Bill of Rights Explained: Breaking down the amendments

[@VeryProPlayerYesSir1122]

"your rights belong to you, not the government" Government: I'm gonna pretend i haven't heart that.

[@jamiegaskins3687]

Half of the country understands that, the other half is busy signing rights away as fast as they can

[@kirkthiets2771]

Typical cop. 👮

[@purplefish0947]

@@jamiegaskins3687 That's about right.

[@nondenominationalspiritual8285]

I was told by the people who raised me that i had no rights.

[@purplefish0947]

@@nondenominationalspiritual8285 The way some people psychologically decimate children is unacceptable.

[@daniangoodman-jones3931]

I’m an Australian that has just enrolled in a law degree. I plan on coming to the US to study your amazing constitutional documents. Great video. I’ll look you up when I get there. Many before me have tried to get a bill of rights through. None have succeeded. Thanks for your insight

[@richardeduardoscott3413]

Hoping to practice law in the United Statea or are you planning to enjoy a legal career in Australia?

[@daniangoodman-jones3931]

@@richardeduardoscott3413 in Australia.

[@dlrowle]

"here's the problem, there's is no law to enforce the education of your rights, and you are definitely not going to do anything to demand this enforce " ( Benito Mussolini, the dictator of Italy you got to love it, baby)

[@GailColeman]

@@dlrowle evil genius!

[@jeremyhennessee6604]

Hey good luck to you brother. I hope you succeed.

[@Ironhorsemountainman777]

The last time I checked 56 signatures were on the Declaration of Independence and 39 signed the Constitution. I have not yet discovered any contemporary politician's signature on those ratified documents. Ratify; verb (used with object), rat·i·fied, rat·i·fy·ing. to confirm by expressing consent, approval, or formal sanction: to ratify a constitutional amendment. to confirm (something done or arranged by an agent or by representatives) by such action. The language of the Bill of Rights were recognized by natural law, ratified by our founding framers, and confirmed by their signatures. Period. That is why the use of such emphatic and absolute words and expressions were utilized. - Congress shall make no law - Shall not be infringed - No soldier shall - Shall not be violated - No person shall - The accused shall enjoy - The right of trial by jury shall be preserved - shall not be construed to deny or disparage others 13th Amendment Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. If the above language to the Bill of Rights is violated by government entities, it clearly places that government in violation of the 13th Amendment. We, as a Free people, cannot be subjected to slavery nor involuntary servitude. This means no government is our master in any way, shape, or form.

[@mostlypeacefulmisterputin]

“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” -Ayn Rand

[@davidjdundas1491]

Thank you. It seems that if many people knew their rights America would be a better place. A video like this should be shown to people who fringe upon fear and intimidation from the legal system great great video.

[@dlrowle]

"here's the problem, there's is no law to enforce the education of your rights, and you are definitely not going to do anything to demand this enforce " ( Benito Mussolini, the dictator of Italy you got to love it, baby)

[@ashforkdan]

There's a reason why the democrats symble is a stubborn jack ass. And a reason why the Republicans is the elephant in the room.

[@chinhphan4787]

The problem is that breaking the Supreme Law of the land carries no criminal penalties.

[@DCJNewsMedia]

The Bill of Rights In essence of a restraining order. The People and our public servants agreed to this. When they violate it. They are rouge and unlawful

[@eugenepearson4467]

How is it that no bar exams require any rudimentary knowledge of the Constitution or bill of Rights ? Excellent video and audio.

[@PacificLegalFoundation]

Thanks!

[@wannaduckfin]

Great instructive teaching. TY

[@bezlichnyy7675]

@@PacificLegalFoundation Thanks for this somewhat informative brief KZbin video. I have some questions. By what right in the powers of the U.S. Constitution does the legislative branch have the auhority to ban illicit drug use e.g. Marijuana, Cocaine, Methamphetamine, etc.? Congress has the powers to lay taxes, however, by what power or authority do they have to collect them from my personal income and properties without my consent? Furthermore, by what powers granted from the U.S. Constitution do states have the right to forbid prostitution, restrict motor vehicle speed limits, create nudity laws, etc.? My last question is, what area of laws does Pacific Legal Foundations specialize in civil rights or something else?

[@apocalypticbougie]

That’s how they keep us in the matrix lol 😊 thank you for posting this!

[@ErinIsReal]

They're the British Accredited Registry.

