be changed but it seems that the Supreme Court is giving us laws that affect the Country as a whole. The left over, residue not yet argued about, still remains to the States. Examples: Minimum wages not for everyone. DMV not the same in all states. Weed, not affected for all states. Texas hate on abortion/family planning, not the same for California. Until the Supreme Court say, 'this affect all citizens' then it's only for certain people. So, know your rights.
This has been an excellent tool for my constitutional law class, thank you very much
I only brought it up as an illustration of an interpretation not as fact.
This guy seems like a good teacher. History and Government teachers have always been the most influential on my life.
I love your vids! They really help me with my political science homework!
Hashtag mission accomplished! Be sure to tell your classmates, there is no reason to keep secrets!
@@hiphughes wouldn’t the 10th Amendment nullify the General Welfare clause, Interstate commerce clause, and Elastic clause?
Since they were apart of the original Constitution in it’s original unamendmend form which was ratified in 1788, but nullified when the 10th Amendment was ratified with the other Bill of Rights in 1791. Wouldn’t the 10th Amendment override and replace the the General Welfare, Interstate commerce, and and Elastic clauses?
If there’s a conflicion between the any Articles of the Constitution (the base Constitution) and a Constitutional Amendments (the expansions), doesn’t the Amendments come out on top?
This could make a *REALLY* interesting debate among the Supreme Court Justices if an issue regarding the General Welfare, Interstate commerce, and and Elastic clauses and the 10th Amendment make it to the Supreme Court. I would love to be a fly on the wall during that debate…
@@hiphughes What is the best way to prepare for the state test?
Walter, I want to thank you for your viewership and more importantly for your important comments. My intention was never to "cover" everything, I always knew I would have spirited commenteers to fill in blanks, bring up questions and clarify controversy. So thank you for bringing your light.
3:17
"Section one, artical eight."
Whoops, I think you meant Article one section eight. Oh gosh, that made my day right there. LOL
Clearly a typo seeing is he corrected it in the very next 3 seconds????ugh?????? Are we the mistake police?
why do were have the 10th amendment if were not gonna use it anyway?
When someone tells you that you were allowed to argue the specifics in the comments.
You know you were in a place that you might actually learn some thing.
The 10th Amendment and the redundant 14th Amendment.
The state enacts laws that reach into the federal level, powers not delegated to the state.
The primary example the 2nd Amendment.
In terms of the second amendment. It is a guaranteed right. A right that shall not be infringed. Mere possession of a firearm is not a state right. The where and when and how can be. But possession is not. Correct?
Article 6
Doesnt the 14th amendment mean states cant restrict already protected rights? Like the 2nd
Why is it that a state judge must give an oath to uphold the constitution yet some of the amedments don’t pertain to state crimes? Am I missing something here?
To Hughes, or anyone else - If Congress can implement environmental regulation (interstate commerce clause), can states implement more stringent environmental regulations on top of that, according to the 10th Amendment?
As a parent myself...that's because we never learned this stuff so well and the older you get you realize how much it effects everyday life.
...and how do you propose to remove the incentive of money from the political process?
There is a Section of the 10th you really didn't address well enough, its the part that says OR TO THE PEOPLE why would the 10th include OR TO THE PEOPLE if the States already represent The People???
Better yet, which powers ARE delegated?
This is a great question.
Once I heard "If you're a libertarian..." I knew he's got a good thing going.
Yeah, same, man. Gotta love Libertarians. One person when the prof. at my college asked what we thought of Libertarians said "drug addicts (or heads)." I was like, "Dude, I will fight you. Do I look like I'm on crack?!" That was all in my head of course, but what a narrow-minded view.
an amendment supercedes the powered of what came before it. It's true that the Commerce clause is vague and muddys up the 10th amendment if you assume they are equal, but they aren't. Amend means to fix or adjust.
the Commerce clause specifically refers to interstate commerce alone not commerce within a state. It also only refers to regulation not legislation. The difference is that regulation is a specific type of legislation. Regulation means to make regular (consistant) Regulations are limited in power but wide in scope whereas legislation is wide in scope and power.
also commerce means voluntary trade, or buying and selling. It does not mean labor relations or price or product quality controls.
And it's illegal to use the commerce clause to violate anything written (enumerated)or not written in the constitution through the enumeration clause.
