I wonder when people started viewing the constitution as “giving people the right” as opposed to “restricting the governments ability to infringe on rights”
But the US Constitution does give people rights. I think it was the first national constitution that had "Bill of rights". Edit: Read the edit so you don't misunderstand what I actually mean. Even if US constitution words the rights as 'god given', that doesn't mean those rights could exist without existence of Constitution. 'god given' doesn't hold any precise meaning. That could also imply that non Americans and people before formation of USA also have rights mentioned in constitution, which is not the case. Those rights are materialized through constitution. They will be meaningless in the eyes of law, if they weren't mentioned in constitution. You can't go outside USA and claim that you have a natural/god given right to do things mentioned in US Constitution. Or In some countries food is considered a natural right but in US constitution it is not mentioned, therefore technically in eyes of US courts food isn't considered a right. But some may consider food as an unalienable natural right.
@@sanket.solanke nah, OP is correct. The government did not give us the right to free speech, it’s a right natural to all human beings. The Constitution simply agrees and promises that the fed gov will not infringe upon the rights we all inherently have
@@sanket.solanke "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" those rights are god given not government given
@@Ya_Mf_Boi You have to watch yourself when using the Declaration of Independence as justification for things. One needs to understand the legal justifications necessary to support the argument that the people of a nation were equal to, had equal authority to, and could declare itself independent from the rule of a person who believed he was king due to preordination from a god.
Years ago in my 20s I bought a pocket-sized printing of the US Constitution in a book store for like three dollars. Certain "legal experts" (not) to this day still try to tell me things that are "in the Constitution" and I always reply, "Where? I didn't see that in my copy." Always met with silence... I guess those experts never bothered to see if a copy was available in the local book store.
That's a huge mistake though. The Constitution is more than its text. The details of what it means are hashed out in a long history of court cases and traditions. For instance, the right to have your rights explained to you when you are arrested isn't in the Constitution, it was established in the Miranda case, but it's fair to call it a "constitutional right." And when it comes to human rights, the Ninth Amendment explicitly states that rights may exist even if they are not spelled out in the Constitution. It may be correct that something isn't "IN" the Constitution, but that doesn't mean it's not a part of it.
Exact phrases dont have to be in the constitution to be a part of the document. There are other documents and precedents that clarify meanings. And we ignore some plainly written parts like "organized militia."
honesty, from a law abiding perspective, this only affirms my belief that cops are not friends. that federal agents will go out of their way to condemn you. the constitution is not designed to protect your rights, it is to curtail the rights of the government infringing upon YOU
There are few protections for the people in the Constitution itself. i.e. Habeas Corpus. Our protections FROM the government are found in the Bill of Right. The BoR was a promised addition to get Anti-Federalists to vote for ratification.
"Unsure / don't know" appears to be an option on these surveys, yet tons of people are picking the wrong answer instead. That seems more worrying than not knowing the correct answer.
I would also call "Foul!" where "No" is a correct answer but it's lumped with "Unsure" in the graphics shown. "I don't know" should always be a separate statistic. As in "Is X part of the US Constitution? a) Yes, b) No, c) I don't know, resulting in a pie chart with 3 wedges.
@@ldbarthel I'm guessing it was in the original paper, but reporting only gave the headline number. TBF, when two thirds of your respondents think that the USA enshrines the fundamental principle of communism in it's core legal document, the confidence levels of the rest are not really as relevant 😄
@@ZhangtheGreat funnily enough, donning kruger is not what you think it is, its not some wild up and down, its actually flat line but just slightly shallower than actual ability line
As a high school social studies teacher, I have been fascinated by the huge surge in discussion of "parent's rights," especially as regards school curricula, in recent years. I was wondering if there is any chance you could do a video on the history of this concept? I know it is not explicitly given in the constitution, though I did find a case that interprets the 14th Amendment to apply to parental rights to raise children as they choose (though this applied to the home, not parental rights over schools). I would LOVE a deep dive into the idea, especially as it intersects with rights of a child and rights of states as regards public schooling. I would do more research myself but I have too many papers to grade. So...please please please?
Basically it's from the 9th, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The concept that parents wouldn't have near exclusive power over their children's education would be a foreign concept to most in the US a decade or two ago. Back in 1890, schools would have been a hyper local thing (basically group home schooling today) and so it likely never came up. It's also helpful to understand what a right is. A right is what you have in the absence of coercion. The government coercing parents to send their kids to a government school and then ignoring parent's wishes on the content of the teachings is all kinds of problematic from both a rights and constitutional standpoint. Of course, our constitution hasn't even gotten lip service since the 1930's so it's kind of meaningless at this point. Arguably it was never really followed.
@Suzerain Parents pay the state, not the school, which elects school boards that parents can vote on. Parents can have some influence over what is taught in schools by electing boards who best represent their interests. And even better than other parts of government, parents can opt out of public school if they don't like their representatives and teach their children at home. Parents have the right to democratic representation, but they should not have power over policy making for the same reason every citizen has the right to representation, but should not have power over law making.
@@GrendalTheBeasty The 14th Amendment was also written to protect unenumerated rights. Most civil rights cases of the last century have been 14th Amendment cases. The 14th Amendment also changed the nature of American government by making state governments bound to the US Constitution, which prior to 1868, they were not. So the first amendment restricted the Federal Government from establishment of religion but states were free to establish state religions. The ninth amendment also would have only been applicable to the Federal Government prior to 1868
@@GrendalTheBeasty Children are only required to be educated. Parents are more than welcome to educate at home or enroll their children in private schools if they don't want their kids educated by the government. No one is being coerced.
Lol I've had more than one person say I was lying about having read the entire U.S. constitution. That it was impossible because it was SO long; no one could read the WHOLE thing! 😆
That's how you know the other person *hasn't* read a lick of the constitution and likely confuses it with the declaration of independence... and probably gets THAT wrong, too. Then ask them when the constitution was ratified... I can guarantee they'll say "1776" instead of, you know, 1792-ish.
Or you could find any half awake newspaper editor - like Me - who has to read and grasp thousands of words an hour, and ask us to go and run through it.
Aye now if they say they have read the entire US code, now that, that is saying something. To be fair I'd be impressed if many people have read both the US, and their home state, constitution
I knew about the language because I watched a documentary that mentioned it a few years back (also where I learnt that English isn't the official language in England lol)
I love it when someone says something like "Hey man, you can't change the Constitution!" Yes you can, it's called an Amendment. There have already been 33 of them.
I mean, the presumed meaning of that statement is that you can't READ INTO the constitution your own meaning and desires. Obviously we have an amendment process but it's very difficult to do, and with good reason.
@@SeraphsWitness Literally every decision having to do with the Constitution is based on reading into it, since no one who wrote it is alive today to explain, and even if they were, most would probably say parts were intentionally left vague so that future generations could reinterpret them as needed. The necessity for an overwhelming vote is simply to ensure a given new interpretation is agreed upon by everyone, not to dissuade reinterpretation.
I encountered someone who knew amendments were possible, but thought such amendments couldn't override the main text of the constitution or any prior amendment.
Thank you for doing this, many more people need to understand the Constitution. I blame politics for throwing the Constitution around. Many have lost its meaning and value.
Lol the constitution just a piece of paper written by a bunch of slave owners hundreds of years ago 😆 i wipe my ass with the constitution they didnt even know what micro-organisms were and thought you got sick from having dirty thoughts or something. Sorry for the rant i iust was going along with the theme of people throwing it around for the sake of justifying arguments
Well, Republicans bear the most blame in recent history, always changing the colloquial definition in order to suit their agenda, like talking about accurate US history and racism now to the idiots is "CRT", criticizing people in power suddenly is now "cancel culture", being woke is used as a pejorative etc.
@@X-35173 It also includes the phrase "well regulated militia" so the government has more than enough justification and authority to regulate which guns are to be allowed, where are they going to be allowed and who is going to be allowed to have guns, thats what well regulated means, the 2A is not absolute, but the gun fetishists in the right wing think it is.
Much like the other guy, the second amendment is a huge one people misunderstand. The first amendment is my favorite. The Republicans always want to throw that out there. We can't be sensored. Then you have Ron DeSantis trying to prevent people from speaking (or studying about) certain words (or past events)... I mean I do believe it says the federal government can't sensor you. So he is kind of right. A bit overboard. What pisses me off is when you are at work and someone wants to say his boss can't tell him to not say derogatory things to other people. "Nope. My first amendment right says you can't limit me." Not true. That was designed to prevent the government from lying to us and being the only word we heard. Aka if our government told us a story and someone else could prove they were lying to brainwash us, that media source could shine light on it and inform the citizens of the corruption the government was trying to pull. 1st amendment doesn't give me the right to go around and call people nigg..... what's that mom. Hold on. BRB.
@@X-35173 And Russel has no idea what he's talking about. When the Constitution was written private citizens had the same weapons as the government. And the people should have that same weaponry today.
"From each according to his ability to each according to his needs" Me: Everyone knows that's Marx Legal Eagle: 72% of Americans believe this is in the U.S. Constitution Me: 🤦🏻
When he said that, I thought it sounded a bit too egalitarian, possibly even socialist or even *communist*, to be in the US constitution. Like, that kind of thinking has literally been called "un-American", how could people get it so wrong!
You probably get that impression a lot. Many of us don't feel that way. I would have loved to grow up in a bilingual home. I would have loved the opportunity to begin learning a second language when I was in elementary school like many other countries do.
Q: What is a person that speaks 2 languages called? A: Bilingual. Q: What is a person that speaks multiple languages called? A: Multilingual or a Polyglot. Q: What is a person that only speaks 1 language called? A: An American.
The American constitution is especially frustrating as a Canadian because a lot of Canadians confuse the two. Ive heard people unironically talk about their second ammendment rights in canada
@@saintwaluigi4464 There is no right to gun ownership in Canada. To even get a license the RCMP will do a background check and if they find reason to believe you might harm yourself or others, you will not be granted a license. Many firearms are also prohibited or restricted, and many modifications (e.g. high round magazines or modding a semi auto to an auto) are prohibited by law. We own guns at the government's pleasure, not by right.
Back when I was a sports bar bouncer I ejected plenty of people. All I had to say was "We refuse to do business with you and require you to leave the premises." If that didn't work I just had to call the police and state we had an '86' refusing to leave. A place of business is private property open to the public in a limited manner for the singular purpose of doing business. You can't make me do business with you (coercion) nor can you stay on the property (trespass). This is true even if you feel I am violating your protected status. You do have the right to try to convince a judge that "obnoxious drunk" is a protected status or any innate part of one. The bouncer will be attending that hearing, with witness statements and recordings and a lawyer. You will undoubtedly be representing yourself, as such cases make both lawyers and judges roll their eyes and say "Get on with your life."
I wish more people would understand that since so many seem to think that you can kick anyone out at any time regardless of protection. It is just that you can't kick them out/ deny service if they are protected. So you can't stop a disabled person from entering the bar due to their medical equipment or even just that you don't like the way they look. However, if that same person gets too drunk and causes problem then they can be kicked out. It really isn't all that complicated yet so many people don't understand it. A few years ago there was a group of people who were working with their service dogs in a halloween store. They were all either protected under the ADA or a state law that gives in training dogs the same rights as fully trained service dogs. The manager had to call the police because they weren't buying anything and were actively getting in the way of other customers. It wasn't just a little in the way either but they were significantly blocking shelves and walkways. They tried to act like the business owner kicked them out for having service dogs and posted everywhere about it only for later information to come out showing that they were causing issues. The store owner then became the protected class instead of the people since the ADA includes the right to kick out a disabled person's service dog if they cannot control their service dog. You do need to then give them a way to access your services whether that is letting the person come back in alone, or letting them place their order and have it brought out by an employee
Thanks for posting this. I'm quite certain that nothing in the US Constitution gives anyone the "RIGHT" to enter private property against the owner's will. Even the owner has to give a certain amount of notice before entering a tennants property.
@@surferdude4487 I think there is one exception, but it's most likely not in the constitution but just general law. You are required by law to allow anyone access to your private property to give them the chance to introduce themselves. After which you can of course tell them to leave and they have to oblige, but the first thing is still there. I think this is mostly in place to give public servants like mailpeople the right to enter your private property, even though you have signs on the door that state you aren't allowed access. I think it's called something like 'seeking consent', but I don't remember the exact wording. There are probably many caveats to it...
@@Shade01982 IMO, if you don't want the mail carrier entering your property, you might consider putting the mail-box out at the edge of the property. I'm sure there are also exceptions under the law where people such as police officers and meter readers can enter your property whether you want them to or not if they have official business. I wouldn't know because I haven't read the US constitution yet.
It is worth noting that the original tax clause in the Constitution was 100% dependent upon the Several States to pay the bill. The States with higher populations had a higher tax burden. It was therefore up to the State Legislature to decide how to collect taxes. People had a more direct representation in the State than the Federal Government, the way it ought to be. It was the 16th Amendment (income tax) that changed the whole scheme. I would be in favor of repealing both the 16th Amendment and the 17th Amendment to restore the all important relationship between the federal government and the state government as articulated by Article IV and the 9th and 10th Amendments. Federalism has been broken, and that was an important mechanism in the Constitution of 1789. To get back to Taxation and True Representation the Progressive Amendments must go. Finally, people also need to understand that if the maxim of “no taxation without representation “ is true, the inverse is also true: “No Representation without Taxation “ While completely unpopular, the principle stands. I know this will likely never happen, but it’s fun to discuss. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
I was a little confused at first when you put up that first phrase. I was like "that's Marx, not the constitution!" Then you proved me correct and my day was made. Thank you
Yeah, that was my first thought as well. I cannot believe that there are American people that actually believe Karl Marx's words are part of the US Constitution.
Surveys are a really unreliable way of determining what people think, let alone what they know, because the answer can easily be made to be dependent on the way in which the question is asked. Can be done right, but can also result in complete nonsense.
People always get the meaning of the quote wrong. It was never meant to allow people to slack off and still get everything they want. Marx's definition of "need" was very narrow, as in what a person needs to live and work, not what they desire. Therefore a doctor or lawyer will still get different things than a factory worker and some people will get more than other. Said doctor would get less food than a factory worker, because he doesn't need as much. Also, since everybody can work whatever they are best at (so not being forced into a low-wage job because you hadn't the money to get education), they are (at least in Marx's views) the most productive at that point and since everybody only gets what they need, everything is used optimally; which in fact is a very capitalist way to order things.
It because schools have stopped teaching about base freedoms, haven’t you noticed that we are surround by socialist and that the playbook that being taught. Compare or curriculum to that taught in communist countries, you find it shocking.
@@fredstampflee888 sadly even people on the right are starting to fall for the liberal propaganda about the bill of rights applying to state and local governments, in spite the first amendment explicitly saying that it only applies to Congress.
@@williampennjr.4448 Technically, you are correct. The bill of rights originally only applied to the national government. However, the 14th amendment's Due Process Clause changed that, requiring both the state governments and national government to protect those rights (Edit: minor grammatical changes)
I took a Constitution Class my last year of high school, and I’m so grateful. You’re right, most people don’t really know what it says. And… it’s really short in the grand scheme of the law. We really should be learning it in school on a widespread basis.
I mean we already complain about needing to memorizing the amendments, I think kids would chafe quite at memorizing what all the articles talked about lol
“On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” Thomas Jefferson
Just wanting to make it clear- Orwell was an avid socialist and fought against the Franco regime in Spain alongside the members of what he called “utopian” socialist villages; the parody was not of Karl Marx, but of Stalin and his cronies.
if you follow communist ideology and think the end goal of communism is utopian, you’re not a very good communist. we tend to stay realistic: we want a fair and equitable world for everyone. we don’t want a utopia; we want something attainable.
This really gets to me, as it seems like the people who have many of the strongest political opinions are among those who are most ignorant of what it does and doesn't say in that very short document. Citizenship is a responsibility as well as a right, and knowing the basics of American governance should be your first responsibility before spouting off about it.
A common language that everybody learns in addition to their native tongue is not a bad idea. Forcing people to abandon their native tongue is horrific. Speaking as an Inupiaq here; I never really learned the language, despite living my early years in my home village, and that was because the language was attacked so completely. I can’t even count to ten 😢
Well said. We're still grappling with the repercussions of doing that on a national level here in New Zealand. (And we have a legally binding treaty that says we wouldn't do shit like that) Thankfully, we're slowly putting things right and teaching Te Reo Maori in schools, as well as many other acts to help repair that wrong.
My 70 yr old Navajo friend Rose was illegally adopted by Mormons at birth. It really messed her up because she is not grounded in either culture. She lives 2 blocks from the Indian Hospital which is just making her sicker. What she really needs is a medicine man, tho her religion won't allow it.
@@redmoondesignbeth9119- The ya'taali would need a good block of time. Sounds like she needs a number of ceremonies, but without a grounding in her birth culture they might not do any good.
All this shows is that you can be an attorney and still not fully understand the constitution to insure the government doesn’t unlawfully violate your rights.
There was a big discussion back in 1787 over the Bill of Rights, many saying it was superfluous nonsense. if tHe content if the Bill of Tights were in the text of the constitution. It would not have been needed. Those opposing it thought that the Constitution itself covered all of that , but that was in the context of the time in which it was written TheB OF R supporters wanted to make sure that there was explicitenummeration of rights and powers The most important amendment is actually the 10th which says the government has the power you do only what is defined in the constitution and everything else belongs to the dtates or the people.
The fun thing about not having an official language is, in theory the corresponding offices could ratify laws in klingon and it would be perfectly viable.
🌎: ''MmmMm-Huhn....Arabic Greek Hebrew Latin and more languages are the compound 'English'. There are so many immigrants with languages here. Most groups celebrate their 'cultures'. Flags Cheers Songs and buy lotsa products. The general population should know how the 'translation' is important. ''My Rights''......"how did you come by the Rights you speak of'' ? Thanks for your words and reading these.
Except that the official language thing is regulated to states since it’s technically under the 10th Amendment or that the founding fathers didn’t care to put it in since everybody spoke English already.
Which is why we probably should establish an official national language - Of course everyone should be free to speak whatever language they want to whomever they want, but its only logical to establish a standard language of communication for official matters
"I prefer the person who burns the flag and wraps themselves in the Constitution than the person who burns the constitution and wraps themselves in the flag." Molly Ivins Sadly too many of our politicians do the latter and we as a people lose a few more I.Q. points in the process.