[@johnpinner1]

Remember the 2nd amendment was created to defend the rest of the amendments,( nothing to do hunting and fishing)

[@timothyclyne]

When the 2nd is gone the entire Constitution is irrelevant... The writing is on the wall. 1st amendment protections frequently ignored... Keep and bear Not on you, don't be silly?

[@thecone87]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." explain the first part of that sentence, please.

[@MegaDavyk]

The second amendment is the most important by far. It has nothing to do with hunting or target shooting, it has everything to do with protecting yourself from your own Government.

[@leadgenmagic4554]

I suspect it was suppose to be about strengthening our ability to fight off invasion from an external force. Probably, at that point, the British. Certainly NOT to use against Citizens.

[@johnpinner1]

@@leadgenmagic4554 no was made for external and internal. I guess you where never in the service

[@krawnikt]

Excellent video. I appreciate the clean explanation without leading the viewer into any sort of conclusion other than that of their own making.

[@dlrowle]

"here's the problem, there's is no law to enforce the education of your rights, and you are definitely not going to do anything to demand this enforce " ( Benito Mussolini, the dictator of Italy you got to love it, baby)

[@lovemae7540]

please memorize these! now more than ever it is crucial for EVERYONE to know their rights.

[@notthebest4867]

I'm just remember for the constitution test. Otherwise its useless

[@samuraimedi4061]

Sad

[@lovebnnubian9353]

Exactly!!!

[@Felis-Concolor]

@@notthebest4867 crooked cops would love you.

[@notthebest4867]

@@Felis-Concolor that was nine months ago. I passed the test and forgot everything. 39/40😎

[@jacquelinealicea9543]

Thank you for reminding me my bills of rights. They have been taken away I forgot what they were.

[@aaronlindstedt4768]

I feel like everyone in current office needs to watch this.... to understand what it actually means to be a politician

[@dlrowle]

"here's the problem, there's is no law to enforce the education of your rights, and you are definitely not going to do anything to demand this enforce " ( Benito Mussolini, the dictator of Italy you got to love it, baby)

[@jackflashproductions6898]

They ALL do!

[@roypittasr]

You mean what it means to be an American - to be a politician these days is sadly often to lie and make yourself wealthy at the expense of your constituents…which is why the established politicians absolutely hate President Trump, who actually lost wealth during his term and also obviously helped the American People more than most presidents of the past century.

[@jonnygrowlately]

why? its not about politics its about control power and wealth

[@aaronlindstedt4768]

If almost every profession is attached to either a degree or some formal training then it also should be enforced in every realm of politics.

[@willteuscher8253]

There you go folks. A complete list of everything being voided by our modern government. Well done sir.

[@oihilguest5902]

I was arrested and charge d for tresspass on my own property and three other felonies added falsely prosecuted

[@multisubversivo]

How are they being voided?

[@TheREALLibertyOrDeath]

@@multisubversivo speech censorship , suppression of gun rights , many attacks on religion, freedom of assembly. All of them are infringed upon every day? You under a rock or something ?

[@multisubversivo]

@@TheREALLibertyOrDeath Really? Is anybody prohibiting you from speaking? Expressing yourself? Is the press under attck by the governement? Has anybody prohibiting you from buying guns? Even military grade ones. Who is prohibited from professing ANY religion? No , really. I want to know

[@TheREALLibertyOrDeath]

@@multisubversivo if you can’t see it you won’t believe anything I say anyway. Carry on

[@dutchboy9273]

Correction; the 2nd Amendment codified the Right to keep and bear ARMS, not just "firearms". Be it a knife or a projected energy weapon, neither of which are "firearms" are protected because they are ARMS. Body armor is also covered.

[@buckodonnghaile4309]

Count yourself blessed, I'm serious.

[@chrisjackson8302]

I've found there's a little known amendment, I think I may have heard about it when I was much younger. The original 13th Amendment. the Amendment against "titles of nobility." if anyone has a title of nobility, Lord, Sir, esquire, are all forbidden from holding any public office. It has everything to do with the BAR (British Accredited Registry) lawyers from the UK at the time. The founding fathers knew this and even in the articles of confederation, titles of nobility were forbidden.