Example it is illegal unconstitutional to use the commerce clause to tax the second amendment rights of the American people,or any other rights of the people.
@@dragonf1092 What do you mean enumerated but not written? That's the same thing?
The commerce clause is about regulating things that are common to two or more states. That is what's meant by "interstate".
and the commerce clause is about commerce. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with buying or selling anything.
and the commerce clause is about regulation not legislation.
@williampennjr.4448 meaning the government cannot use something written in the constitution to violate or deprive another right written into the constitution or any human rights given by God and nature that was not written into the constitution they couldn't write every single right in existence into the constitution or it would be a mile long example the right to travel is a right that was not enumerated into the constitution but is still a human and constitutionally protected right under the 9th amendment. They are not supposed to use the commerce clause to violate the second amendment,the right to travel or any other rights to extort the American people out of money, right to hunt,fish for food or grow food to survive but they illegally do so.
@@dragonf1092 Basically that's rights. But an amendment means to fix. Like how the 21st amendment overturned the 18th. and how other amendments created Presidential term limits, put the VP on the same ticket as the president, and senators are now elected instead of being appointed by the the state legislature ect...
This is why the Constitution has to be looked at as a whole. Amendment should be looked at as a change not just an additional law. The Constitution says there are rights not enumerated in the Constitution, but its states that decide what those unenumerated rights are, not the federal government or the supreme court.
Do fed marijuana laws violate the 10th?
They do...
No..actually the state over road their power in this one...even from a smoker this should be ALL states or NONE same as for ALL GUN LAWS! (That with Any it becomes INFRINGEMENT)
i love your videos!!
currently im an army vet attending a university on guam and majoring in poli sci. your videos are really unbias and explained in depth! =D im glued onto your channel!
By using the word "respectively" the 10th amendment also establishes that powers not explicitly delegated to the state within the states constitution also can not be exercised by the state and said power is reserved to the people.
State constitutions are moot they didn't exist when the constitution of the united states of America was written and adopted. State constitutions were written as a way to illegally go around the US constitution to try to usurp it.
Soooo the 2nd Amendment isn't a state issue. Any and all American's right to keep and carry fall firearms can't be infringed. PERIOD
Thank you the SCOTUS of June 2022. 🇺🇸
OK here's possibly a stupid question..Does the 10th amendment reinforce the 2nd amendment and for that matter, all of the other amendments? And if it does, then isn't a violation of my constitutional rights to prohibit me from carrying a weapon to protect myself and my family? Isn't the 2 amendment essentially my carry permit and isn't that ensured by the 10th amendment?
That was resolved this week by SCOTUS. 🇺🇸
Based on the 10th amendment why would a name correction/change be lawful?
What about federal minimum wage? Is that under a commerce clause? I've always hated the concept of a federal minimum wage. The dishwasher or realtor or whatever in Manhattan shouldn't make the same as the whatever in Fargo.
I know you probably not going to see this because the video is 7 years old but worth a try lol. So if I am not wanting this Covid Vaccine and my job mandated it. Will this help me out from not having to get it and be able to keep my job at the same time? Please let me know if you do see this. Thank you for your time.
What about issues like voting to secede from the Union?
What state are you in?
The United States government issued a blanket immunity to vaccine manufacturers against any and all liabilities , please correct me if I am wrong ,
medical malpractice is prosecuted at state level .
what gives the federal government power to cancel a civil dispute at the state level under state law ?
Great question! IMO if later it is determined that the federal government overreached by SCOTUS I believe that could happen.
It is obvious that the Covid-19 vaccines effectiveness was misrepresented by the government. I’m not saying that it was not positive but the statistical data was not accurate.
@@mikeellis8394
There is many individuals out there who doubt the existence of the coronavirus in the first place , drug companies managed to embezzle over $160 billion from Humanity , talk about a hype .
", or the People". Does " the People" mean the local government or are there reserved powers for individuals?
yes.
Article 1 Section 8 says: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
What follows next is a list of things which are "included" as that which this section applies to.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Constitution appears to be a CONTRACT between 14 separate entities, the 13 States plus the new Federal Government. Under contract law, if a list of "inclusions" is provided as part of a contract element, all things NOT included are therefore SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED! By that rule, anything not listed is not covered by that element, therefore the "General Welfare" part only applies to those things listed, not anything and everything anyone anywhere might consider a good idea!