You referring to the politicians and their lobbyists that are trying to implement hate speech laws, gun control, codify Roe, and those rioting because they're upset with the independent judiciary or the police cleaning up the streets? Ambiguous.
@@pollytix7271 Im referring to the ignorance of far too many people about the Constitution and how politicians use that ignorance to incite and inflame "Faketriots" into believing that less Freedom and the deconstruction of the Constitution is some how Patriotic.
@@art2736 It is impossible to wrap yourself in a flag without a constitution, just as it is impossible to wrap yourself in constitution without a flag. Those who burn either of them, love neither.
@@matts1166 much like Americans in the mainland or even in the same state or city can vary widely on certain issues, so can Puerto Ricans both within the island and abroad
If you're a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico during the entire tax year, you generally aren't required to file a U.S. federal income tax return if your only income is from sources within Puerto Rico.Jan 3, 2022 In 2016, Puerto Rico paid close to $3.5 billion into the US Treasury in the form of Business Income Taxes, Individual income tax withheld and FICA tax, Individual income tax payments and SECA tax, Unemployment insurance tax, Estate and trust income tax, Estate tax, Gift tax and Excise taxes. According to the Consolidated Federal Funds Report compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau, Puerto Rico has received more than $21 billion annually in federal expenditures from the United States. Congress has also allocated $42.5 billion to disaster relief for Puerto Rico after the 2019 hurricane. Free money without taxation and representation.
Think where most get confused is what the constitution grants vs what is left to the states. In other words what is not specifically granted to the federal government remains the states to regulate. The most common decision on this is abortion.
@@cameron398 I think where most people get confused is thinking that the constitution grants rights. It doesn't. It limits the government's power. The problem is we are the ones that are the check and balance against that, and the country's full of a bunch of pussies.
When someone starts ranting about "constitutional" and such, the fastest way to shut them up is to hand them a pocket copy of the Constitution and Amendments and say "show me"
I dont think the ability to point out a right within a wall of text should be the standard required for the general public. People need to be better educated on the relevant rights they have and do not have, and should not have to know all of them or point them out in the constitution. The ability to use google should cover that requirement though lol.
@@alisilcox6036 Agree with much of what you wrote, except the portion where you indicated, "and should not have to know all of them or point them out in the constitution." To clarify, the Constitution does not grant rights - it restricts the authority of government to limit rights. People become confused on this point which is why James Madison did not want a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. He feared the people would come to believe these were their Constitutional Rights - their only rights. They are not.
@@The_Federalist76 that's fair, I considered writing "rights and freedoms" but decided against for simplicity. Im just as irritated as I expect you are by the sentiment that people have, for example, a right to free speech, which in fact is simply a freedom from government curtailment of speech, not freedom from private or public consequences of speech. I'd also say this comment isnt restricted to the US public but a statement on what people should have expected of them globally - knowing and pointing out positive OR negative rights (as a "freedom from" is indeed still a "right to freedom from" after all) in the specific, whether in the constitution or other piece of legislation, shoudn't be nescessary to protect yourself or express your rights or freedoms. This might not seem just or fair to some people, but it's an unfortunate reality that the people whose rights are trampled most often are the same groups who are systemically not educated on them.
In the Philippines, a lot of college courses have an elective that just spends an entire semister to study the Philippine Constitution, regardless if their major is not Political Science. It helps a lot to teach us to understand what our rights are to better protect ourselves against authorities who abuse the law.
@@victoriarodriguez9981we need to join PTA & enforce it, demand it, petition for it, we need to get it back in instead of letting Rockefeller choose every bit of info we learn, like he’s done with what sort of health care is considered standard
A little off topic: People like to say there should be an "Official Language" in the United States. Not only are there all the languages that are spoken here, there are all the individual languages that "English" is make of, there is also this: When the Constitution was written, there were approximately 300 different Native American languages spoken across what is now the United States. So it makes sense that there is no "Official Language."
Anytime I get into a discussion with other people about the Constitution, I’m constantly correcting misconceptions other people have. It’s a very simple read and isn’t actually that hard to understand and can be read by most people in about 30 minutes ( I know a lot of slow readers). I always try to get as many people as possible to actually read it instead of just listening to what other people say about it.
I'm tired of people thinking the constitution is perfect, should never be changed and should be the "be all end all" of US law. The constitution is great, it has alot of great core concepts but it was written before toilet paper existed, when people died of diseases that we eradicated and it was considered an acceptable loss. There is an express reason why the founders allowed for amendments, because they knew things would change or that they might have missed something.
I would read it over the Australian Constitution any day! Oh my goddess, those creating a parliamentary system had to be some of the most boring people alive. I flicked over said constitution once more just to refresh because I have read it like... once, ever... and I regretted it immediately. Rules on what to do if so-and-so isn't present, rules reminding people that a year is 12 months, and all sorts of other little things that I guess should be noted down if you want a consistent government. None of which containing any flowing text what so ever, which to be fair I hate seeing in a Constitution but still makes the whole thing so tiring to read.
Well, in reality, much is ambiguous and requires critical thinking. It is a guide, in many/most cases, outlining the general form of government and configuring levels of responsibility.
It’s almost like the Constitution is a framework for how the government works, and what limits it has, and not a list of things that ordinary citizens are allowed to do.
After I finish shifting your entire convoy of truckloads of sarcasm, I have to say "Thank you Captain Obvious!" and then politely ask you to move over in the lifeboat of wisdom so that others might also take a seat. and now, cue up the snowflakes with the hate at someone who just states the obvious, while utterly undermining whatever gripe they have with how "The System" is just out to get them.
Sort of, it gives the framework for our government, primarily limiting the governments control over the public. Free speech, right to bear arms and so on.
The right of a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in criminal cases is just a fundamental part of "due process" - which IS explicitly guaranteed by our Constitution in the 5th Amendment. To say a significant and important fundamental part of something else isn't in the constitution, when the latter is clearly there, is going to be either unintelligent or dishonest; This would be no different than why we know that each State in the US has not only the right but also the duty to have a Governor - although not expressly stated that each state must have one (in fact, the term 'governor' isn't event mentioned once), it is a fundamental position of governance at such a level that having a State simply implies there will be one - just as having a city implies there will be a Mayor. If you are bound by a guarantee of due process to an individual, then their presumption of innocence is just a part of that guarantee.
I went through law school, and this is actually a pretty divisive topic which houses some really fascinating arguments. Some state that innocent until proven guilty is an extrapolation of the conscience; that it is a precedent established by common law and iterated as a core value of judicial procedures, but not born out of the constitution-rather, it is conceived by the rationale instituted by external valued (case law). Some interpret it as something which should be explicitly connected to Due Process-me personally? I’d say that the due process amendments *imply* innocent until proven guilty, but implications had to be interpreted by courts and judges, and it is with that established precedent that it pervade as an existing legal doctrine. Fascinating stuff, really.
As a born-American citizen, I wonder if the government would give me one. Honestly, I’m of the mindset that every household should be given a free law library, in print, provided by the government, with replacements for outdated materials every few years. If we’re supposed to know and follow all laws, then we should all be supplied with them, legibly in print, as not to disenfranchise people without computers. I get a lot of pushback on that, generally saying that everyone can’t be lawyers, but that’s part of why I worry, since everyone is expected to follow the law like a lawyer, yet few WANT to follow the law “like a lawyer” except the people that want to become a lawyer. The law must be as fair to the citizen that uses the internet, goes into public often, and watches the news as it is to the people who do not use the internet, do not go into public often, nor watch the news. Anyway, Stanley, I hope you enjoy America. It is not perfect but it is my home, and it sounds like it may just be your home, now, too. Happy to have you here! Sorry for the rant, but this has always been a big issue for me, and if you’re excited by a pocket constitution, maybe you’d have an opinion on my opinion of giving everyone a law library. Would probably also help us cut down on our ever more complicated laws, too, if the government was forced to put them all together on paper and give them freely to all, maybe we’d get rid of some of the extraneous laws that have added up over time.
As a naturalized US citizen, you probably understand the thing better than 99% of natural-born US citizens. As I understand it most of us would have trouble passing the citizenship test y'all have to go through.
@@krissisk4163 I personally believe anyone who runs for a US political office should have to pass the citizen test to qualify. If you can't pass that, you shouldn't be in charge of any part of the government.
@@jlaakso1706 but I mean what about people who can remember "Woman. Man. Camera. TV." five minutes later? I mean surely there should be exception for intelligence on that level!
The language section reminds me of a shirt I saw - "English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows other languages into dark alleys and rummages through their pockets for loose grammar". Even if someone just wants to learn English, knowing the languages that English as we know it came from is important and interesting. Knowing other languages on top of that helps as well, especially if you ever want to work with folks who came from other countries/cultures, or even those who just have different accents than what you might otherwise be used to. Regional terms and accents have history to them, and that can lead down all sorts of interesting learning rabbit holes that can become useful later on.
Now all I can think about is 'Dubya allegedly saying that the French have no word for "entrepreneur". The day I heard that is the day I learned what "facepalm" is, and also the day I became curious about etymology.
I remember read a history of English language and the writter said the Celtic languages of the Birtish islands influence exists in a hand full of words and the word DO. and that it came form a small celtic kingdom in Wales, and that English liked to dress up as a Celt on lonely Saturday nights..
Pretty much everyone that thinks the first amendment means they can do and say whatever they want to anyone they want anywhere they want without consequences.
These are weird incorrect descriptions though, I've never heard any of these. Are people really that dumb that they think Marx' communist quote is a part of the Constitution?
I did a sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph analysis of the constitution and the amendments! My notebook was 5-in, double-sided with flowcharts and sentence diagrams. I have notes on the decision makers. Took over a year!
You know what gets misinterpreted A LOT? Freedom of speech. Even people working in media outlets get it wrong, which I think they should know better, since they inform the public. People don't realize that this protection is only against your government. From citizen to citizen, that right is regulated and it DOES have limits. That's why crimes like harassment (verbal or written), verbal assault (threats of harm), libel and slander are a thing. You can't say whatever you want about and/or to another citizen. Your right ends where someone else's right begins.
People _severely_ misinterpret "freedom of speech" as "freedom from consequences." No, your "freedom of speech" does _not_ protect you from someone else exercising _their_ freedom of speech in a way that might make you feel bad.
I thought most people understood this. harassment and assault are definitely a no-go, as well as libel and slander. I thought the divide was more along the lines that hate speech is legal when many people say it is not. Hate speech is illegal in many other countries, but in the US you can say hateful things about a group of people legally.
"Freedom of speech" has a caveat and that caveat is freedom of association. People are free to gather with or be around whom they want (within reason) and if that means deliberately excluding someone that's fair game too. One cannot force another person to tolerate them in the other's space.
It's also been updated over time with laws as new forms of communication and new mail services popped up and stuff. To say it's just been only about the government legally is also a mistake. It ends with someone's right to not listen eventually and when lies deliberately mess up your life.
I love this channel, I'm an admitted attorney of the High Court of South Africa and its so interesting to see the parallels and difference of our legal systems.
Yes, but the South African constitutional framers had the good sense to take parts of the US constitution and add any important cases that have been strongly debated and resolved and added them explicitly. It also has a far more sensibly explicit and comprehensive list of protected rights so that there is far less chance that modern rights have to be interpreted in by the courts. Imagine if every complicated US Supreme Court Case forced a constitutional convention that didn't allow the delegates to leave or eat anything except bread and water until they definitively settled the issue by constitutional ammendment, and you might have as comprehensive a set of protections as the SA constitution
@@blumoogle2901 that's a bit unfair in the US constitution, we had the benefit of decades of real world experience when our constitution was written by some of the finest legal and philosophical minds, the US constitution was written by the 12 guys who could write, all things considered it's not too bad.
One of my favorite classes I ever took was US Law. We covered some basics of civil and criminal law. But the majority of the class was going line by line through the constitution and discussing everything in it. Plus discussing how the various parts of the constitution affect our lives and what rights they give. It was soo much fun and entertaining every period. I wish every single American had the fortune to learn the constitution through Professor Dickey.
This might be my misconception but isn't the constitution supposed to be about what rights the government isn't allowed to take away from the people and not a list of the rights we have?
@@the3nder1 you’re thinking of the bill of rights, the first 10 amendments to the constitution. The constitution is the document that says how the US government will run, the bill of rights are amendments stapled onto the back of the constitution to outline some rights that citizens of the US have in terms of governance. Most of them are just things that the government can’t do, but like the 6th amendment does provide things that the government must do for you during a trial. I would highly recommend reading at least the bill of rights, if not the entire constitution/amendments. The bill of rights can be read in about a minute.
@@the3nder1 and yeah the 9th amendment basically says “just because a right isn’t in here doesn’t mean that somebody doesn’t have that right.” You can’t say somebody in the US doesn’t have a right just because it isn’t covered by the constitution or amendments, you’re right.
@0:40 I would like to know how the people were asked. Such as, was the question leading - "Is ito each according to his ability....... his need' part of the Constitution?" Or was it more like, "Where does the phrase 'to each according to his ability...." come from?"
The opinion that allows this is one of the most disgustingly racist pieces of writing I have ever read. It's shameful that it's still part of our laws.
The territories of the US today were not part of the US back then. Also, originally, only the white male owner class was allowed to vote. And even that was for many founding fathers a compromise as they thought people are idiots who can't be trusted. Which is why you got the electoral college.
And that's not inherent in a federal system. Australia's two major territories have two federal senators each (to the 12 of a state), and minor territories get assigned a major territory to be part of for voting purposes. And we don't even have the issue where there are 'territories' with greater populations than some 'states'. The ACT (our DC equivalent) is only some 25% less than Tasmania, but it is still less, and Tasmania is the only state so close to a territory in population.
I wrote a book on methodologies for interpreting the Constitution a few years back, and in developing that I was surprised what was actually written down in the Constitution. It is a remarkable document, and it is now frustrating to me how many people have no clue what is in there.
If I have learned anything from reading Magic the Gathering and Yu-Gi-Oh cards, it's that length does not necessarily correlate with complexity. I have seen cards with 3 lines of text that take several minutes and a judge to figure out what they actually do, and I have seen 10 lines of text that clearly do precisely one thing and only that one thing. Being 7 pages does not mean that the constitution is simple to understand.
I know that the Civics Teacher at a school that I taught at butchered the Constitution's content. When questioned, he stated that they would get a more accurate coverage in college. The problem with that was probably more than three quarters were either uninterested in even high school subjects, or never attend any college, junior or four year; meaning his over simplification or out right inaccurate comments are all that they would ever hear. I saw the same thing with history classes.
Agree. I taught it in Middle School. My students were not enamored at first but in my survey at the end of the year the VAST majority said their favorite part of my class was learning the Constitution and being able to understand it. They always said it helped them understand the rest of American history better. I have no idea how anyone can really understand American history without learning the Constitition.
I always assumed that "innocent until proven guilty" was due to the fact that the prosecution must provide irrefutable, or at least very convincing, evidence that the jury can then use to make a decision. A decision that must be unanimous. Any lack of proof could, therefore, stir up doubt in the jury, resulting nondecision or innocent due to lack of convincing evidence(proof).
another reason i’ve heard cited for why the us runs by innocent until proven guilty is because the ‘prosecutorial mind can make anything seem suspicious’ so it *HAS* to be the government’s burden to prove guilt. at least, that’s what attorney tom says!
@@timschultz1928 Just looked into it, this is currently under discussion and is going to the supreme court for cases in Louisiana. States can interpret the Constitution in any way they want to. in 2018 Colorado removed the part of the 13th amendment that states labor can be used as punishment for a crime from the state constitution. Yet, somehow, agencies can still sentence people to "community service", which is labor, for their crimes.
But the point is that none of that (that the prosecution must present convincing evidence to the jury, that a jury verdict in a criminal case must be unanimous, etc.) is expressly stated in the Constitution.
"So you can imagine, if Americans confuse the US Constitution with the Soviet Constitution, they're probably wrong about a whole bunch of other things..." 🤣🤣🤣
I feel like this is rather unfair, as most Americans don’t know every phrase or sentence in the Constitution off the top of their head or by heart. The phrase in question sounds old timey and philosophical so it could easily be assumed it was in the US Constitution.
Summary 0:16 "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" 1:29 "English is the Official Language of the U.S." 4:39 "No Taxation without Representation" 7:22 "The Right to Enter a Store or Restaurant" 9:36 "Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty" 11:50 Promo for continued video on Nebula
@@WarlordM Oh man, please. That's so interesting. Especially with current technology. In my "legal issues with IT" class. We spent at least a month talking about this very issue.
@@ryansgameing6961 - I've wondered about this. In companies that I've worked for, there've been degrees of privacy/sensitivity of information, from "Do not share with anyone and destroy when you're finished with it" through "can be shared within the company", to "can be shared with anyone". But in wider culture, we seem to want to be able to make do with "public" and "private", even though I don't think that's really how many of us live our lives. Some people would argue that, if you can eavesdrop on a conversation, that conversation is public, but... is it? And likewise, some people will insist that a photo shared on a social media platform has at that point become "public", but would that mean that we'd accept its use in any and all possible forms? Legally, we might be stuck with saying "yes", but culturally, we know a shitty thing to do when we see it. Classification of levels of privacy seems essential if we want a system that matches the reality of how people communicate, and I'm hoping that it will evolve beyond the binary notion that is often implemented.
Must be nice to have your entire constitution fit on to a 14 page pdf instead of a mash up of countless documents, royal proclamations and treaties that predate your country. Sincerely, a Canadian
The collation is nice, but sometimes the brevity is a double-edged sword. There's a lot of parts that seem like they were tired of arguing about how the government was going to work, and just said "we'll fill in the details later". 250 years later... still working on that.
We gained our independence through "Hey, what if we kept doing things the same...but did it without you?" That means we started with a hot mess, and arguably made it hotter. Rather than start from scratch.
@@Zraknul Despite all the ideas it borrowed and how many Amendments eventually needed to be added, the U.S. Constitution was remarkably advanced for its day. Nowhere else at the time did you see ideas like complete religious freedom with no official religion, the ability to criticize the government with very limited consequences, abolishment of royalty and all forms of nobility, voting rights granted to all adult, white male citizens, three separate branches of government with a complete set of checks and balances, etc. directly implemented into the government itself. That's why it's managed to last well over 200 years without ever having any widespread sense of dissatisfaction among the people.
@@standard_gauge The dissatisfaction wasn't over the constitution per se; the common misconception is that the civil war was fought over "states' rights," which is only _technically_ true, but an obfuscation that distracts away from the fact that one of those rights the states demanded was the ability to own a person - it comes up by-name at least a dozen times or more in the Confederacy's official secession.
Weirdly I got most of this right and I’m British. Shocked that so many Americans misattribute the quote from Marx when they are so quick to decry Marxism
Darn you British and yer communo Marxist health care I prefer flipping a coin on whether I'm going to keep my house after a medical bill or not harrumph.
It's not a "familiarity breeds contempt" kind of moment, either in regard to our Constitution or Marxism. We aren't all like that, I promise... There's... ~ 25%....
I'm pretty sure that the people who think this is part of the constitution are the ones that don't decry marxism. I decry marxism, I immediately thought something was wrong with the quote.
In short, actually, "No taxation without representation" is in our constitution; it is just littered all over the place in the form of several restrictions and guarantees that forbid the practice from ever legally occurring. The US Constitution doesn't explicitly state in a singular clause that "there shall be no taxation without adequate representation of the people", but if you look at the limitations, guarantees, and expressly denied portions written in the Constitution where taxation and voting is concerned - as well as all areas that reserve the rights of the people to decide or perform particular acts - you will easily infer that our Federal Government, and therefore the same restricted type of government within the several States, actually are forbidden from levying a tax upon any class or group of persons to which those persons are exempted from adequate representation from that taxing governmental entity. We also see this ideal put in effect in Federal courts when government entities attempt to levy a tax that they have no jurisdiction nor authority to do so, and mostly that is because that entity is not going to adequately represent the constituents that it is attempting to tax (i.e. Washington State/King County wanted to impose a toll on the I-90 Floating bridge to all that used that road, but the Federal Gov't said "If you do, you will be required to maintain that ENTIRE Interstate Highway as part of the right to tax that".).
I love this. To encourage my high school students in U.S. Government class to read the whole U.S. Constitution - I let them purchase and use a pocket Constitution of the United States on their exams.
Thank you for talking about residential schools, even if just briefly. We need to normalize people discussing the more distressing parts of history when it's relevant!!!
The taxation thing always makes me laugh. The taxes they were unhappy about were, well, war debts that they did not want to pay (and were unhappy with the treaty that ended the war).. but as soon as they had their own government with war debts, they were perfectly happy to put down their own rebellions and force people to pay for 'their freedom'.
So the Boston Tea Party was a prank? No tax on tea, glass- well you name it. Taxes began the war and in a way the two ended it. Taxes never ended. They knew exactly what they were doing. It was the only way to fund a revolution.
That they did not want to pay because they had zero influence in their governments decision making process. Who would want to pay taxes for a war they were forced to fight?
Also another funny thing to add onto that was that the colonies were taxed a bunch because the English people were already getting sick of parliament taxing them back home. The government really dug themselves into a representative hole there.
@@enclave3228 The government did not represent the people though. Most people were not allowed to vote in the US for a long time. The right to vote was originally only given to white male property owners.
The Bill of Rights clearly says on the 2nd A. "Shall not be Infringed" !!! Of which they clearly are "Infringing" !!! It says "Rights" not Privileges !!! A "Right" when taxed regulated or restricted becomes a Privilege !!!
I've read the US Constitution several times and never held these misconceptions, although I have to say that the 9th amendment makes room for more natural rights even if they are not listed.🗽
Some have insane Ideas about the Constitution. "Lauren Boebert Completely Gives Up On The Constitution" by 'Telltale Fireside' shows that well, just like his other videos of this kind.
@@slook7094 The 10th too actually, for rights not delegated to the federal nor prohibited by the states.. Maybe we could take out one provision in the 5th though, and get more information from certain witnesses...
Natural rights aren't real; the 9th amendment says that any power not granted explicitly to the federal government is maintained by the states. The Constitution is primarily focused on the relationship between federal and state governments. It doesn't really grant you rights, so much as it commands the states not to make certain laws. States are the ones who decide what's allowed for the most part.
You don't have that misconception because you've read it. You are in a very minority. Ponder that fact and think of how often we hear people say: "we need to get back to the constitution."
I first read the constitution in its entirety when I was in high school and again in college. I recommend that everyone in the USA read it. You'd be surprised at how little our political leaders and local law enforcement agencies know about this document.
I did it in Junior High because it was in the back of the Social Studies book and I was intrigued. I later found out it was later one of the requirements for the Citizenship of the Country Boy Scout Merit Badge.
@@rickhodges4808 it's actually pretty straightforward. The only reason why someone would need a translation is if they don't understand written English.
@@AnarkeeSoundVibes I didn't say "translation" - seems you are the one who doesn't understand English. I said understand - and that's entirely true. One cannot simply read the Constitution and think they are suddenly a constitutional attorney who fully understands it.
This is basically sophistry. Those rights are only rights insofar as they are stated to be rights by the constitution. There is no fundamental law of the universe that makes them rights. They are rights for Americans because the constitution declares them to be rights.
@@TheLobsterCopter5000 they are inalienable rights. They are universal, they are real, go ahead and try to test out your theory by taking them away from someone. You are correct though - your statement is basically sophistry, thanks for being honest.
@TheLobsterCopter5000 they are rights fundamental to life. That is why the US Constitution was written the way it was. To make it as hard as possible for the government to trample on and take them away. But hey if you want the US army in your house by all means don't let me stop you.
You forgot territories like Guam 🇬🇺 and Puerto Rico 🇵🇷. And as I understand it … our forefathers never intended for Washington, DC to have permanent residents.
I see what you just did there, LegalEagle, especially the bit about "innocent until proven guilty" not actually being in the Constitution, but nevertheless a fundamental part of our jurisprudence. Nicely done.
Don't see anything about causing corporations republicans happen to be lobbing for to spontaneously explode either 👀👀 Weird huh? You'd think they'd put something like that in there...
@@seal869 well it’s not really if you’re for or against Alito, the entire court has used that test long before he became a justice. And it’s also been used to overturn anti-sodomy laws such as in Lawrence v. Texas. It’s not that it’s a bad test necessarily, but framing of the issue is most relevant. Broad framing generally = fundamental right. Narrow = no fundamental right
A saying I wish would catch on is, "No Representation Without Taxation," so that tax dodging rich people and corporations couldn't bribe our government.
@@austininflorida Just another example of "to each according to their need." Not being able to pay taxes is not the same as dodging taxes with loopholes.
It's the government that offers tax incentives to business owners, not the other way around. State governments offer those incentives because large businesses moving into their states means more jobs for the people and a better economy for the state. The idea that rich people and corporations don't pay any taxes IS A MYTH, so stop spewing it everywhere.
I had to learn our constitution and the common law that it was interpreted into. Constitutional law; derives from the civil action end that you are under the interstate commerce clause as a subject to the United States Authority. United States common law "is" more useful not of that construction. The common man of common law "is" of the United States Authority and defined within article 1 section 9 in part. No titles of nobility shall be granted by the United States. Interpretation; no social or political groups may take privilege within or upon the United States Authority. If you do you are subject to common law and those within his Authority. That is where constitutional law comes into place, after you are already subject for taking privileges. The civil rights act "is" that action under the interstate commerce clause.
It's a chore to be in parts of the US where a nakedly misinterpreted constitution is brought up constantly; its significance exaggerated and fashioned into a club to rule them all. Political conversations usually end in a disagreement about the reality of this document.
It doesn't help that the document is so unhelpful. It says nothing about so much, too much about things it shouldn't have (that regrettable 3/5 compromise), and is vague on the rest.
@@kordellswoffer1520 It's significant to the degree that we currently use it to structure our government. I don't see how it's any more permanent than the constitution of Rome. The paper itself is a fetish for wackos who misconstrude and weaponize it to legitimize irrationality. It has many groundbreaking ideas to carry forth but to assume it'll last for generations in a tech-savy world is absurd.
@@QuesoCookies It definitely has a regrettable history. It would seem a good majority of the arguments against a constitutional convention is that it exposes itself to corruption and its for the best to not touch it. What a wonderful foundation for a superpower! We expend so much energy and money fighting over its structural interpretation, all while lives are being thrown away from the lack of resolute law.
@@Wbjpen what the hell are you talking about. The mere fact that it is used to structure our government makes it significant and inherently hard to exaggerated its importance. It also has a very large cultural impact, it helped form the values of the right and helped form the values the left likes to fight against. You can go off into nonsense about Rome as if it has any form of relevance. Who are these wackos and what are they being irrational about and what has been misconstrued by them. All you're doing is asserting things with nothing but vague words. I has lasted for generations in a tech savvy world, it's at least lasted for about 2 generations by this argument. Also why wouldn't it, what does technology have to do with the core aspects of the constitution from free speech to guns to private property and so on. As technology doesn't make these rights any less or wrong or put any doubt upon them, a tech savvy generation should be perfectly fine with these exceptional rights if they were themselves rational. Are you saying they aren't or are you saying the rights set out in the constitution is wrong.
When my fiancé was taking con law at Columbia years ago I was surprised how many of these brilliant individuals were simply unfamiliar with the constitution and it’s actual tenets*.
Oh good. When you said that phrase in the beginning, I was like, "I don't recall that being there. I know I haven't read it since 10th grade, but that wasn't familiar at all." Then find out it was Karl Marx and had nothing to do with it. Also knew English wasn't an official language. Good to know I had a good education.
2:45 My grandfather (born 1911) was taught completely in German in a Texas elementary school, in a region of Central Texas populated mostly by German immigrants. They didn't change to being an English school until after World War I. Even his birth certificate was written in German by German-speaking Texans.
Central Indiana is well known for being one of the most German settled areas in our country. And those people couldn't wait to be American. They embraced it all.
I'm from Southern Indiana, according to my high school history teacher the city's German language newspaper was discontinued at the start of WW2 My great grandparents still spoke German around the house and my Grandfather was able to communicate a little with German POWs when he served in WW2. The local German Heritage club was still quite popular, admittedly, with an older crowd when I left in the 1990s
I read recently that the last high school in Texas to use German as its means of instruction had just closed due to lack of German speakers, but that’s a helluva time to keep a minority immigrant language going. Here in Britain, children of Indian and Pakistani immigrants are at best semi speakers of Hindi, Urdu etc., while the grandchildren don’t speak it at all.
I'm an Australian I've had discussions with people claiming that the Australian constitution (of 1901) requires the separation of church and state. However it's not part of our constitution! And last time I checked there was a particularly well known American court case where a finding was based on it too!
I doubt very much that any US court decision ever expressed an opinion about the Australian constitution; you were probably simply being unclear in how you expressed yourself. FYI the basis of the separation of church and state in the US is the 1st Amendment: the government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .” That is why the governments of the US do not have religious character: such matters were understood to be personal and private, not to be subject to interference by government. The separation of government and religion is further expressed in Article VI (last paragraph): “. . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
@@cogitoxyz9645 I also doubt very much that any US court decision ever expressed an opinion about the Australian constitution. But you try telling some people that and as they found in America they just will not listen!
@@cogitoxyz9645 The First Amendment says *Congress* shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, not that no government entity may do so. Several states actually still had established official religions when the Constitution (and Bill of Rights) was ratified and this continued on in some states until the 1830s. The First Amendment (like most of the rest of the Bill of Rights) did not restrict the actions of state governments until the 14th Amendment was ratified following the Civil War in the latter half of the 1860s. Incorporating the restrictions of the Bill of Rights upon the states was one of the major reasons (perhaps the most important) for the passage of the 14th Amendment. The broad idea of "separation of church and state" as normally understood today is much broader than what the First Amendment was designed to enforce. The point of the First Amendment on that topic was just that the federal government could not establish a nationwide religion, nor prevent free exercise of any religion. Even incorporation of the 1st by the 14th really just meant that those same restrictions applied to the states. While the broader concept of the state not promoting or favoring religion at all was promoted by Jefferson in the early decades of the country, it has never been part of the Constitution. Only the particular restrictions of not establishing a state/national religion, allowing free exercise of any religion, and not requiring a religious test to hold an office of public trust are actually in the Constitution, some more recent (last half-century) Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding.
@@vbscript2 Wow, just um, wow! Sounds like nobody bothered to read the relevent sections before running their mouths off and now both countries (USA and Australia) have a lot of politically connected people running around quoting other people who did the same! Sort of along the lines of "He said xyz" who also quoted somebody else who of course quoted somebody else etc! Mixed with at somewhere along the line is someone only hearing what the want to hear and going off on a tangent saying what they think "He said xyq"!
Well, _Rake_ seemed to mention America in a legal context quite a lot. 5/6 of all legal literature in the world is first published in the United States and nearly _half_ of the world's lawyers are in the United States. The country was founded by lawyers, so it's to be expected that lawyering looms larger in America than elsewhere. Also, suing can be highly lucrative: there's no such thing as loser pays and punitive damages are exorbitant. Turn on daytime TV in the United States - virtually any channel - and you will see an advertisement for an injury lawyer or a class action lawsuit. The metro tram downtown is sponsored by lawyers (there faces are plastered on it) and so is one of the local pop music radio stations (their studio is officially named for the head of the firm).
I get the humor up front and agree with the intent, but let's be honest about it...the volumes of SCOTUS decisions based on those 7 pages and couple dozen amendments fills libraries :)
@@MinhNguyen-nl8zzbecause i think it was either the ninth or tenth amendment that said your rights are not limited to those written in the amendments or constitution
@gummybeast6343 New testament as a source for Karl Marx's theory. That native languages were ever popular in US society. That DC has a right to statehood. That no law has ever failed rational basis review.
It’s not the DC can’t be a state it’s that DC was set up to be an island for congress separate from the state so actually giving it statehood is unpopular
One of the biggest misconceptions about the Constitution in my view is the belief that the First Amendment protects one's right to free speech full stop, and anyone who prevents, retaliates, or even argues against one's vocal views is violating the Constitution.
One of the biggest misconceptions of the 1st Amendment is that "right to redress *government* of grievances and right to *peacably* assemble mean people can protest outside of *private* homes and establishments and/or block traffic and/or set things on fire. Another 1st Amendment misconception is that "government shall not establish a religion" means that there can be no religious expression in public spaces. It simply means the government cannot declare an *official* religion. But the Supreme Court has reinterpreted/misinterpreted both of those.
The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that the Constitution does not list all of a citizen's rights, and that the rights not explicitly stated are still protected by the law. There are many rights that still exist, even if not explicitly stated as such in the constitution.
1:08 Just wanted to add that Soviet Union had three different constitutions enforced individually at different times (1924, 1936 and 1977). The phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work" first appeared in 1936 Constitution and then reappeared in 1977 Constitution.
I'm british and have lots of legal qualifications but am not a lawyer and I say that just for context. I really appreciate this channel because its so real. This is how law works irrespective of geography and I wish all my students (when I was teaching law) watched it. I know he looks like he should be in Suits but F that. What a pro channel, writers and researchers really know whats going on and brilliantly presented by a guy who knows his stuff. I think this channel is great. For the purposes of fitting into a stereotype I'd buy you a pint of warm beer in London any time when I'm not busy sweeping chimneys.
Well, no, not irrespective of geography. The USA and UK (and Canada and Australia) have a common law system, while all of Europe has a civil law system. That creates quite a few important differences.
The Sention 3 of the 14th indicates that a person who has violated this section is banned to hold ANY OFFICE. It applies to all persons. The Constitution is interpreted with all the Constitution in context and not using exceptions. The founding fathers wanted to avoid anyone becoming king. No person can: "hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
This is for people who scream about 14th ammendment article 3 about Trump. " I am asking for everyone at the US Capitol to remaim peaceful. No violence Remember, WE are the party of Law and Order - respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you! " Trump's tweet. " KJB accuses Tucker of lying about January 6th, proceeds to lie herself " - memeology 101. " FAT Director Asked Point blank if any Jan6 Rioters were FAT sources dressed as Trump Supporters " - Forbes " The FAT lied to us, Jan6 was crawling with fats, UNAIRED leaked footage " - memeology 101 " Michigan and Arizona voting machine glitches " - CBS. " What the left thinks jan6 was " - Freedomtoons " Oh so NOW the impeachment are a witch-hunt " - memeolgy 101 " So if we have a two-sided system that has the option to always impeach the other side, whats stopping them from trying to impeach the other when they're not in power. " - slingshotmcoy " Its wierd that a bunch of 2 ammendment supporters apperently tried to overthrow the goverment the day they forgot thier guns " -ryon._-1994 Even IF it was an insurrection, and even IF Trump incited it, 14a sec3 does not apply unless he has been found guilty in a court of law. Just like me just saying " Joe is a pedo " is not grounds for his removal, unless he is found guilty in a court of law. The FIRST section of the 14th ammendment: " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " As a citezen born on US soil over the age of 35, Trump has the right be president. " no state shall deprive a person of thier rights without due process " ~ * Had to say FAT so youtube wont delete.
My pocket constitution has failed me numerous times as I only carry a copy of the Irish constitution. One day, it will be useful though and then I'll be laughing.
Oz, unless you and Mini discuss your pocket constitution (as well as to which places you take it with you) I will have no choice but to believe you are not telling the truth. Oh, no, of course this isn't a deliberate attempt on my part to have done influence on the videos you create! I just want to know which pocket on your avatar's green suit contains the Constitution.
Technically, we actually have less representation than we did before the Revolutionary war. All of the less than 2.5 million British citizens had 'visual representation' in Parliament. We've got less representation in DC than had there... the only difference is, our representation can vote. So, do we really have 'taxation with representation' now?
@@derpythean-comdoge8608 Right. When they wanted a say when Parliament added the Stamp Act. But their 'virtual representation' was well less than 200k per representative. Now we have over 700k people per representative and it'll hit 800k for 2032 elections. Congress limited themselves to 435, but with remote voting and telepresence capabilities, there's no excuse as to why we don't have 1 rep per 250k people.
Technically,yes we still have taxation without representation. You are taxing illegal migrants, they can't vote or technically pay taxes, yet government officials,prefer to have illegal migrants, the democracts in office do, because it benefits themselves,no one else just their pockets. It's why they fight so hard for illegal migrants to stay, so they can tax and put the taxes in their own personal slush fund pocket, it's why the encourage it also. It's not to help anyone except those in office Democrats, it's another modern day slavery.jfs
The Constitution (and the Declaration of Independence) was printed in the back of my fifth grade US History book. I read it when I was 10! If a fifth-grader can read it then _any_ adult fluent in English should be able to.
It was in my 7th grade book. Read it several times that year. Though, some language is out of date, such as the "well-regulated militia" being constantly misinterpreted in modern-day parlance.