Explain to me how I'm wrong...
The Constitution is NOT a contract between the states and federal government. The federal government did not exist. The Constitution was the compact among the states that created the federal government.
89oi
the federal government was created when they signed the Declaration of Independence
Wrong. The Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. The federal government wasn't established until the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.
89oi
the articles of confederation established the governement
robinsss Incorrect. The Articles of Confederation established a government, but that government no longer exists.
Why does he remind me the stranger things kid
So if there were no interstate commerce for drugs, i.e. what's grown in Colorado stays in Colorado, then technically the federal government has no jurisdiction?
the commerce clause says to keep commerce regular. not regulate commerce, there's a huge differance.
10th amendment whatever power isn't reserve with the federal government is also reserve with the states and to the people.
Or, not and. The State only stands as valid if it truly represents its people.
Thank you very much ..Good job ..
I think it's important to distinguish that the commerce clause did not support upholding of the individual mandate of Obamacare, but was upheld under taxing power.
+Tiffany Hope If we accept that ACA is Constitutional because it is a tax, then why bother enumerating a few and limited powers in the Constitution. Any act of tyranny can be framed in these open ended terms. This is not the purpose of the Constitution. It is a violation of the Constitution.
who proposed the 10th amendment?
Señor Killervr4 most likely James Madison if I had to guess, he was one of the most important writers for the constitution and the bill of rights
Thank you for the video.
I am pretty progressive and even I am glad we have the tenth amendment. lol. I wish I highlighted to "nor prohibited by it" language in clarifying how something like the 14th amendment can make the debate that much more layered. #rooster
To clarify, the preamble states "provide for the common defence, PROMOTE the general welfare." There's a huge difference between provide and promote, and the terms were used with precision.
Technically the tenth amendment should prohibit the state and federal government from having any jurisdiction or authority over anyone who doesn't vote,by not voting a citizen is not consenting to be GOVERNED therefore all powers over those should be to themselves the people.
and well said sir. on point!
Yes, here too, I have to use 5 data points per kids to calculate their estimated learning growth which is then used to measure my effectiveness. Its whack a mole with numbers, a colossal waste of time. Check out my "Teacher" playlist, I have a couple pointed videos addressed to Sir Duncan. I am also admin for the Badass Teacher Ass. on FB. We have 31k pissed off teachers and are seeking to raise our teacher voice to reclaim our profession. I am one of their meme men.
Dude thank you :,) I had to read the amendments and you made it so simple
Does the tenth amen dement allow Sanctuary Cities?
At the state level, yes.
The best sanctuary criminals can have is using the threat of deportation by the cops to get their victims to not cooperate with the police. Cops who have serious concerns like trafficking people to be used as sex slaves have the right priority when they don't have to act as ICE agents, though when they catch the ringleaders but can't convict them it is handy to have the option to hand them over to ICE.
"mnemonic" - word of the day. Wow, opened the dictionary two days in a row.
Ha, make me laugh that you just realizing I was enrolled in your class for a while. Excellent stuff...you are a credit to your profession.
Very good examples this really helped! Thanks!
Regarding the contradictory nature of the 10th amendment and article 1 section 8, I think it all comes down to how you interpret the Constitution. In the historical context it was written, interstate commerce was de facto limited, so there the contradiction is nowhere to be found. But now, everything is interstate commerce (think of internet commerce), so the literal interpretation effectively nullifies the 10th amendment.
Marriage laws, and drivers licenses are unconstitutional in violation of the supremacy clause, article 4 section 2 paragraph 1,9th amendment enumeration clause,10th amendment,14th amendment section 1.
Completely agree. Here In LA our governor has bought the idea that education can be run like a factory assembly line. Arbitrary numbers ("data driven results") are generated for each kid, each year, for the standardized test. Of course this completely negates the human experiences such as home life, sudden traumatic events, etc. that factor in to those sorts of things.
Dude I'm 16 and I know most of the songs that you're playing on your videos like the good times intro or the Sanford and sons intro or the Barney Miller theme song I just know these off of reruns that I used to watch with my grandfather
This helped me so much! thank you!
It has been my experience that The Constitution is not what is flawed, it is the interpretation. The meaning is often dictated by whichever Party is running the Interpretation. That is where the Flaw is!