@@Charistoph the worst part there is that BOTH sides tend to misinterpret the whole 2nd Amendment. Left thinking that the National Guard covers it so no more is required, and Right being closer but still wrong thinking it means we need the Guard and arm people to some arbitrary extent that varies with year and politician.
@@shadowx3benz117, I have never seen one say they NEED the Guard (aside from using it as a way to pocket themselves more influence/money, but that goes for all politicians), though they are useful. I always saw them as part-time military rather than the militia. Oddly enough, up until the creation of the National Guard, militia meant the armed citizenry. It wasn't until Congress created the National Guard and called them militia when we started seeing it be conflated. In my opinion, if the government is paying for the training and outfitting of same, it is not a militia. Since the National Guard are not truly militia, its creation does not resolve the purpose behind the 2A. Even with that, the phrase containing militia is not an actionable phrase, but one of purpose. "Being necessary" is only a phrase to denote a purpose. The only actionable phrase in the 2A is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". "Infringe" is an verb of action.
@@Charistoph exactly, which is why everyone who says anything about the Guard in this sense is wrong, and anyone who says it allows any restrictions on firearms are also wrong. But nobody's ready to hear that.
title 18 U.S.C. section 241 conspiracy against rights. If two or more person's conspire to injure,oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any state, territory, commonwealth, possession, or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any rights or privileges secured to him by the constitution or laws of the united states, or because of his having so exercised the same... They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section, or if such acts include kidnapping, or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life or both, or may be sentenced to death. Title 18 U.S.C. section 242 deprivation of rights under color of law. Whoever under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom willfully subjects any person in any state, territory, commonwealth, possession,or district to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the constitution or laws of the united states... Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping, or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life or both, or may be sentenced to death. Title 5 U.S.C. section 7311 Ex. ORD. No. 10450 subsection (5). Knowing membership with the specific intent of furthering the aims of, or adherence to and active participation in,any foriegn or domestic organization, association, movement,group or combination of person's (herein after referred to as organizations) which unlawfully advocates or practices the commission of acts of force or violence to prevent others from exercising their rights under the constitution or laws of the united states or of any state, or which seeks to overthrow the government of the united states or any state or subdivision thereof by unlawful means. Title 18 U.S.C. section 1918. Whoever violates the provisions of section 7311 of Title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the government of the united states or the government of the district of Columbia if he (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government [and] shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year and a day or both. (The constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land is our constitutional form of government.) Constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land. Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 TEXT. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. Second amendment TEXT. THE RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. 14th amendment section 1 TEXT. NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN IT'S JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them. Miranda V. Arizona,384 US 436 p.491. All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void. Marbury V. Madison,5 US (2nd Branch)137,174,176(1803). The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. Miller V. US 230 F. 2d. 486,489. No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore. Murdock V. Pennsylvania,319 US 105. If the state converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity. Shuttles worth V. City of Birmingham, Alabama,373 US 262. A law repugnant to the constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the constitution cannot become law. The constitution supercede all other laws and the individuals rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary. Marbury V. Madison 5,US 137(1803). An unconstitutional law is void and is as no law. An offense created by it is not a crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous but is illegal and void and cannot be used as a legal cause of imprisonment. Ex parte Siebold,100 US-371(1879). The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally protected liberties. Boyd V. US 116 US 616. The US Supreme Court "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law,is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since it's unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment... In legal contemplation it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right,creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supercede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land (the constitution)it is superceded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Bonnet V. Vallier,16 NW. 885,136 Wis. 193(1908); Norton V. Shelby county,118 US 425(1886). Abridge Curtail (a right or privilege),to reduce in scope, diminish,deprive. Infringed Actively break the terms of,act so as to limit or undermine, encroach on. Repugnant In conflict with; incompatible with. Abrogate Repeal or do away with (a law, right,or formal agreement. Encroachment Intrusion on a person's territory, rights,etc. Regulated To adjust so as to ensure accuracy, to put or keep something in good order. Impunity Exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of action. Deprive Deny(a person or place) the possession or use of something). Liberty The quality or state of being free. The power to do as one pleases. Free from physical restraint. Freedom from arbitrary or despotic control. The positive enjoyment of socially, political, or economic rights and privileges. The power of choice. Right Something to which one has a just claim; the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled. Inalienable Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. Unalienable Another term for inalienable.
People who work in Philadelphia but don't live within its city borders pay a wage tax, which is pretty high, but they can't vote in Philadelphia elections.
When I first started following the USA politics, one of the first things I did was reading the Constitution. As it was referenced a lot. A LOT. Years and years later I remain appalled that too many of the US citizens don't appear to have actually read it. It's astonishing. I mean, we read and analyze our own in high school. Plus the whole - how did we get here political history.
My dad somehow manages to get ahold of 15-20 pocket-sized copies every year, probably from the VA. Every time he gets a new batch, he asks if I need one. No dad, I still have the one you gave me 15 years ago. It's in the craft bag I bring everywhere. His housewarming gift is also a nice, big flag. His next-door neighbors immigrated from Mexico and hang theirs up all the time.
Many, if not most, highschool students read the constitution, or they at least did back in my day in highschool; The thing is, like 60% of highschool, most students only actually REMEMBER bits and pieces of what we had learned, but we remember once learning it, so often it is assumed we know what it said.
They don't bother to teach that sort of things, they seem to be more interested in fomenting racial animosity, and strange sexual stuff now days! No education, just indoctrination.
@@NieroshaiTheSable We require immigrants to memorize the Constitution to become legal citizens, and yet no school I was a part of would show you any part of the actual document.
The sentiments behind "no taxation without representation" did sort of find their way into the Constitution via Article I, section 7: "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives..." While the Senate has the power to make alterations to such bills, any tax bills have to be introduced by the representatives of the people.
It actually went further than that originally. Until later amendments expanded federal power, the federal government was originally barred from directly taxing people in most cases. They were instead required to apportion taxes to the states (who presumably paid for it using their own taxes), with foreign imports being one of the only areas they could tax directly.
It comes up due to residents of the territories, most specifically, the District of Columbia. Honestly, if you want representation and you live in DC, you're likely already talking to representatives or their staff on a regular basis far more than the representative's constituents do. And it's not like you have to move far to be in Maryland or Virginia. At best, I think any residential land in Washington that isn't congressional apartments, barracks, the White House, or an embassy, should be reapportioned back to Maryland. It's obvious that it's not needed for federal work, so should be adjusted as such.
Yeah.. but, it doesn't say if you're not represented, you can't be taxed.. just that representatives have to levy them. As he pointed out, a lot of people are not actually represented, but pay taxes nonetheless, because an elected representative levied the tax..
When my son was in school, they stopped teaching Civics, wasn't even offered as an alternative/elective class. He is 56 years old. When I was in school, part of the requirement to graduate from High School, you had to pass an exam on the Constitution, didn't pass. didn't graduate. Long past time to start teaching Civics in schools again.
I'm glad I already knew all of these weren't in the Constitution. Did I consider for a second the Communist manifesto quote might be in the Constitution? Yes, but my first reaction was "I've never heard that before in reference to the Constitution"
I think it's telling that most people, even Americans, identify so strongly to communist ideals that they would believe that they must be part of the US Constitution. And yet...
@@MPostma72 I don’t think you grasp the gravity of that phrase when it is actually applied by a government to its full extent. If you did, you would not be saying that.
I was surprised when you said the US Constitution was 7 pages long. Turns out the original manuscript only had 4 pages. 7 articles, and 27 amendments since 1788. In contrast, the current French Constitution was adopted in 1958. It had originally 92 articles, but it has been modified 24 times since its creation, adding 16 articles and modifying 62 of the original ones. It went as far as to change how the PResident was elected in 1962, after it was proposed by De Gaulle ( who originally wrote this Constitution, and at that point was the first President of the Fifth Republic, as Presidents were at that time lected for 7 years mandates ) and accepted by referendum. To look at a French constitution of the same era as the US', the Constitution of the French Constitutional Monarchy, written in 1791, had 209 articles on over 80 pages ( I left out the . But, because of the non-cooperation of the King, it didn't last a year. The next one to have been used in France ( there was one who was scrapped after completion, due to complications, such as the Vendean War and the First Coalition ) was the 5 fructidor an III ( revolutionary calendar, corresponds to 22/08/1795 ), and it had almost 100 pages, for 327 articles. It lasted until Napoleon's Coup d'État. I deliberately removed the Declarations of te Rights of the Man and the Citizen of 1789 and the Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and Citizen of 1795 from the page counts.
I know I definitely must be misinterpreting something, because it looks to me like you might be saying that the 5 Fructidor an III existed in 1995, yet it got scrapped by a coup that Napoleon was responsible for.
I'm not a lawyer, just a casual student of life, so I know there are probably many misconceptions I have about the constitution, and I've read it several times. I'm just more surprised to learn that those examples you sited, the Marx quote, taxation w/o repressentation, English as official language, etc, are believed by many to actually be there.
eh, a lot of people in the US (and surprisingly in NZ, AU, and UK) treat the US constitution as a holy document... so it says whatever their thought leaders say it say and anyone who claims otherwise is trying to destroy your culture.
Many of these ideas can be found in Constitution paratext, particularly the Federalist Papers, which means a lot of the study of US history during that time will reference ideas the founders were discussing and how they inspired segments of the Constitution even if those ideas didn't get into the document directly, so anyone remembering their high school education on the Boston tea party will remember "taxation without representation" but not that it was only a popular thought among the founders, not an actual right.
You’d be surprised what idiots will believe. Just look up videos of “Sovereign Citizens” if you need proof of that. Even the most rudimentary understanding of the law is beyond many people.
It doesnt "Grant" us any rights. It restricts what governments can do. Governments are not gods, they cannot grant us rights by writing words on a piece of paper. We have all these rights to begin with. US Constitution = rules for the government Constitution of pretty much all other countries on earth = rules for the people.
Also Mark Twain's quote was actually: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.“ But, you paraphrased it well.
The number of DC residents who get hit by "taxation without representation" (700,000) is dwarfed by the number of non-citizens who legally live and work in the US (14 million). They pay just as much tax as you do, but don't get to vote.
Well..... it's a bit more accurate to state that SOME illegal immigrants pay taxes without representation. According to a 2011 report by the Obama Administration the average illegal immigrant in the US that files their taxes gets about $800 more in refunds than they pay in total taxes throughout the year. Remember, the IRS does NOT care if you are illegal. You also do not need a Social Security Number to file (apply for an ITIN instead).
One thing I learned on the subject of languages in the USA is that Martin Van Buren is the only US president who didn't learn English as his first language. As his name obviously suggests he was born in the Dutch community living in the US.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
🪶 What else do people get wrong about the constitution?
🚀 Get access to the exclusive companion video! legaleagle.link/curiositystream
hi
Legal Eagle 2024
Check the chapters, they appear to be for the wrong video!
Orwell didn't parody Marx, he parodied Stalin.
That's a huge mistake.
FYI your chapter tags are showing the NFT video tags for me. Figured you may want to know that.
I wonder when people started viewing the constitution as “giving people the right” as opposed to “restricting the governments ability to infringe on rights”
But the US Constitution does give people rights. I think it was the first national constitution that had "Bill of rights".
Edit: Read the edit so you don't misunderstand what I actually mean. Even if US constitution words the rights as 'god given', that doesn't mean those rights could exist without existence of Constitution. 'god given' doesn't hold any precise meaning. That could also imply that non Americans and people before formation of USA also have rights mentioned in constitution, which is not the case. Those rights are materialized through constitution. They will be meaningless in the eyes of law, if they weren't mentioned in constitution.
You can't go outside USA and claim that you have a natural/god given right to do things mentioned in US Constitution.
Or In some countries food is considered a natural right but in US constitution it is not mentioned, therefore technically in eyes of US courts food isn't considered a right. But some may consider food as an unalienable natural right.
@@sanket.solanke nah, OP is correct. The government did not give us the right to free speech, it’s a right natural to all human beings. The Constitution simply agrees and promises that the fed gov will not infringe upon the rights we all inherently have
@@sanket.solanke incorrect
@@sanket.solanke "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" those rights are god given not government given
@@Ya_Mf_Boi
You have to watch yourself when using the Declaration of Independence as justification for things. One needs to understand the legal justifications necessary to support the argument that the people of a nation were equal to, had equal authority to, and could declare itself independent from the rule of a person who believed he was king due to preordination from a god.
Years ago in my 20s I bought a pocket-sized printing of the US Constitution in a book store for like three dollars. Certain "legal experts" (not) to this day still try to tell me things that are "in the Constitution" and I always reply, "Where? I didn't see that in my copy." Always met with silence... I guess those experts never bothered to see if a copy was available in the local book store.
The word is "Precedent."
That's a huge mistake though. The Constitution is more than its text. The details of what it means are hashed out in a long history of court cases and traditions. For instance, the right to have your rights explained to you when you are arrested isn't in the Constitution, it was established in the Miranda case, but it's fair to call it a "constitutional right." And when it comes to human rights, the Ninth Amendment explicitly states that rights may exist even if they are not spelled out in the Constitution. It may be correct that something isn't "IN" the Constitution, but that doesn't mean it's not a part of it.
@@rickhodges4808 but your Miranda rights are the rights found in the 5th and 6th amendments, which are in in the constitution.
@@stephanie22345 Yes, but there's nothing in the Constitution that says they have to read your rights to you.
Exact phrases dont have to be in the constitution to be a part of the document. There are other documents and precedents that clarify meanings. And we ignore some plainly written parts like "organized militia."
honesty, from a law abiding perspective, this only affirms my belief that cops are not friends. that federal agents will go out of their way to condemn you. the constitution is not designed to protect your rights, it is to curtail the rights of the government infringing upon YOU
Cops are being used and are to arrogant to see it
Which is WHY we need smaller government.
For those in government there is no such thing as too much awe-tority. GS-12s are frequently known for that.
There are few protections for the people in the Constitution itself. i.e. Habeas Corpus. Our protections FROM the government are found in the Bill of Right. The BoR was a promised addition to get Anti-Federalists to vote for ratification.
Go by what it says
"Unsure / don't know" appears to be an option on these surveys, yet tons of people are picking the wrong answer instead. That seems more worrying than not knowing the correct answer.
Dunning-Kruger affect to an extent: people who don't know think they know more than they actually do.
I would also call "Foul!" where "No" is a correct answer but it's lumped with "Unsure" in the graphics shown. "I don't know" should always be a separate statistic. As in "Is X part of the US Constitution? a) Yes, b) No, c) I don't know, resulting in a pie chart with 3 wedges.
@@ldbarthel I'm guessing it was in the original paper, but reporting only gave the headline number. TBF, when two thirds of your respondents think that the USA enshrines the fundamental principle of communism in it's core legal document, the confidence levels of the rest are not really as relevant 😄
@@ldbarthel True in general, but in this case the "no / don't know" could be lumped together as both are "correct".
@@ZhangtheGreat funnily enough, donning kruger is not what you think it is, its not some wild up and down, its actually flat line but just slightly shallower than actual ability line
As a high school social studies teacher, I have been fascinated by the huge surge in discussion of "parent's rights," especially as regards school curricula, in recent years. I was wondering if there is any chance you could do a video on the history of this concept? I know it is not explicitly given in the constitution, though I did find a case that interprets the 14th Amendment to apply to parental rights to raise children as they choose (though this applied to the home, not parental rights over schools). I would LOVE a deep dive into the idea, especially as it intersects with rights of a child and rights of states as regards public schooling. I would do more research myself but I have too many papers to grade. So...please please please?
Public schools are prisons
Basically it's from the 9th, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The concept that parents wouldn't have near exclusive power over their children's education would be a foreign concept to most in the US a decade or two ago. Back in 1890, schools would have been a hyper local thing (basically group home schooling today) and so it likely never came up. It's also helpful to understand what a right is. A right is what you have in the absence of coercion. The government coercing parents to send their kids to a government school and then ignoring parent's wishes on the content of the teachings is all kinds of problematic from both a rights and constitutional standpoint. Of course, our constitution hasn't even gotten lip service since the 1930's so it's kind of meaningless at this point. Arguably it was never really followed.
@Suzerain Parents pay the state, not the school, which elects school boards that parents can vote on. Parents can have some influence over what is taught in schools by electing boards who best represent their interests. And even better than other parts of government, parents can opt out of public school if they don't like their representatives and teach their children at home. Parents have the right to democratic representation, but they should not have power over policy making for the same reason every citizen has the right to representation, but should not have power over law making.
@@GrendalTheBeasty The 14th Amendment was also written to protect unenumerated rights. Most civil rights cases of the last century have been 14th Amendment cases.
The 14th Amendment also changed the nature of American government by making state governments bound to the US Constitution, which prior to 1868, they were not. So the first amendment restricted the Federal Government from establishment of religion but states were free to establish state religions. The ninth amendment also would have only been applicable to the Federal Government prior to 1868
@@GrendalTheBeasty Children are only required to be educated. Parents are more than welcome to educate at home or enroll their children in private schools if they don't want their kids educated by the government. No one is being coerced.
Lol I've had more than one person say I was lying about having read the entire U.S. constitution. That it was impossible because it was SO long; no one could read the WHOLE thing! 😆
That's how you know the other person *hasn't* read a lick of the constitution and likely confuses it with the declaration of independence... and probably gets THAT wrong, too.
Then ask them when the constitution was ratified... I can guarantee they'll say "1776" instead of, you know, 1792-ish.
I have been told this too. 😂😂
I literally keep 1 in my coat pocket or backpack, so I have 1 every where I go!
Or you could find any half awake newspaper editor - like Me - who has to read and grasp thousands of words an hour, and ask us to go and run through it.
Aye now if they say they have read the entire US code, now that, that is saying something.
To be fair I'd be impressed if many people have read both the US, and their home state, constitution
Me: Doesn't live in America and knows nothing about its constitution.
LeagalEagle: You're wrong about the constitution!
Me: Oh no!
Same with me
ahaha same
I knew about the language because I watched a documentary that mentioned it a few years back (also where I learnt that English isn't the official language in England lol)
I know, that it contains a right to freedom of speech, which notably is not freedom of opinion, and yet the US censors curse words on TV.
Anyway
Just an acknowledgement of your willingness to speak at RUclips speed, and the quality of your editor(s). This is a great video. Thank you.
I love it when someone says something like "Hey man, you can't change the Constitution!" Yes you can, it's called an Amendment. There have already been 33 of them.
33 proposed (in the sense that a state could ratify them), 27 passed by 3/4 of the state legislatures or conventions.
I mean, the presumed meaning of that statement is that you can't READ INTO the constitution your own meaning and desires. Obviously we have an amendment process but it's very difficult to do, and with good reason.
@@robertjarman3703 Whether they pass or are not is really irrelevant to his point. The point is there is a process for changing it.
@@SeraphsWitness Literally every decision having to do with the Constitution is based on reading into it, since no one who wrote it is alive today to explain, and even if they were, most would probably say parts were intentionally left vague so that future generations could reinterpret them as needed. The necessity for an overwhelming vote is simply to ensure a given new interpretation is agreed upon by everyone, not to dissuade reinterpretation.
I encountered someone who knew amendments were possible, but thought such amendments couldn't override the main text of the constitution or any prior amendment.
Thank you for doing this, many more people need to understand the Constitution. I blame politics for throwing the Constitution around. Many have lost its meaning and value.
Lol the constitution just a piece of paper written by a bunch of slave owners hundreds of years ago 😆 i wipe my ass with the constitution they didnt even know what micro-organisms were and thought you got sick from having dirty thoughts or something.
Sorry for the rant i iust was going along with the theme of people throwing it around for the sake of justifying arguments
Well, Republicans bear the most blame in recent history, always changing the colloquial definition in order to suit their agenda, like talking about accurate US history and racism now to the idiots is "CRT", criticizing people in power suddenly is now "cancel culture", being woke is used as a pejorative etc.
@@X-35173 It also includes the phrase "well regulated militia" so the government has more than enough justification and authority to regulate which guns are to be allowed, where are they going to be allowed and who is going to be allowed to have guns, thats what well regulated means, the 2A is not absolute, but the gun fetishists in the right wing think it is.
Much like the other guy, the second amendment is a huge one people misunderstand. The first amendment is my favorite. The Republicans always want to throw that out there. We can't be sensored. Then you have Ron DeSantis trying to prevent people from speaking (or studying about) certain words (or past events)... I mean I do believe it says the federal government can't sensor you. So he is kind of right. A bit overboard. What pisses me off is when you are at work and someone wants to say his boss can't tell him to not say derogatory things to other people. "Nope. My first amendment right says you can't limit me." Not true. That was designed to prevent the government from lying to us and being the only word we heard. Aka if our government told us a story and someone else could prove they were lying to brainwash us, that media source could shine light on it and inform the citizens of the corruption the government was trying to pull. 1st amendment doesn't give me the right to go around and call people nigg..... what's that mom. Hold on. BRB.
@@X-35173 And Russel has no idea what he's talking about. When the Constitution was written private citizens had the same weapons as the government. And the people should have that same weaponry today.
"From each according to his ability to each according to his needs"
Me: Everyone knows that's Marx
Legal Eagle: 72% of Americans believe this is in the U.S. Constitution
Me: 🤦🏻
45% of that 72% are commie hating Republicans... just clueless. Jk, jk, I didn't look up their party affiliation, but I wouldn't be surprised.
I thought everyone knew it was Marx too wtf how are Americans so sumb
And yet, despite believing it's in the constitution, Americans still have a problem with Socialism.
When he said that, I thought it sounded a bit too egalitarian, possibly even socialist or even *communist*, to be in the US constitution. Like, that kind of thinking has literally been called "un-American", how could people get it so wrong!
@@inigo8740 becuase people in America like to think they are the most fair and free. And it sounds like a fair concept.
I often get the impression, that US Americans believe that "bilingual" means something dirty
You probably get that impression a lot.
Many of us don't feel that way. I would have loved to grow up in a bilingual home. I would have loved the opportunity to begin learning a second language when I was in elementary school like many other countries do.
Q: What is a person that speaks 2 languages called?
A: Bilingual.
Q: What is a person that speaks multiple languages called?
A: Multilingual or a Polyglot.
Q: What is a person that only speaks 1 language called?
A: An American.
The American constitution is especially frustrating as a Canadian because a lot of Canadians confuse the two. Ive heard people unironically talk about their second ammendment rights in canada
Oh no!!!!! That’s both terrible and kind of hilarious!
You sure they weren't Americans that immigrated
Well they still have those rights
@@saintwaluigi4464 There is no right to gun ownership in Canada. To even get a license the RCMP will do a background check and if they find reason to believe you might harm yourself or others, you will not be granted a license. Many firearms are also prohibited or restricted, and many modifications (e.g. high round magazines or modding a semi auto to an auto) are prohibited by law. We own guns at the government's pleasure, not by right.
@Tim A Vettel Great point. We may not have the NRA in Canada, but their dollars do a lot of work that doesn't belong here.
I wish public servants had to pass an exam on the constitution. We expect more from nationalized citizens than we do lawmakers.
Can you imagine if they had to have CEUs to stay in power?
If us citizens were more educated and attentive to our own government, perhaps that would be a requirement. But we aren’t so it isn’t.
Then again, if it was a required test, I can think of some politicians, in office now, that would cheat on said test to obtain office.
I wish people who want others to read the constitution would do so themselves.
@@kennethtaylor964 💯
Back when I was a sports bar bouncer I ejected plenty of people. All I had to say was "We refuse to do business with you and require you to leave the premises." If that didn't work I just had to call the police and state we had an '86' refusing to leave. A place of business is private property open to the public in a limited manner for the singular purpose of doing business. You can't make me do business with you (coercion) nor can you stay on the property (trespass). This is true even if you feel I am violating your protected status. You do have the right to try to convince a judge that "obnoxious drunk" is a protected status or any innate part of one. The bouncer will be attending that hearing, with witness statements and recordings and a lawyer. You will undoubtedly be representing yourself, as such cases make both lawyers and judges roll their eyes and say "Get on with your life."
I wish more people would understand that since so many seem to think that you can kick anyone out at any time regardless of protection. It is just that you can't kick them out/ deny service if they are protected. So you can't stop a disabled person from entering the bar due to their medical equipment or even just that you don't like the way they look. However, if that same person gets too drunk and causes problem then they can be kicked out.
It really isn't all that complicated yet so many people don't understand it. A few years ago there was a group of people who were working with their service dogs in a halloween store. They were all either protected under the ADA or a state law that gives in training dogs the same rights as fully trained service dogs. The manager had to call the police because they weren't buying anything and were actively getting in the way of other customers. It wasn't just a little in the way either but they were significantly blocking shelves and walkways.
They tried to act like the business owner kicked them out for having service dogs and posted everywhere about it only for later information to come out showing that they were causing issues. The store owner then became the protected class instead of the people since the ADA includes the right to kick out a disabled person's service dog if they cannot control their service dog. You do need to then give them a way to access your services whether that is letting the person come back in alone, or letting them place their order and have it brought out by an employee
Thanks for posting this. I'm quite certain that nothing in the US Constitution gives anyone the "RIGHT" to enter private property against the owner's will. Even the owner has to give a certain amount of notice before entering a tennants property.
@@surferdude4487 I think there is one exception, but it's most likely not in the constitution but just general law.
You are required by law to allow anyone access to your private property to give them the chance to introduce themselves. After which you can of course tell them to leave and they have to oblige, but the first thing is still there.
I think this is mostly in place to give public servants like mailpeople the right to enter your private property, even though you have signs on the door that state you aren't allowed access. I think it's called something like 'seeking consent', but I don't remember the exact wording. There are probably many caveats to it...
@@Shade01982 IMO, if you don't want the mail carrier entering your property, you might consider putting the mail-box out at the edge of the property. I'm sure there are also exceptions under the law where people such as police officers and meter readers can enter your property whether you want them to or not if they have official business. I wouldn't know because I haven't read the US constitution yet.
@@surferdude4487 It's been a while when I looked at this, so I don't remember the details, but it was very much like that yeah.
It is worth noting that the original tax clause in the Constitution was 100% dependent upon the Several States to pay the bill. The States with higher populations had a higher tax burden. It was therefore up to the State Legislature to decide how to collect taxes. People had a more direct representation in the State than the Federal Government, the way it ought to be.
It was the 16th Amendment (income tax) that changed the whole scheme. I would be in favor of repealing both the 16th Amendment and the 17th Amendment to restore the all important relationship between the federal government and the state government as articulated by Article IV and the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Federalism has been broken, and that was an important mechanism in the Constitution of 1789. To get back to Taxation and True Representation the Progressive Amendments must go.
Finally, people also need to understand that if the maxim of “no taxation without representation “ is true, the inverse is also true: “No Representation without Taxation “
While completely unpopular, the principle stands.
I know this will likely never happen, but it’s fun to discuss.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
I was a little confused at first when you put up that first phrase. I was like "that's Marx, not the constitution!"
Then you proved me correct and my day was made. Thank you
Same, I first thought: That doesn't sound like any American value, then it hit me it was communist, and I guessed it was Marx.
Yeah, that was my first thought as well. I cannot believe that there are American people that actually believe Karl Marx's words are part of the US Constitution.
Surveys are a really unreliable way of determining what people think, let alone what they know, because the answer can easily be made to be dependent on the way in which the question is asked. Can be done right, but can also result in complete nonsense.
People always get the meaning of the quote wrong. It was never meant to allow people to slack off and still get everything they want. Marx's definition of "need" was very narrow, as in what a person needs to live and work, not what they desire. Therefore a doctor or lawyer will still get different things than a factory worker and some people will get more than other. Said doctor would get less food than a factory worker, because he doesn't need as much.
Also, since everybody can work whatever they are best at (so not being forced into a low-wage job because you hadn't the money to get education), they are (at least in Marx's views) the most productive at that point and since everybody only gets what they need, everything is used optimally; which in fact is a very capitalist way to order things.
Same lol, I was like that's DEFINITELY Marx.
This is genuinely scary to realize how few people actually know about one of the single most important documents to American society.
It because schools have stopped teaching about base freedoms, haven’t you noticed that we are surround by socialist and that the playbook that being taught. Compare or curriculum to that taught in communist countries, you find it shocking.
Can you tell me why I should care?
@@fredstampflee888 Nice buzzwords...
@@fredstampflee888 sadly even people on the right are starting to fall for the liberal propaganda about the bill of rights applying to state and local governments, in spite the first amendment explicitly saying that it only applies to Congress.
@@williampennjr.4448 Technically, you are correct. The bill of rights originally only applied to the national government. However, the 14th amendment's Due Process Clause changed that, requiring both the state governments and national government to protect those rights
(Edit: minor grammatical changes)
I took a Constitution Class my last year of high school, and I’m so grateful. You’re right, most people don’t really know what it says. And… it’s really short in the grand scheme of the law. We really should be learning it in school on a widespread basis.
In my country, the Constitution is so long and so committed to tasks I have never thought they existed
I was in a law and justice based academy at my high school. Was made to read and take tests on the Constitution. Very useful nowadays.
State constitutions are the ones that require lots of caffeine.
I mean we already complain about needing to memorizing the amendments, I think kids would chafe quite at memorizing what all the articles talked about lol
When I was in high school in the 1990s we had a required American Government class, but it was sadly only half the length of other required classes.
“On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” Thomas Jefferson
Just wanting to make it clear- Orwell was an avid socialist and fought against the Franco regime in Spain alongside the members of what he called “utopian” socialist villages; the parody was not of Karl Marx, but of Stalin and his cronies.
Orwell was also thoroughly disillusioned with his socialist allies before the end of all that as well.
if you follow communist ideology and think the end goal of communism is utopian, you’re not a very good communist. we tend to stay realistic: we want a fair and equitable world for everyone. we don’t want a utopia; we want something attainable.
He was criticising both.
@@ExperimentIV ?? The founder of communism believes in a utopia - ‘the end of history’. Pretty sure communism and Utopianism are pretty connected
@@ExperimentIV only tankies think like you
This really gets to me, as it seems like the people who have many of the strongest political opinions are among those who are most ignorant of what it does and doesn't say in that very short document. Citizenship is a responsibility as well as a right, and knowing the basics of American governance should be your first responsibility before spouting off about it.
Dunning-Kruger Effect to an extent: those who know the least are the most confident in what they think they know.
@@ZhangtheGreat Yep, but more people need to shout in their faces that they don't get to call themselves "patriots."
!!!!! This
Everyone should have to pass a us citizenship test to vote. Dark history of testing to vote be damned
@@TeslaHaxz Well, the first question should be why that's a bad idea. What we need is actual civics education back in schools.
A common language that everybody learns in addition to their native tongue is not a bad idea. Forcing people to abandon their native tongue is horrific. Speaking as an Inupiaq here; I never really learned the language, despite living my early years in my home village, and that was because the language was attacked so completely. I can’t even count to ten 😢
I agree that it's not a bad idea, but it shouldn't be mandatory. Perhaps we agree on that.
Well said. We're still grappling with the repercussions of doing that on a national level here in New Zealand. (And we have a legally binding treaty that says we wouldn't do shit like that)
Thankfully, we're slowly putting things right and teaching Te Reo Maori in schools, as well as many other acts to help repair that wrong.
Can you learn it now?
My 70 yr old Navajo friend Rose was illegally adopted by Mormons at birth. It really messed her up because she is not grounded in either culture. She lives 2 blocks from the Indian Hospital which is just making her sicker. What she really needs is a medicine man, tho her religion won't allow it.
@@redmoondesignbeth9119- The ya'taali would need a good block of time. Sounds like she needs a number of ceremonies, but without a grounding in her birth culture they might not do any good.
All this shows is that you can be an attorney and still not fully understand the constitution to insure the government doesn’t unlawfully violate your rights.
There was a big discussion back in 1787 over the Bill of Rights, many saying it was superfluous nonsense. if tHe content if the Bill of Tights were in the text of the constitution. It would not have been needed. Those opposing it thought that the Constitution itself covered all of that , but that was in the context of the time in which it was written TheB OF R supporters wanted to make sure that there was explicitenummeration of rights and powers The most important amendment is actually the 10th which says the government has the power you do only what is defined in the constitution and everything else belongs to the dtates or the people.
The fun thing about not having an official language is, in theory the corresponding offices could ratify laws in klingon and it would be perfectly viable.
🌎: ''MmmMm-Huhn....Arabic Greek Hebrew Latin and more languages are the compound 'English'. There are so many immigrants with languages here. Most groups celebrate their 'cultures'. Flags Cheers Songs and buy lotsa products. The general population should know how the 'translation' is important.
''My Rights''......"how did you come by the Rights you speak of'' ?
Thanks for your words and reading these.
Except that the official language thing is regulated to states since it’s technically under the 10th Amendment or that the founding fathers didn’t care to put it in since everybody spoke English already.
only if "worf" gringrich gets elected to congress
It's English
Which is why we probably should establish an official national language - Of course everyone should be free to speak whatever language they want to whomever they want, but its only logical to establish a standard language of communication for official matters
"I prefer the person who burns the flag and wraps themselves in the Constitution than the person who burns the constitution and wraps themselves in the flag." Molly Ivins
Sadly too many of our politicians do the latter and we as a people lose a few more I.Q. points in the process.
You referring to the politicians and their lobbyists that are trying to implement hate speech laws, gun control, codify Roe, and those rioting because they're upset with the independent judiciary or the police cleaning up the streets? Ambiguous.
There are people who burn both.
@@pollytix7271 Im referring to the ignorance of far too many people about the Constitution and how politicians use that ignorance to incite and inflame "Faketriots" into believing that less Freedom and the deconstruction of the Constitution is some how Patriotic.
@@radosawbartoszewicz7247 Libs burn the flag. Repubs burn the Constitution and use the flag as cover.
@@art2736 It is impossible to wrap yourself in a flag without a constitution, just as it is impossible to wrap yourself in constitution without a flag. Those who burn either of them, love neither.
"Taxation without representation" as a Puerto Rican I felt this one
and yet you guys keep voting to not become a State, and yet also don't want to be independent. Quite the interesting mess you guys have.
@@matts1166 much like Americans in the mainland or even in the same state or city can vary widely on certain issues, so can Puerto Ricans both within the island and abroad
If you're a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico during the entire tax year, you generally aren't required to file a U.S. federal income tax return if your only income is from sources within Puerto Rico.Jan 3, 2022
In 2016, Puerto Rico paid close to $3.5 billion into the US Treasury in the form of Business Income Taxes, Individual income tax withheld and FICA tax, Individual income tax payments and SECA tax, Unemployment insurance tax, Estate and trust income tax, Estate tax, Gift tax and Excise taxes.
According to the Consolidated Federal Funds Report compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau, Puerto Rico has received more than $21 billion annually in federal expenditures from the United States.
Congress has also allocated $42.5 billion to disaster relief for Puerto Rico after the 2019 hurricane.
Free money without taxation and representation.
@@matts1166 Puerto Rico voted for statehood in 2020.
So if you take voting rights away from inmates, should that mean that if you are convicted felon, you should not pay taxes?
Nothing says small government like banning schools from teaching laguages
I was told in highschool, "you have no constitutional rights until you're 18"
Been carrying a pocket Constitution around since then.
Think where most get confused is what the constitution grants vs what is left to the states. In other words what is not specifically granted to the federal government remains the states to regulate. The most common decision on this is abortion.
@@cameron398
I think where most people get confused is thinking that the constitution grants rights. It doesn't. It limits the government's power. The problem is we are the ones that are the check and balance against that, and the country's full of a bunch of pussies.
Must of been in public school
@@ablahday2558
Private. Technically "quasi public"
Board of directors instead of board of ed, but gets extorted money.
I tell my daughters this all the time. It's a joke and they know it.
When someone starts ranting about "constitutional" and such, the fastest way to shut them up is to hand them a pocket copy of the Constitution and Amendments and say "show me"
There is a need for more individuals like you out in public.
Whenever making a claim always ask for proof.
I dont think the ability to point out a right within a wall of text should be the standard required for the general public. People need to be better educated on the relevant rights they have and do not have, and should not have to know all of them or point them out in the constitution.
The ability to use google should cover that requirement though lol.
@@alisilcox6036
Agree with much of what you wrote, except the portion where you indicated, "and should not have to know all of them or point them out in the constitution."
To clarify, the Constitution does not grant rights - it restricts the authority of government to limit rights.
People become confused on this point which is why James Madison did not want a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. He feared the people would come to believe these were their Constitutional Rights - their only rights. They are not.