Ha! I may need to watch all of your videos!! Thanks!!!!
Nice thanks Kieth!
NJ Transit it doesnt take2 months to figure if you should respond to someone to say we have something or we dont have something. 2 months.
Thank you.
It doesn't get "kicked back to the States". It doesn't depend on the rights be challenged, they are innate. But the States might make up powers that really didn't exist before the Constitution and those are not reserved rights.
I think their use of fiscal federalism and basically using competitive grants skirts the issue a bit. I am in NY where common core is being implemented, its like a fat guys take a bath in a birdbath.... ugly, messy and quite unproductive. NY wants the cash so its implementing in the end its kinda fiscal blackmail. I believe in a Federal role for equity but I hate Duncan's corporate approach. I still believe in a public ed., schools arent the problem to learning, poverty is. thanks by the comment
promote and provide are definitely two separate words with unique meanings..but being that the 'Words at hand are both strong words as well as have the First letter of word in common" Perservance Perservance another extremely powerful word and I'd just like to throw that out there :)
my parents love your videos
Love your energy sir!
I always wondered whatever happened to Tom Arnold
Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
It doesn't say may be or might be entitled no it explicitly says shall be entitled,it doesn't say some or if the state or federal government allows no it explicitly says shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities,all rights protected under the constitution as well as not enumerated into the constitution are the privileges and immunities of every single individual natural born or naturalized American citizen.
A lot of us laws are illegal in violation of the supremacy clause, article 4 section 2 paragraph 1,14th amendment section 1 combined.
Wow great job I mean take as much of my tax money you need. Talk about going the extra mile. I realy enjoyed this video/explanation , very professional and entertaining. Im going to watch this series just because of this video. Thank you
This applies only when Goodell agrees with it.
I’m not sure
2:44-3:06all i needed thank you so much i wish you were my History Teacher
AS a not American, I enjoy this series. It's very interesting :)
So extreme either they are super kind or crazy.
Basically the 10th amendment is to re-affirm our liberty provided by the 9th amendment
You make an awesome teacher! :D
You make an awesome complementer. #imakeupwords
....Interpreting the US Constitution which includes the 10th amendment...Isn't that what we have a SCOTUS for?
Oh, I wish you didn’t bring up the ACA. The act regulates the purchase of health insurance not healthcare (at least not directly). Healthcare could always be purchased across state lines but health insurance was never sold across state lines. It was (and is) regulated by the states. Justice Roberts ruled this isn’t interstate commerce but a tax. Even the Democrats were surprised by that.
thanks for the help on my project
+Maria Trujillo you are quite welcome Maria. You may now continue kicking the world's ass.
No, you have to back up your idea with actual policy. I am not lobbing hypothetical ideas, I am presenting alternate policy, alternate methods of dispersing political power. To anyone reading this, it is you that is lobbing hypotheticals! :)
The current system is broken, but saying "get money out of politics" with no rational proposal on how to do it does not help. Especially when asked one simple question on how you would do that you react like this.
Less power to feds, more local.
Justice Scalia, and I'm paraphrasing, has said the 10th Amendment was redundant as it was inherent in the understanding of Constitutionalism that powers not delegated we're reserved. According to him that was, apparently not good enough for the anti-Federalists though as the insisted it be added to the Bill of Rights.
well shit i was told at my local gun shop here in commiefornia that the reason Commiefornia can ignore the 2nd amendment is because if the 10th amendment, but from what i see here, the guy who told me that would be wrong
It used to be that the 2nd only applied to the feds, so Cali back then could have gotten away with banning literally all guns. Now though the 14th has been interpreted to mean that states can't restrict constitutional rights, so they can only push it so far. In "DC vs Heller" the supreme court ruled that a handgun ban is going too far, so California could not outright ban handguns. But states still have a lot of leeway in what they can do before it gets too far, and even then a case about it would have to be brought up all the way to the SC
Drew Bennett Well at least with Trump We'll have a constitutionally minded supreme court
On guns yes. Trump isn't too big on the 4th though
Gun possession is not a state right. See article 6 of the Constitution:
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this constitution, as under the confederation.
2. 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.
3. The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
One thing that affects certain states is minimum wage. Although people are pushing for a $15 minimum wage, it won't spread for all. Colorado & Georgia have lower than any minimum wage. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, South Colorado have no minimum wage, meaning they will pay you less or more than Federal wage. Notice that these are all Red (GOP) states. Sorry people, you're screwed because you like how badly you live because you continue to vote for it.