@@The_Federalist76 that's fair, I considered writing "rights and freedoms" but decided against for simplicity. Im just as irritated as I expect you are by the sentiment that people have, for example, a right to free speech, which in fact is simply a freedom from government curtailment of speech, not freedom from private or public consequences of speech. I'd also say this comment isnt restricted to the US public but a statement on what people should have expected of them globally - knowing and pointing out positive OR negative rights (as a "freedom from" is indeed still a "right to freedom from" after all) in the specific, whether in the constitution or other piece of legislation, shoudn't be nescessary to protect yourself or express your rights or freedoms. This might not seem just or fair to some people, but it's an unfortunate reality that the people whose rights are trampled most often are the same groups who are systemically not educated on them.
And they go to page zero and show you there is nothing in the constitution about abortion. But plenty on right to life.
In the Philippines, a lot of college courses have an elective that just spends an entire semister to study the Philippine Constitution, regardless if their major is not Political Science. It helps a lot to teach us to understand what our rights are to better protect ourselves against authorities who abuse the law.
In 1986-87 my High School political science class (which they no longer have) covered the same thing as this video.
@mikelmacrichard4772 that sort of thing should be taught in high schools... it's a shame they stopped.
@@victoriarodriguez9981we need to join PTA & enforce it, demand it, petition for it, we need to get it back in instead of letting Rockefeller choose every bit of info we learn, like he’s done with what sort of health care is considered standard
Excellent. Shd be mandatory for h.s. grad in every country.
A little off topic: People like to say there should be an "Official Language" in the United States.
Not only are there all the languages that are spoken here, there are all the individual languages that "English" is make of, there is also this:
When the Constitution was written, there were approximately 300 different Native American languages spoken across what is now the United States. So it makes sense that there is no "Official Language."
The constitution does too say That, the word 'that' occurs 16 times in the text, 24 if you count the amendments.
You forgot to say objection
That's very important to keep in mind.
You are technically correct which is the best kind of correct!
One should count the amendments
objection! you didn't say objection!
Anytime I get into a discussion with other people about the Constitution, I’m constantly correcting misconceptions other people have. It’s a very simple read and isn’t actually that hard to understand and can be read by most people in about 30 minutes ( I know a lot of slow readers). I always try to get as many people as possible to actually read it instead of just listening to what other people say about it.
It takes me about an hour to read through it and I have a pretty high reading level. It’s just dry.
I'm tired of people thinking the constitution is perfect, should never be changed and should be the "be all end all" of US law.
The constitution is great, it has alot of great core concepts but it was written before toilet paper existed, when people died of diseases that we eradicated and it was considered an acceptable loss.
There is an express reason why the founders allowed for amendments, because they knew things would change or that they might have missed something.
I would read it over the Australian Constitution any day!
Oh my goddess, those creating a parliamentary system had to be some of the most boring people alive. I flicked over said constitution once more just to refresh because I have read it like... once, ever... and I regretted it immediately. Rules on what to do if so-and-so isn't present, rules reminding people that a year is 12 months, and all sorts of other little things that I guess should be noted down if you want a consistent government. None of which containing any flowing text what so ever, which to be fair I hate seeing in a Constitution but still makes the whole thing so tiring to read.
Well, in reality, much is ambiguous and requires critical thinking. It is a guide, in many/most cases, outlining the general form of government and configuring levels of responsibility.
@@coachhannah2403 It can also be pretty much ignored if the rulers, interpreters, and enforcers decide to
It’s almost like the Constitution is a framework for how the government works, and what limits it has, and not a list of things that ordinary citizens are allowed to do.
After I finish shifting your entire convoy of truckloads of sarcasm, I have to say "Thank you Captain Obvious!" and then politely ask you to move over in the lifeboat of wisdom so that others might also take a seat.
and now, cue up the snowflakes with the hate at someone who just states the obvious, while utterly undermining whatever gripe they have with how "The System" is just out to get them.
Sort of, it gives the framework for our government, primarily limiting the governments control over the public. Free speech, right to bear arms and so on.
Not "almost like." It is.
its a list of what the gvmt can not do
It's not "almost like" ...
It's Exactly what the Constitution is
The right of a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in criminal cases is just a fundamental part of "due process" - which IS explicitly guaranteed by our Constitution in the 5th Amendment. To say a significant and important fundamental part of something else isn't in the constitution, when the latter is clearly there, is going to be either unintelligent or dishonest; This would be no different than why we know that each State in the US has not only the right but also the duty to have a Governor - although not expressly stated that each state must have one (in fact, the term 'governor' isn't event mentioned once), it is a fundamental position of governance at such a level that having a State simply implies there will be one - just as having a city implies there will be a Mayor.
If you are bound by a guarantee of due process to an individual, then their presumption of innocence is just a part of that guarantee.
I went through law school, and this is actually a pretty divisive topic which houses some really fascinating arguments.
Some state that innocent until proven guilty is an extrapolation of the conscience; that it is a precedent established by common law and iterated as a core value of judicial procedures, but not born out of the constitution-rather, it is conceived by the rationale instituted by external valued (case law). Some interpret it as something which should be explicitly connected to Due Process-me personally?
I’d say that the due process amendments *imply* innocent until proven guilty, but implications had to be interpreted by courts and judges, and it is with that established precedent that it pervade as an existing legal doctrine.
Fascinating stuff, really.
As a naturalized U.S. citizen, my first government handout was a pocket-sized U.S. Constitution. Yay!
As a born-American citizen, I wonder if the government would give me one.
Honestly, I’m of the mindset that every household should be given a free law library, in print, provided by the government, with replacements for outdated materials every few years. If we’re supposed to know and follow all laws, then we should all be supplied with them, legibly in print, as not to disenfranchise people without computers.
I get a lot of pushback on that, generally saying that everyone can’t be lawyers, but that’s part of why I worry, since everyone is expected to follow the law like a lawyer, yet few WANT to follow the law “like a lawyer” except the people that want to become a lawyer.
The law must be as fair to the citizen that uses the internet, goes into public often, and watches the news as it is to the people who do not use the internet, do not go into public often, nor watch the news.
Anyway, Stanley, I hope you enjoy America. It is not perfect but it is my home, and it sounds like it may just be your home, now, too. Happy to have you here! Sorry for the rant, but this has always been a big issue for me, and if you’re excited by a pocket constitution, maybe you’d have an opinion on my opinion of giving everyone a law library.
Would probably also help us cut down on our ever more complicated laws, too, if the government was forced to put them all together on paper and give them freely to all, maybe we’d get rid of some of the extraneous laws that have added up over time.
As a naturalized US citizen, you probably understand the thing better than 99% of natural-born US citizens. As I understand it most of us would have trouble passing the citizenship test y'all have to go through.
@@krissisk4163 I personally believe anyone who runs for a US political office should have to pass the citizen test to qualify. If you can't pass that, you shouldn't be in charge of any part of the government.
@Stanley Tweedle I assume you are from Canada and/or the Commander of the Lexx …
@@jlaakso1706 but I mean what about people who can remember "Woman. Man. Camera. TV." five minutes later? I mean surely there should be exception for intelligence on that level!
The language section reminds me of a shirt I saw - "English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows other languages into dark alleys and rummages through their pockets for loose grammar". Even if someone just wants to learn English, knowing the languages that English as we know it came from is important and interesting. Knowing other languages on top of that helps as well, especially if you ever want to work with folks who came from other countries/cultures, or even those who just have different accents than what you might otherwise be used to. Regional terms and accents have history to them, and that can lead down all sorts of interesting learning rabbit holes that can become useful later on.
English is a mutt language in my opinion as it picked everything from other languages.
Yes, that shirt is spot on. I can spot some of the places where French is lurking but that's just a fragment of the history of the language.
I have always loved etymology! It's interesting where some words came from...
Now all I can think about is 'Dubya allegedly saying that the French have no word for "entrepreneur". The day I heard that is the day I learned what "facepalm" is, and also the day I became curious about etymology.
I remember read a history of English language and the writter said the Celtic languages of the Birtish islands influence exists in a hand full of words and the word DO. and that it came form a small celtic kingdom in Wales, and that English liked to dress up as a Celt on lonely Saturday nights..
I imagine this video is the result of Devon hearing too many incorrect descriptions of the Constitution and he just finally snapped.
To be fair, professionals of almost every field of study would be annoyed at how people frequently get things wrong.
Pretty much everyone that thinks the first amendment means they can do and say whatever they want to anyone they want anywhere they want without consequences.
These are weird incorrect descriptions though, I've never heard any of these. Are people really that dumb that they think Marx' communist quote is a part of the Constitution?
@@SeraphsWitness How many even know who Karl Marx is?
@@brodriguez11000 Sad but true probably. Fair enough.
Maybe that's why his ideas are regaining popularity, as if they're somehow fresh and new.
I did a sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph analysis of the constitution and the amendments! My notebook was 5-in, double-sided with flowcharts and sentence diagrams. I have notes on the decision makers. Took over a year!
You know what gets misinterpreted A LOT? Freedom of speech. Even people working in media outlets get it wrong, which I think they should know better, since they inform the public. People don't realize that this protection is only against your government. From citizen to citizen, that right is regulated and it DOES have limits. That's why crimes like harassment (verbal or written), verbal assault (threats of harm), libel and slander are a thing. You can't say whatever you want about and/or to another citizen. Your right ends where someone else's right begins.
Freedom of speech exists as a philosophical concept independent of laws and government.
People _severely_ misinterpret "freedom of speech" as "freedom from consequences." No, your "freedom of speech" does _not_ protect you from someone else exercising _their_ freedom of speech in a way that might make you feel bad.
I thought most people understood this. harassment and assault are definitely a no-go, as well as libel and slander. I thought the divide was more along the lines that hate speech is legal when many people say it is not. Hate speech is illegal in many other countries, but in the US you can say hateful things about a group of people legally.
"Freedom of speech" has a caveat and that caveat is freedom of association. People are free to gather with or be around whom they want (within reason) and if that means deliberately excluding someone that's fair game too. One cannot force another person to tolerate them in the other's space.
It's also been updated over time with laws as new forms of communication and new mail services popped up and stuff. To say it's just been only about the government legally is also a mistake. It ends with someone's right to not listen eventually and when lies deliberately mess up your life.
I love this channel, I'm an admitted attorney of the High Court of South Africa and its so interesting to see the parallels and difference of our legal systems.
This guy is biased. He's got a political agenda to push.
@@Sal3600 which guy?
Yes, but the South African constitutional framers had the good sense to take parts of the US constitution and add any important cases that have been strongly debated and resolved and added them explicitly. It also has a far more sensibly explicit and comprehensive list of protected rights so that there is far less chance that modern rights have to be interpreted in by the courts.
Imagine if every complicated US Supreme Court Case forced a constitutional convention that didn't allow the delegates to leave or eat anything except bread and water until they definitively settled the issue by constitutional ammendment, and you might have as comprehensive a set of protections as the SA constitution
@@blumoogle2901 that's a bit unfair in the US constitution, we had the benefit of decades of real world experience when our constitution was written by some of the finest legal and philosophical minds, the US constitution was written by the 12 guys who could write, all things considered it's not too bad.
Thats the most lawyerly way of telling everyone you're an attorney. 😂
Why use one word where you can you use 8.
Who did you bill for telling us?
One of my favorite classes I ever took was US Law. We covered some basics of civil and criminal law.
But the majority of the class was going line by line through the constitution and discussing everything in it. Plus discussing how the various parts of the constitution affect our lives and what rights they give. It was soo much fun and entertaining every period.
I wish every single American had the fortune to learn the constitution through Professor Dickey.
What school did you go to?
This might be my misconception but isn't the constitution supposed to be about what rights the government isn't allowed to take away from the people and not a list of the rights we have?
@@the3nder1 you’re thinking of the bill of rights, the first 10 amendments to the constitution. The constitution is the document that says how the US government will run, the bill of rights are amendments stapled onto the back of the constitution to outline some rights that citizens of the US have in terms of governance.
Most of them are just things that the government can’t do, but like the 6th amendment does provide things that the government must do for you during a trial.
I would highly recommend reading at least the bill of rights, if not the entire constitution/amendments. The bill of rights can be read in about a minute.
@@the3nder1 and yeah the 9th amendment basically says “just because a right isn’t in here doesn’t mean that somebody doesn’t have that right.”
You can’t say somebody in the US doesn’t have a right just because it isn’t covered by the constitution or amendments, you’re right.
@@MotorcycleWrites the amendments are in fact part of the constitution.... they are ya know... amendments.... to the constitution.
@0:40
I would like to know how the people were asked. Such as, was the question leading - "Is ito each according to his ability....... his need' part of the Constitution?"
Or was it more like, "Where does the phrase 'to each according to his ability...." come from?"
"No taxation without representation!"
Supreme Court to territorial citizens: well actually...
*Sad Puerto Rican noises*
The opinion that allows this is one of the most disgustingly racist pieces of writing I have ever read. It's shameful that it's still part of our laws.
The territories of the US today were not part of the US back then. Also, originally, only the white male owner class was allowed to vote. And even that was for many founding fathers a compromise as they thought people are idiots who can't be trusted. Which is why you got the electoral college.
@@SkiDaBird ya they say that they should seek legislative remedy while also reminding them that they're 2nd class citizens with no legislative remedy.
And that's not inherent in a federal system. Australia's two major territories have two federal senators each (to the 12 of a state), and minor territories get assigned a major territory to be part of for voting purposes. And we don't even have the issue where there are 'territories' with greater populations than some 'states'. The ACT (our DC equivalent) is only some 25% less than Tasmania, but it is still less, and Tasmania is the only state so close to a territory in population.
I wrote a book on methodologies for interpreting the Constitution a few years back, and in developing that I was surprised what was actually written down in the Constitution. It is a remarkable document, and it is now frustrating to me how many people have no clue what is in there.
are there cats?!
@@stanleytweedle467 There are at least four cats in the constitution
@@z-beeblebrox I'm glad, 4 is the least amount to form a purrfect union
I taught high school government for over 25 years. We read the constitution every year and discussed its history. I only hope they remember it.
They don't. When I get them in college, their pre-test scores for even basic government questions are quite bad (
"Of course we remember studying the Constitution, it's what gives us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!"
They might remember it, but how do they interpret it? Since everything is interpreted nowadays.
Did you treat the important court cases?
@@CheapFlashyLoris why are you citing the declaration of independence?
If I have learned anything from reading Magic the Gathering and Yu-Gi-Oh cards, it's that length does not necessarily correlate with complexity. I have seen cards with 3 lines of text that take several minutes and a judge to figure out what they actually do, and I have seen 10 lines of text that clearly do precisely one thing and only that one thing. Being 7 pages does not mean that the constitution is simple to understand.
My school district required us to pass a Constitution test to enter High School. I think that everyone should have such a test.
My School district did the same thing but we also had to pass the Constitution test to graduate high school as well
Barely have to pass a drug test today.
I know that the Civics Teacher at a school that I taught at butchered the Constitution's content. When questioned, he stated that they would get a more accurate coverage in college. The problem with that was probably more than three quarters were either uninterested in even high school subjects, or never attend any college, junior or four year; meaning his over simplification or out right inaccurate comments are all that they would ever hear. I saw the same thing with history classes.
Agree. I taught it in Middle School. My students were not enamored at first but in my survey at the end of the year the VAST majority said their favorite part of my class was learning the Constitution and being able to understand it. They always said it helped them understand the rest of American history better. I have no idea how anyone can really understand American history without learning the Constitition.
@@kathynj6479
Good teacher!
I always assumed that "innocent until proven guilty" was due to the fact that the prosecution must provide irrefutable, or at least very convincing, evidence that the jury can then use to make a decision. A decision that must be unanimous. Any lack of proof could, therefore, stir up doubt in the jury, resulting nondecision or innocent due to lack of convincing evidence(proof).
another reason i’ve heard cited for why the us runs by innocent until proven guilty is because the ‘prosecutorial mind can make anything seem suspicious’ so it *HAS* to be the government’s burden to prove guilt. at least, that’s what attorney tom says!
12 angry men
There are states where it certainly doesn’t need to be unanimous… so that’s not part of the constitution
@@timschultz1928 Just looked into it, this is currently under discussion and is going to the supreme court for cases in Louisiana. States can interpret the Constitution in any way they want to.
in 2018 Colorado removed the part of the 13th amendment that states labor can be used as punishment for a crime from the state constitution. Yet, somehow, agencies can still sentence people to "community service", which is labor, for their crimes.
But the point is that none of that (that the prosecution must present convincing evidence to the jury, that a jury verdict in a criminal case must be unanimous, etc.) is expressly stated in the Constitution.
"So you can imagine, if Americans confuse the US Constitution with the Soviet Constitution, they're probably wrong about a whole bunch of other things..." 🤣🤣🤣
I feel like this is rather unfair, as most Americans don’t know every phrase or sentence in the Constitution off the top of their head or by heart. The phrase in question sounds old timey and philosophical so it could easily be assumed it was in the US Constitution.
@@Jax1534 yes, it's such a long paper with seven pages or couple dozen amendments. Something one would use 15 minutes in reading.
@@voittolehti2432 I never said it was long. I’m saying the average person doesn’t have it memorized.
@@Jax1534 if you dont know the constitution of your country be heart then dont start rioting and crying for your liberty be quoting the constitution
@@aoki6332 Most
Americans know the Bill of the Rights though, at least the first few Amendments.
"Life is simple but we insist on making things complicated"
Summary
0:16 "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
1:29 "English is the Official Language of the U.S."
4:39 "No Taxation without Representation"
7:22 "The Right to Enter a Store or Restaurant"
9:36 "Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty"
11:50 Promo for continued video on Nebula
Thank you!
Should talk about the right to privacy too
@@WarlordM
Oh man, please.
That's so interesting. Especially with current technology.
In my "legal issues with IT" class. We spent at least a month talking about this very issue.
@@WarlordM I know next to nothing, but isn't there an amendment regarding unlawful searches?
@@ryansgameing6961 - I've wondered about this. In companies that I've worked for, there've been degrees of privacy/sensitivity of information, from "Do not share with anyone and destroy when you're finished with it" through "can be shared within the company", to "can be shared with anyone". But in wider culture, we seem to want to be able to make do with "public" and "private", even though I don't think that's really how many of us live our lives.
Some people would argue that, if you can eavesdrop on a conversation, that conversation is public, but... is it? And likewise, some people will insist that a photo shared on a social media platform has at that point become "public", but would that mean that we'd accept its use in any and all possible forms? Legally, we might be stuck with saying "yes", but culturally, we know a shitty thing to do when we see it.
Classification of levels of privacy seems essential if we want a system that matches the reality of how people communicate, and I'm hoping that it will evolve beyond the binary notion that is often implemented.