The more you know and how it affect your personal life, the more you want to know. Is that energy flowing???
This was the stupidest comment 6 years ago and still is the stupidest comment today.
What about covid shutdowns?
Mr. Hughes I have loved your series so far, but why is it every time you bring up hay marriage you also bring up the 14th Amendment. That amendment as you so put it multiple times states that "the state" can not deny equal protection under the law, but in states where hay marriage is banned those bans were imposed by constitutional amendments to the state constitution. I would argue that the state isn't violating the 14th amendment is those cases since those bans were not imposed by the state legislatures but the people. Which by the 10 amendment a reserved power to be justified by the people and is not subject to the 14th amendment.
Danny, By no state they are referring to any process by which the "state" enacts public policy. "under the law"...The people are the state.... whatever process led to its ban was done by a law..... Surely a referendum in California for say seizing Mailbu Mansions to house the homeless would be unconstitutional. Therefore whether its a state amendment, law, referendum, paper/rock/scissors game; if it denies a citizen the same protection as another no matter how popular it is unconstitutional. You can't use democracy to vote on equal rights. At least that is how I see the cookie crumbling. I think the conservative argument is less in strict interpretation than original intent of the 14th (ie slaughterhouse cases) but its till a stretch. Great question by the way. And of course I am sure there are other ways of spinning that bottle. Peace, HipHughes
I can understand your argument and as you can tell I'm one of those "bible toting, evil, white, conservative, southern boys" as libs like to put it. I still don't see how the federal government or even the Supreme Court can overturn a state referendum that passed with a 4/5 vote of the people. See in your argument like with most libs out there then the government can and HAS used the 14th amendment to over ride the free exercise clause. As seen with the florist in Oregon, baker in Colorado, and photographer in Arizona. But how can they use the 14th amendment so liberally when I could in turn state that I have a right under the the free exercise clause to practice my religion through in all parts of my life. See in all three cases the individuals were not discriminating against homosexuals because the we're gay. All three had previously performed services for homosexuals and the lady in Oregon had even hired a few. See when you argue liberty I can say that the government can not tell me that I must perform services that violate my religious beliefs and if you attempt to interpret the 14th amendment in a way that's says they can then what do individuals have left to hold on to to prevent the government from shutting down churches? Which I promise YOU GLAD and FFRF want to do. See I've heard your quote Jefferson many times, but Jefferson, though very vague in his own religious beliefs, was a champion of religious liberty and I have to believe based on his own writing would support the right of religious liberty and the rights of the states in both cases.
Danny Britton The problem with you argument is that that is not religious liberty, that is religious tyranny. You're "practicing" your religion on other people. Also there are plenty of provisions that explicitly protect churches in the constitution.
MrSneakmind Incorrect, we are not practicing our religious/spiritual beliefs on other people, we are abiding in and holding to them ourselves, which under the free exercise clause, we have a right to. Find another bakery, there are 10 million of them and most would be willing to participate in that event.
writeract2 It depends on who you are referring to when you say "we".
"Why the Congress can still arrest people through the DEA is the commerce clause."
First, Congress doesn't nor does it have any power to arrest people.
Second, that power doesn't come from the misinterpreted and bastardized commerce clause it comes from jurisdiction.
The federal gov't has exclusive jurisdiction over Washington, DC, military fa ilities (read: air bases, army posts, naval ports, docks, piers, etc) and federal enclaves within states.
The federal gov't doesn't have ubiquitous jurisdiction throughout the U.S.
His argument on that tio falls apart with one word: INTRAstate.
Well stated.
This is more of a Centrist argument. Libertarians have their own interpretations which is closers to Centrist
(1/2)
Right on! The best Amendment! ...and the most ignored. I love your parents/fridge example, let's bring this example to the extent that "interpretation" has brought the Constitution:
Deciding on where you go on vacation will be interpreted to mean any time you are not working or in school. Vacation really means free time, so parent control everything.
Setting the curfew will be interpreted as controlling all your time, for it did not say "evening" curfew - they now control your day.
Hello?
Right on! I agree!
i still dont get it.... 😂
Great video
I just came here to learn and do my school project
Big Chungus Same