Must be nice to have your entire constitution fit on to a 14 page pdf instead of a mash up of countless documents, royal proclamations and treaties that predate your country.
Sincerely, a Canadian
The collation is nice, but sometimes the brevity is a double-edged sword. There's a lot of parts that seem like they were tired of arguing about how the government was going to work, and just said "we'll fill in the details later". 250 years later... still working on that.
We gained our independence through "Hey, what if we kept doing things the same...but did it without you?"
That means we started with a hot mess, and arguably made it hotter. Rather than start from scratch.
@@Zraknul Despite all the ideas it borrowed and how many Amendments eventually needed to be added, the U.S. Constitution was remarkably advanced for its day. Nowhere else at the time did you see ideas like complete religious freedom with no official religion, the ability to criticize the government with very limited consequences, abolishment of royalty and all forms of nobility, voting rights granted to all adult, white male citizens, three separate branches of government with a complete set of checks and balances, etc. directly implemented into the government itself. That's why it's managed to last well over 200 years without ever having any widespread sense of dissatisfaction among the people.
@@Compucles The Civil War could be described as a really bad dose of dissatisfaction
@@standard_gauge The dissatisfaction wasn't over the constitution per se; the common misconception is that the civil war was fought over "states' rights," which is only _technically_ true, but an obfuscation that distracts away from the fact that one of those rights the states demanded was the ability to own a person - it comes up by-name at least a dozen times or more in the Confederacy's official secession.
Weirdly I got most of this right and I’m British. Shocked that so many Americans misattribute the quote from Marx when they are so quick to decry Marxism
Everyone who hates Marx never read a single thing the dude actually said. Like oh no! workers shouldn't be worked to death! what a monster
Darn you British and yer communo Marxist health care I prefer flipping a coin on whether I'm going to keep my house after a medical bill or not harrumph.
It's not a "familiarity breeds contempt" kind of moment, either in regard to our Constitution or Marxism. We aren't all like that, I promise... There's... ~ 25%....
we’re all stupid.
I'm pretty sure that the people who think this is part of the constitution are the ones that don't decry marxism. I decry marxism, I immediately thought something was wrong with the quote.
In short, actually, "No taxation without representation" is in our constitution; it is just littered all over the place in the form of several restrictions and guarantees that forbid the practice from ever legally occurring.
The US Constitution doesn't explicitly state in a singular clause that "there shall be no taxation without adequate representation of the people", but if you look at the limitations, guarantees, and expressly denied portions written in the Constitution where taxation and voting is concerned - as well as all areas that reserve the rights of the people to decide or perform particular acts - you will easily infer that our Federal Government, and therefore the same restricted type of government within the several States, actually are forbidden from levying a tax upon any class or group of persons to which those persons are exempted from adequate representation from that taxing governmental entity. We also see this ideal put in effect in Federal courts when government entities attempt to levy a tax that they have no jurisdiction nor authority to do so, and mostly that is because that entity is not going to adequately represent the constituents that it is attempting to tax (i.e. Washington State/King County wanted to impose a toll on the I-90 Floating bridge to all that used that road, but the Federal Gov't said "If you do, you will be required to maintain that ENTIRE Interstate Highway as part of the right to tax that".).
I love this. To encourage my high school students in U.S. Government class to read the whole U.S. Constitution - I let them purchase and use a pocket Constitution of the United States on their exams.
That's a fantastic idea
Thank you for talking about residential schools, even if just briefly. We need to normalize people discussing the more distressing parts of history when it's relevant!!!
This! Especially with the first part of that landmark report about them being released this week.
Yeah I found it strange when the U.S. was shitting on Canada for their terrible residential schools while not talking about their own at all.
But when you try to, half of the cou try calls it "woke liberal propaganda" even though it's just facts. They want certain facts ommited.
Just watch as youtube channels mentioning the unpleasant parts of American history are eventually getting banned and burned like some books, lol.
@@austinhernandez2716 how would they convince people to kill and die for their country if they knew the full history?
The taxation thing always makes me laugh. The taxes they were unhappy about were, well, war debts that they did not want to pay (and were unhappy with the treaty that ended the war).. but as soon as they had their own government with war debts, they were perfectly happy to put down their own rebellions and force people to pay for 'their freedom'.
So the Boston Tea Party was a prank? No tax on tea, glass- well you name it. Taxes began the war and in a way the two ended it. Taxes never ended. They knew exactly what they were doing. It was the only way to fund a revolution.
That they did not want to pay because they had zero influence in their governments decision making process. Who would want to pay taxes for a war they were forced to fight?
Also another funny thing to add onto that was that the colonies were taxed a bunch because the English people were already getting sick of parliament taxing them back home. The government really dug themselves into a representative hole there.
It was about "no taxation without representation" once the government was able to represent the people, they had the right to tax
@@enclave3228 The government did not represent the people though. Most people were not allowed to vote in the US for a long time. The right to vote was originally only given to white male property owners.
The Bill of Rights clearly says on the 2nd A. "Shall not be Infringed" !!!
Of which they clearly are "Infringing" !!!
It says "Rights" not Privileges !!!
A "Right" when taxed regulated or restricted becomes a Privilege !!!
clearly says people, if you are one of the people.
I've read the US Constitution several times and never held these misconceptions, although I have to say that the 9th amendment makes room for more natural rights even if they are not listed.🗽
Some have insane Ideas about the Constitution.
"Lauren Boebert Completely Gives Up On The Constitution" by 'Telltale Fireside' shows that well, just like his other videos of this kind.
I knew that about the 10th.
@@slook7094 The 10th too actually, for rights not delegated to the federal nor prohibited by the states.. Maybe we could take out one provision in the 5th though, and get more information from certain witnesses...
Natural rights aren't real; the 9th amendment says that any power not granted explicitly to the federal government is maintained by the states. The Constitution is primarily focused on the relationship between federal and state governments. It doesn't really grant you rights, so much as it commands the states not to make certain laws. States are the ones who decide what's allowed for the most part.
You don't have that misconception because you've read it. You are in a very minority. Ponder that fact and think of how often we hear people say: "we need to get back to the constitution."
I first read the constitution in its entirety when I was in high school and again in college. I recommend that everyone in the USA read it. You'd be surprised at how little our political leaders and local law enforcement agencies know about this document.
I did it in Junior High because it was in the back of the Social Studies book and I was intrigued. I later found out it was later one of the requirements for the Citizenship of the Country Boy Scout Merit Badge.
Reading it is hardly enough though. As with most texts, it can't be fully understood on its own.
@@rickhodges4808 it's actually pretty straightforward. The only reason why someone would need a translation is if they don't understand written English.
@@AnarkeeSoundVibes, or because they want it to say something else.
@@AnarkeeSoundVibes I didn't say "translation" - seems you are the one who doesn't understand English. I said understand - and that's entirely true. One cannot simply read the Constitution and think they are suddenly a constitutional attorney who fully understands it.
The Constitution does not give you any rights it limits the government's power to trample those rights that already existed.
This is basically sophistry. Those rights are only rights insofar as they are stated to be rights by the constitution. There is no fundamental law of the universe that makes them rights. They are rights for Americans because the constitution declares them to be rights.
@@TheLobsterCopter5000 they are inalienable rights. They are universal, they are real, go ahead and try to test out your theory by taking them away from someone.
You are correct though - your statement is basically sophistry, thanks for being honest.
@@leeknivek if that was true every country would allow the people to arm themselves.
@TheLobsterCopter5000 they are rights fundamental to life. That is why the US Constitution was written the way it was. To make it as hard as possible for the government to trample on and take them away.
But hey if you want the US army in your house by all means don't let me stop you.
i tried to say that and couldnt find the words .
You forgot territories like Guam 🇬🇺 and Puerto Rico 🇵🇷. And as I understand it … our forefathers never intended for Washington, DC to have permanent residents.
I see what you just did there, LegalEagle, especially the bit about "innocent until proven guilty" not actually being in the Constitution, but nevertheless a fundamental part of our jurisprudence. Nicely done.
This just reminded them that it's a right they can take away...
@@Halinn wait so are we with or against Alito on this “deeply rooted in history and tradition” thing? I guess it depends on the issue, huh?
Don't see anything about causing corporations republicans happen to be lobbing for to spontaneously explode either 👀👀
Weird huh? You'd think they'd put something like that in there...
@@seal869 well it’s not really if you’re for or against Alito, the entire court has used that test long before he became a justice. And it’s also been used to overturn anti-sodomy laws such as in Lawrence v. Texas. It’s not that it’s a bad test necessarily, but framing of the issue is most relevant. Broad framing generally = fundamental right. Narrow = no fundamental right
@@Hprost1 you’ve made a real mess here. No need to comment on subjects you don’t actually understand
A saying I wish would catch on is, "No Representation Without Taxation," so that tax dodging rich people and corporations couldn't bribe our government.
A bribe is just a tax the rich pay to avoid laws
I get the sentiment, but that would also stop the very poor and the elderly.
Yes. The rich should not be allowed loopholes. It's basically legal tax evasion.
@@austininflorida Just another example of "to each according to their need." Not being able to pay taxes is not the same as dodging taxes with loopholes.
It's the government that offers tax incentives to business owners, not the other way around. State governments offer those incentives because large businesses moving into their states means more jobs for the people and a better economy for the state.
The idea that rich people and corporations don't pay any taxes IS A MYTH, so stop spewing it everywhere.
One thing I’ve learned after taking Constitutional law is the answer is either John Marshall or Article I, Section 8.
OMG! So true!
I had to learn our constitution and the common law that it was interpreted into.
Constitutional law; derives from the civil action end that you are under the interstate commerce clause as a subject to the United States Authority.
United States common law "is" more useful not of that construction.
The common man of common law "is" of the United States Authority and defined within article 1 section 9 in part.
No titles of nobility shall be granted by the United States.
Interpretation; no social or political groups may take privilege within or upon the United States Authority.
If you do you are subject to common law and those within his Authority.
That is where constitutional law comes into place, after you are already subject for taking privileges.
The civil rights act "is" that action under the interstate commerce clause.
My ancestors spoke their native languages when they arrived here. German, Norwegian, French, English. Nobody made a big deal of it.
It's a chore to be in parts of the US where a nakedly misinterpreted constitution is brought up constantly; its significance exaggerated and fashioned into a club to rule them all. Political conversations usually end in a disagreement about the reality of this document.
It doesn't help that the document is so unhelpful. It says nothing about so much, too much about things it shouldn't have (that regrettable 3/5 compromise), and is vague on the rest.
It's in noway exaggerated.
@@kordellswoffer1520 It's significant to the degree that we currently use it to structure our government. I don't see how it's any more permanent than the constitution of Rome.
The paper itself is a fetish for wackos who misconstrude and weaponize it to legitimize irrationality.
It has many groundbreaking ideas to carry forth but to assume it'll last for generations in a tech-savy world is absurd.
@@QuesoCookies It definitely has a regrettable history. It would seem a good majority of the arguments against a constitutional convention is that it exposes itself to corruption and its for the best to not touch it. What a wonderful foundation for a superpower! We expend so much energy and money fighting over its structural interpretation, all while lives are being thrown away from the lack of resolute law.
@@Wbjpen what the hell are you talking about. The mere fact that it is used to structure our government makes it significant and inherently hard to exaggerated its importance. It also has a very large cultural impact, it helped form the values of the right and helped form the values the left likes to fight against. You can go off into nonsense about Rome as if it has any form of relevance.
Who are these wackos and what are they being irrational about and what has been misconstrued by them. All you're doing is asserting things with nothing but vague words.
I has lasted for generations in a tech savvy world, it's at least lasted for about 2 generations by this argument.
Also why wouldn't it, what does technology have to do with the core aspects of the constitution from free speech to guns to private property and so on. As technology doesn't make these rights any less or wrong or put any doubt upon them, a tech savvy generation should be perfectly fine with these exceptional rights if they were themselves rational. Are you saying they aren't or are you saying the rights set out in the constitution is wrong.
When my fiancé was taking con law at Columbia years ago I was surprised how many of these brilliant individuals were simply unfamiliar with the constitution and it’s actual tenets*.
Tenets. But close enough. ;-)
@@vercoda9997 nah he’s right, I’m one of the tenants of the Constitution. Rent is pretty steep here.
@@jennacummings505 but do you get representation when you are taxed?
@@Justanotherconsumer No, it's yet another American domain that forces taxation without representation.
@@jennacummings505 - hence that 3rd Amendment. No free riders!
And this is why "if it's not enumerated specifically in the constitution, it doesn't count" is REAL dangerous.
And even if a right IS enumerated in the Constitution, the Supreme Court always finds a way to undermine it or get around it.
Particularly because the 9th Amendment specifically says that unenumerated rights are a thing American citizens have.
That's why we got the 9th amendment. But Republicans justices pretend that doesn't exist.
@@edwardmiessner6502 That or states will claim “states rights” and proceed to imprison people for pursuing happiness.
The 9th Amendment specifically states that any right not enumerated in the Constitution is something all American citizens have.
Oh good. When you said that phrase in the beginning, I was like, "I don't recall that being there. I know I haven't read it since 10th grade, but that wasn't familiar at all." Then find out it was Karl Marx and had nothing to do with it. Also knew English wasn't an official language. Good to know I had a good education.
2:45 My grandfather (born 1911) was taught completely in German in a Texas elementary school, in a region of Central Texas populated mostly by German immigrants. They didn't change to being an English school until after World War I. Even his birth certificate was written in German by German-speaking Texans.
Central Indiana is well known for being one of the most German settled areas in our country. And those people couldn't wait to be American. They embraced it all.
I'm from Southern Indiana, according to my high school history teacher the city's German language newspaper was discontinued at the start of WW2
My great grandparents still spoke German around the house and my Grandfather was able to communicate a little with German POWs when he served in WW2.
The local German Heritage club was still quite popular, admittedly, with an older crowd when I left in the 1990s
I read recently that the last high school in Texas to use German as its means of instruction had just closed due to lack of German speakers, but that’s a helluva time to keep a minority immigrant language going. Here in Britain, children of Indian and Pakistani immigrants are at best semi speakers of Hindi, Urdu etc., while the grandchildren don’t speak it at all.
Yeah, but German with a Texas drawl is really hard to read on birth certificates.
are they the same as the amish?
That's such a crazy story about Irish people being automatically "more guilty" of treason than other Britons
Yeah, it's one of the reasons I don't give them a hard time. They weren't giving a pass just because...
I love the gall of charging someone as more guilty of treason against somebody else’s king. That’s not what treason is
The Irish are/were no more treasonous then any other segment of the British Commonwealth, and don't let anyone tell you they were!!!
Nor is it the last time Irish have been persecuted. Something, something, “no Irish need apply”…
I'm an Australian I've had discussions with people claiming that the Australian constitution (of 1901) requires the separation of church and state. However it's not part of our constitution! And last time I checked there was a particularly well known American court case where a finding was based on it too!
I doubt very much that any US court decision ever expressed an opinion about the Australian constitution; you were probably simply being unclear in how you expressed yourself. FYI the basis of the separation of church and state in the US is the 1st Amendment: the government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .” That is why the governments of the US do not have religious character: such matters were understood to be personal and private, not to be subject to interference by government. The separation of government and religion is further expressed in Article VI (last paragraph): “. . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
@@cogitoxyz9645 I also doubt very much that any US court decision ever expressed an opinion about the Australian constitution. But you try telling some people that and as they found in America they just will not listen!
@@cogitoxyz9645 The First Amendment says *Congress* shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, not that no government entity may do so. Several states actually still had established official religions when the Constitution (and Bill of Rights) was ratified and this continued on in some states until the 1830s. The First Amendment (like most of the rest of the Bill of Rights) did not restrict the actions of state governments until the 14th Amendment was ratified following the Civil War in the latter half of the 1860s. Incorporating the restrictions of the Bill of Rights upon the states was one of the major reasons (perhaps the most important) for the passage of the 14th Amendment.
The broad idea of "separation of church and state" as normally understood today is much broader than what the First Amendment was designed to enforce. The point of the First Amendment on that topic was just that the federal government could not establish a nationwide religion, nor prevent free exercise of any religion. Even incorporation of the 1st by the 14th really just meant that those same restrictions applied to the states. While the broader concept of the state not promoting or favoring religion at all was promoted by Jefferson in the early decades of the country, it has never been part of the Constitution. Only the particular restrictions of not establishing a state/national religion, allowing free exercise of any religion, and not requiring a religious test to hold an office of public trust are actually in the Constitution, some more recent (last half-century) Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding.
@@vbscript2 Wow, just um, wow! Sounds like nobody bothered to read the relevent sections before running their mouths off and now both countries (USA and Australia) have a lot of politically connected people running around quoting other people who did the same! Sort of along the lines of "He said xyz" who also quoted somebody else who of course quoted somebody else etc! Mixed with at somewhere along the line is someone only hearing what the want to hear and going off on a tangent saying what they think "He said xyq"!
Well, _Rake_ seemed to mention America in a legal context quite a lot. 5/6 of all legal literature in the world is first published in the United States and nearly _half_ of the world's lawyers are in the United States. The country was founded by lawyers, so it's to be expected that lawyering looms larger in America than elsewhere. Also, suing can be highly lucrative: there's no such thing as loser pays and punitive damages are exorbitant. Turn on daytime TV in the United States - virtually any channel - and you will see an advertisement for an injury lawyer or a class action lawsuit. The metro tram downtown is sponsored by lawyers (there faces are plastered on it) and so is one of the local pop music radio stations (their studio is officially named for the head of the firm).
I get the humor up front and agree with the intent, but let's be honest about it...the volumes of SCOTUS decisions based on those 7 pages and couple dozen amendments fills libraries :)
“Did you know that you have rights? Constitution says ya do.”
Actually it don’t. There a innumerable rights that are reserve to the state and the people that are not mention in the constitution or ay amendments.
@@MinhNguyen-nl8zzbecause i think it was either the ninth or tenth amendment that said your rights are not limited to those written in the amendments or constitution
@@MinhNguyen-nl8zz A reference to unlisted rights is an overt statement that such rights exist.
Unfortunately you are right about almost all of this. Our nation is so uneducated it is pathetic.
What was he not right about?
@gummybeast6343 New testament as a source for Karl Marx's theory. That native languages were ever popular in US society. That DC has a right to statehood. That no law has ever failed rational basis review.
It’s not the DC can’t be a state it’s that DC was set up to be an island for congress separate from the state so actually giving it statehood is unpopular
It would be interesting to poll the English to see how many know what is in the Magna Carta as a comparison.
they are also crammy and bland
One of the biggest misconceptions about the Constitution in my view is the belief that the First Amendment protects one's right to free speech full stop, and anyone who prevents, retaliates, or even argues against one's vocal views is violating the Constitution.
Very clear when Big Tech is brought up and I have to explain why they can censor if they like. Unethical sure, but illegal? No.
Yep, all it does is says the Government can't censor you. Does jack shit to defend you from getting your skull kicked in for being an asshole.
Yeah that one riles me up a lot. You're ALLOWED to speak whatever. The blowback is a separate instance
One of the biggest misconceptions of the 1st Amendment is that "right to redress *government* of grievances and right to *peacably* assemble mean people can protest outside of *private* homes and establishments and/or block traffic and/or set things on fire.
Another 1st Amendment misconception is that "government shall not establish a religion" means that there can be no religious expression in public spaces. It simply means the government cannot declare an *official* religion.
But the Supreme Court has reinterpreted/misinterpreted both of those.
The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that the Constitution does not list all of a citizen's rights, and that the rights not explicitly stated are still protected by the law. There are many rights that still exist, even if not explicitly stated as such in the constitution.
I knew that. I took an oath to defend the Constitution...so I read what I was swearing to defend
1:08 Just wanted to add that Soviet Union had three different constitutions enforced individually at different times (1924, 1936 and 1977). The phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work" first appeared in 1936 Constitution and then reappeared in 1977 Constitution.
And never appeared in the Soviet life
I'm british and have lots of legal qualifications but am not a lawyer and I say that just for context. I really appreciate this channel because its so real. This is how law works irrespective of geography and I wish all my students (when I was teaching law) watched it. I know he looks like he should be in Suits but F that. What a pro channel, writers and researchers really know whats going on and brilliantly presented by a guy who knows his stuff. I think this channel is great.
For the purposes of fitting into a stereotype I'd buy you a pint of warm beer in London any time when I'm not busy sweeping chimneys.
Fill a can with piss and tell him it’s Strongbow 😂
Well, no, not irrespective of geography. The USA and UK (and Canada and Australia) have a common law system, while all of Europe has a civil law system. That creates quite a few important differences.
The Sention 3 of the 14th indicates that a person who has violated this section is banned to hold ANY OFFICE. It applies to all persons. The Constitution is interpreted with all the Constitution in context and not using exceptions. The founding fathers wanted to avoid anyone becoming king.
No person can:
"hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
This is for people who scream about 14th ammendment article 3 about Trump.
" I am asking for everyone at the US Capitol to remaim peaceful. No violence Remember, WE are the party of Law and Order - respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you! " Trump's tweet.
" KJB accuses Tucker of lying about January 6th, proceeds to lie herself " - memeology 101.
" FAT Director Asked Point blank if any Jan6 Rioters were FAT sources dressed as Trump Supporters " - Forbes
" The FAT lied to us, Jan6 was crawling with fats, UNAIRED leaked footage " - memeology 101
" Michigan and Arizona voting machine glitches " - CBS.
" What the left thinks jan6 was " - Freedomtoons
" Oh so NOW the impeachment are a witch-hunt " - memeolgy 101
" So if we have a two-sided system that has the option to always impeach the other side, whats stopping them from trying to impeach the other when they're not in power. " - slingshotmcoy
" Its wierd that a bunch of 2 ammendment supporters apperently tried to overthrow the goverment the day they forgot thier guns " -ryon._-1994
Even IF it was an insurrection, and even IF Trump incited it, 14a sec3 does not apply unless he has been found guilty in a court of law. Just like me just saying " Joe is a pedo " is not grounds for his removal, unless he is found guilty in a court of law. The FIRST section of the 14th ammendment:
" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
As a citezen born on US soil over the age of 35, Trump has the right be president. " no state shall deprive a person of thier rights without due process " ~
* Had to say FAT so youtube wont delete.
Nonsense. Trump will be banned from the Presidential ballot! 😊
My pocket constitution has yet to fail me.
My pocket constitution has failed me numerous times as I only carry a copy of the Irish constitution. One day, it will be useful though and then I'll be laughing.
IT'S YOU!
Now, Oz and Devin is a crossover I would love to see, mainly because of how little sense it would make.
Oz, unless you and Mini discuss your pocket constitution (as well as to which places you take it with you) I will have no choice but to believe you are not telling the truth.
Oh, no, of course this isn't a deliberate attempt on my part to have done influence on the videos you create! I just want to know which pocket on your avatar's green suit contains the Constitution.
Considering the SC defines it differently than you or I might is the difference
"No taxation without representation" was a slogan they used back then.
Technically, we actually have less representation than we did before the Revolutionary war. All of the less than 2.5 million British citizens had 'visual representation' in Parliament. We've got less representation in DC than had there... the only difference is, our representation can vote.
So, do we really have 'taxation with representation' now?
@@FunkyMooch I mean all they wanted was a say in what was taxed. Now we don’t even have a say in what’s taxed. Nevertheless what we use said taxes on.
@@derpythean-comdoge8608 Right. When they wanted a say when Parliament added the Stamp Act. But their 'virtual representation' was well less than 200k per representative. Now we have over 700k people per representative and it'll hit 800k for 2032 elections.
Congress limited themselves to 435, but with remote voting and telepresence capabilities, there's no excuse as to why we don't have 1 rep per 250k people.
What could of changed had parliament offer 2 MPs and 4 lords per colony to sit among them
Technically,yes we still have taxation without representation. You are taxing illegal migrants, they can't vote or technically pay taxes, yet government officials,prefer to have illegal migrants, the democracts in office do, because it benefits themselves,no one else just their pockets. It's why they fight so hard for illegal migrants to stay, so they can tax and put the taxes in their own personal slush fund pocket, it's why the encourage it also. It's not to help anyone except those in office Democrats, it's another modern day slavery.jfs
The Constitution (and the Declaration of Independence) was printed in the back of my fifth grade US History book. I read it when I was 10! If a fifth-grader can read it then _any_ adult fluent in English should be able to.
It was in my 7th grade book. Read it several times that year.
Though, some language is out of date, such as the "well-regulated militia" being constantly misinterpreted in modern-day parlance.
@@Charistoph the worst part there is that BOTH sides tend to misinterpret the whole 2nd Amendment. Left thinking that the National Guard covers it so no more is required, and Right being closer but still wrong thinking it means we need the Guard and arm people to some arbitrary extent that varies with year and politician.
@@shadowx3benz117, I have never seen one say they NEED the Guard (aside from using it as a way to pocket themselves more influence/money, but that goes for all politicians), though they are useful. I always saw them as part-time military rather than the militia.
Oddly enough, up until the creation of the National Guard, militia meant the armed citizenry. It wasn't until Congress created the National Guard and called them militia when we started seeing it be conflated.
In my opinion, if the government is paying for the training and outfitting of same, it is not a militia.
Since the National Guard are not truly militia, its creation does not resolve the purpose behind the 2A. Even with that, the phrase containing militia is not an actionable phrase, but one of purpose. "Being necessary" is only a phrase to denote a purpose.
The only actionable phrase in the 2A is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". "Infringe" is an verb of action.
@@Charistoph exactly, which is why everyone who says anything about the Guard in this sense is wrong, and anyone who says it allows any restrictions on firearms are also wrong. But nobody's ready to hear that.
Should being the operative word there
title 18 U.S.C. section 241 conspiracy against rights.
If two or more person's conspire to injure,oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any state, territory, commonwealth, possession, or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any rights or privileges secured to him by the constitution or laws of the united states, or because of his having so exercised the same...
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section, or if such acts include kidnapping, or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Title 18 U.S.C. section 242 deprivation of rights under color of law.
Whoever under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom willfully subjects any person in any state, territory, commonwealth, possession,or district to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the constitution or laws of the united states...
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping, or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Title 5 U.S.C. section 7311 Ex. ORD. No. 10450 subsection (5).
Knowing membership with the specific intent of furthering the aims of, or adherence to and active participation in,any foriegn or domestic organization, association, movement,group or combination of person's (herein after referred to as organizations) which unlawfully advocates or practices the commission of acts of force or violence to prevent others from exercising their rights under the constitution or laws of the united states or of any state, or which seeks to overthrow the government of the united states or any state or subdivision thereof by unlawful means.
Title 18 U.S.C. section 1918.
Whoever violates the provisions of section 7311 of Title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the government of the united states or the government of the district of Columbia if he (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government [and] shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year and a day or both.
(The constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land is our constitutional form of government.)
Constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land.
Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 TEXT.
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
Second amendment TEXT.
THE RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
14th amendment section 1 TEXT.
NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.
NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN IT'S JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.
Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.
Miranda V. Arizona,384 US 436 p.491.
All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void.
Marbury V. Madison,5 US (2nd Branch)137,174,176(1803).
The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.
Miller V. US 230 F. 2d. 486,489.
No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.
Murdock V. Pennsylvania,319 US 105.
If the state converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.
Shuttles worth V. City of Birmingham, Alabama,373 US 262.
A law repugnant to the constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the constitution cannot become law. The constitution supercede all other laws and the individuals rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.
Marbury V. Madison 5,US 137(1803).
An unconstitutional law is void and is as no law. An offense created by it is not a crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous but is illegal and void and cannot be used as a legal cause of imprisonment.
Ex parte Siebold,100 US-371(1879).
The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally protected liberties.
Boyd V. US 116 US 616.
The US Supreme Court
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law,is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since it's unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment... In legal contemplation it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right,creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supercede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land (the constitution)it is superceded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
Bonnet V. Vallier,16 NW. 885,136 Wis. 193(1908); Norton V. Shelby county,118 US 425(1886).
Abridge
Curtail (a right or privilege),to reduce in scope, diminish,deprive.
Infringed
Actively break the terms of,act so as to limit or undermine, encroach on.
Repugnant
In conflict with; incompatible with.
Abrogate
Repeal or do away with (a law, right,or formal agreement.
Encroachment
Intrusion on a person's territory, rights,etc.
Regulated
To adjust so as to ensure accuracy, to put or keep something in good order.
Impunity
Exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of action.
Deprive
Deny(a person or place) the possession or use of something).
Liberty
The quality or state of being free.
The power to do as one pleases.
Free from physical restraint.
Freedom from arbitrary or despotic control.
The positive enjoyment of socially, political, or economic rights and privileges.
The power of choice.
Right
Something to which one has a just claim; the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled.
Inalienable
Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
Unalienable
Another term for inalienable.
"Who else pays taxation without representation?" [ad break] "Homeowners in Massachusetts..."
* absolutely perfect timing *
People who work in Philadelphia but don't live within its city borders pay a wage tax, which is pretty high, but they can't vote in Philadelphia elections.
When I first started following the USA politics, one of the first things I did was reading the Constitution. As it was referenced a lot. A LOT.
Years and years later I remain appalled that too many of the US citizens don't appear to have actually read it. It's astonishing.
I mean, we read and analyze our own in high school. Plus the whole - how did we get here political history.
We require immigrants to memorize it to become legal citizens, and yet most of us can't quote any of it.
My dad somehow manages to get ahold of 15-20 pocket-sized copies every year, probably from the VA. Every time he gets a new batch, he asks if I need one. No dad, I still have the one you gave me 15 years ago. It's in the craft bag I bring everywhere. His housewarming gift is also a nice, big flag. His next-door neighbors immigrated from Mexico and hang theirs up all the time.
Many, if not most, highschool students read the constitution, or they at least did back in my day in highschool; The thing is, like 60% of highschool, most students only actually REMEMBER bits and pieces of what we had learned, but we remember once learning it, so often it is assumed we know what it said.
They don't bother to teach that sort of things, they seem to be more interested in fomenting racial animosity, and strange sexual stuff now days!
No education, just indoctrination.
@@NieroshaiTheSable We require immigrants to memorize the Constitution to become legal citizens, and yet no school I was a part of would show you any part of the actual document.
The sentiments behind "no taxation without representation" did sort of find their way into the Constitution via Article I, section 7: "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives..." While the Senate has the power to make alterations to such bills, any tax bills have to be introduced by the representatives of the people.
It actually went further than that originally. Until later amendments expanded federal power, the federal government was originally barred from directly taxing people in most cases. They were instead required to apportion taxes to the states (who presumably paid for it using their own taxes), with foreign imports being one of the only areas they could tax directly.
It comes up due to residents of the territories, most specifically, the District of Columbia.
Honestly, if you want representation and you live in DC, you're likely already talking to representatives or their staff on a regular basis far more than the representative's constituents do. And it's not like you have to move far to be in Maryland or Virginia. At best, I think any residential land in Washington that isn't congressional apartments, barracks, the White House, or an embassy, should be reapportioned back to Maryland. It's obvious that it's not needed for federal work, so should be adjusted as such.
And the examples he tried to use to show otherwise were ridiculous.
Yeah.. but, it doesn't say if you're not represented, you can't be taxed.. just that representatives have to levy them. As he pointed out, a lot of people are not actually represented, but pay taxes nonetheless, because an elected representative levied the tax..
@Turd Ferguson
Then why , pray tell, did they bother putting that provision in?
When my son was in school, they stopped teaching Civics, wasn't even offered as an alternative/elective class. He is 56 years old. When I was in school, part of the requirement to graduate from High School, you had to pass an exam on the Constitution, didn't pass. didn't graduate.
Long past time to start teaching Civics in schools again.
I'm glad I already knew all of these weren't in the Constitution. Did I consider for a second the Communist manifesto quote might be in the Constitution? Yes, but my first reaction was "I've never heard that before in reference to the Constitution"
I think it's telling that most people, even Americans, identify so strongly to communist ideals that they would believe that they must be part of the US Constitution. And yet...
My first reaction was "That is so obviously a communist phrase that no one could possibly think it's from the US Constitution!"
@@NoriMori1992 Maybe it should be in there.
@@MPostma72 I don’t think you grasp the gravity of that phrase when it is actually applied by a government to its full extent. If you did, you would not be saying that.
Did you guys know that Karl Marx, the author of the communist manifesto popularized the word capitalism as satire and it just stuck…
I was surprised when you said the US Constitution was 7 pages long.
Turns out the original manuscript only had 4 pages. 7 articles, and 27 amendments since 1788.
In contrast, the current French Constitution was adopted in 1958. It had originally 92 articles, but it has been modified 24 times since its creation, adding 16 articles and modifying 62 of the original ones. It went as far as to change how the PResident was elected in 1962, after it was proposed by De Gaulle ( who originally wrote this Constitution, and at that point was the first President of the Fifth Republic, as Presidents were at that time lected for 7 years mandates ) and accepted by referendum.
To look at a French constitution of the same era as the US', the Constitution of the French Constitutional Monarchy, written in 1791, had 209 articles on over 80 pages ( I left out the . But, because of the non-cooperation of the King, it didn't last a year.
The next one to have been used in France ( there was one who was scrapped after completion, due to complications, such as the Vendean War and the First Coalition ) was the 5 fructidor an III ( revolutionary calendar, corresponds to 22/08/1795 ), and it had almost 100 pages, for 327 articles. It lasted until Napoleon's Coup d'État.
I deliberately removed the Declarations of te Rights of the Man and the Citizen of 1789 and the Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and Citizen of 1795 from the page counts.
There's a reason you can get pocket sized constitutions. It's a quite readable document that still gets misconstrued all the time.
I know I definitely must be misinterpreting something, because it looks to me like you might be saying that the 5 Fructidor an III existed in 1995, yet it got scrapped by a coup that Napoleon was responsible for.
@@ArcanineEspeon Yes, I got a 7 replaced by a 9. Thanks for poiting it out, I didn't see it.
It was in 1795, I corrected the comment
@@draghettis6524 Thanks my dude it all checks out now
I'm not a lawyer, just a casual student of life, so I know there are probably many misconceptions I have about the constitution, and I've read it several times. I'm just more surprised to learn that those examples you sited, the Marx quote, taxation w/o repressentation, English as official language, etc, are believed by many to actually be there.
eh, a lot of people in the US (and surprisingly in NZ, AU, and UK) treat the US constitution as a holy document... so it says whatever their thought leaders say it say and anyone who claims otherwise is trying to destroy your culture.
Many of these ideas can be found in Constitution paratext, particularly the Federalist Papers, which means a lot of the study of US history during that time will reference ideas the founders were discussing and how they inspired segments of the Constitution even if those ideas didn't get into the document directly, so anyone remembering their high school education on the Boston tea party will remember "taxation without representation" but not that it was only a popular thought among the founders, not an actual right.
@@neeneko Yup
You’d be surprised what idiots will believe. Just look up videos of “Sovereign Citizens” if you need proof of that. Even the most rudimentary understanding of the law is beyond many people.
@@Wertsir well you teach the ignorant or unlearned, but to fix stuiped would take a miracle.
It doesnt "Grant" us any rights. It restricts what governments can do. Governments are not gods, they cannot grant us rights by writing words on a piece of paper. We have all these rights to begin with.
US Constitution = rules for the government
Constitution of pretty much all other countries on earth = rules for the people.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble; it's the stuff you DO know that just ain't so." -- Mark Twain
"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan
Also Mark Twain's quote was actually:
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.“
But, you paraphrased it well.
@@TyinAlaska The trouble with Republicans is that they emulate their leader and their present leader is mentally and emotionally unbalanced.
@@TyinAlaska It exists in several forms I have found. One expects more accuracy from a quotation, but look at the times we live in.
@@TyinAlaska so Reagan ripped off someone so he could appear smart while actually being a bafflingly ignorant goon himself? Ironic!
The number of DC residents who get hit by "taxation without representation" (700,000) is dwarfed by the number of non-citizens who legally live and work in the US (14 million). They pay just as much tax as you do, but don't get to vote.
Actually non-citizens pay more because of crazy sales tax.
Well..... it's a bit more accurate to state that SOME illegal immigrants pay taxes without representation. According to a 2011 report by the Obama Administration the average illegal immigrant in the US that files their taxes gets about $800 more in refunds than they pay in total taxes throughout the year. Remember, the IRS does NOT care if you are illegal. You also do not need a Social Security Number to file (apply for an ITIN instead).
@Christine Benson that makes zero sense.
@@christinebenson518 I have to admit, I too would like to know how non-citizens pay MORE through sales tax????
One thing I learned on the subject of languages in the USA is that Martin Van Buren is the only US president who didn't learn English as his first language. As his name obviously suggests he was born in the Dutch community living in the US.