[@dlrowle]

"here's the problem, there's is no law to enforce the education of your rights, and you are definitely not going to do anything to demand this enforce " ( Benito Mussolini, the dictator of Italy you got to love it, baby)

[@niccolorichter1488]

The Titles of Nobility Amendment is a proposed and still-pending amendment to the United States Constitution. The 11th Congress passed it on May 1, 1810, and submitted to the state legislatures for ratification. It would strip United States citizenship from any citizen who accepted a title of nobility from an "emperor, king, prince or foreign power." On two occasions between 1812 and 1816, it was within two states of the number needed to become part of the Constitution. Congress did not set a time limit for its ratification, so the amendment is still pending before the states. Ratification by an additional 26 states is now needed for its adoption. Very easy to find that it was never a 13 amendment .

[@minnietrout814]

Lol. This means the Duchess Markle can forget her aspirations to be president. 🤣

[@eod_dan5745]

I am going to subscribe because of your speech regarding the 9th & 10th amendments. Thank you, it is SO REFRESHING to hear someone speak intelligently about them and to spread the word!

[@DreadnoughtHvor]

Just a reminder that the actual shooting in the War for Independence started when the British tried to take our pews because they were salty we were throwing tea in the harbor. And I'd argue that the Founders considered the only right that can physically protect other rights as the most important. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." -Patrick Henry

[@benjaminmcghan1346]

Thank you for providing the Bill of Rights to the people they need to learn them

[@iwishtobetexan6060]

It's funny how cops have to uphold the law but many don't know the law themselves. Great job for those who do. 👍

[@ErinIsReal]

And we can KILL those in self defense who attempt to falsely arrest us for NOT breaking laws. IE; sitting in a park, lying on a beach, not wearing a face diaper

[@lumomagus]

that’ll change soon

[@linj2fly]

Interesting that in the past few weeks the 1, 2, 3,4,5, 6, and 7th amendment rights violations have come in to full view.

[@gregoryrandall4819]

Neither does governors and mayors abide by the Constitution

[@franks.8799]

Hey Tim Snowball J.D., thanks for the video, in the middle of teaching Civics to students in AK. It was very helpful & insightful, particularly like your emphasis on "where one's rights originate." PLF keep up the good work!

[@oliviahoiden1236]

Yes id like to know what the clauses were!

[@a.f.7650]

Brilliant!Who else could elaborate on such a great topic just under 9 minutes?! Deep bow of respect, sir!!

[@dlrowle]

"here's the problem, there's is no law to enforce the education of your rights, and you are definitely not going to do anything to demand this enforce " ( Benito Mussolini, the dictator of Italy you got to love it, baby)

[@a.f.7650]

@@dlrowle Well, technically you can't enforce anyone do anything they don't want. It ends up with violence. All we can do is make it interesting and useful I guess.

[@johnstuartsmith]

This would be a far better nation if there were more people who could speak intelligently about the Constitution, even if they were disagreeing with each other as to the interpretations of it.

[@tywashell8443]

Great video, concise, and too the point while explained so everyone could easily understand.

[@dlrowle]

"here's the problem, there's is no law to enforce the education of your rights, and you are definitely not going to do anything to demand this enforce " ( Benito Mussolini, the dictator of Italy you got to love it, baby)

[@RichardThePear]

Love and support the work you guys do. Its harder than most people know. Law school burned me out. After listening to the vast majority of the students and professors argue against their own rights with ridiculous logic and a insane lack of knowledge, I just decided to graduate and not take the Bar. It's a stupid racket. And if you want to be happy, just avoid being a lawyer. Apply your JD another way.

[@mostlypeacefulmisterputin]

Little known fact, the 5th amendment also makes a clear distinction that proves that the military and “the militia” are NOT the same thing!! "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, OR in the militia”

[@SineEyed]

Umm... ok. But who ever said the military and the militia were the same thing? Whoever did, shouldn't be listened to because they don't know what they're talking about..

[@mostlypeacefulmisterputin]

@@SineEyed Only everyone in the Anti-gun movement for the last 4-5 decades!! If you have never heard the argument that “militia” was referring to “citizen soldiers” and the direct linking of that false notion to the National Guard…..well I can only assume that you’re pretty young or very new to the gun world!

[@SineEyed]

@@mostlypeacefulmisterputin saying that the militia was made up of citizens, not professional soldiers; saying that the militia is now the national guard; saying that the militia and military, or even the national guard and the military are the same thing... That's three distinct statements that mean three different things. I don't know who is saying what, all I can tell you is that only the first two are true..

[@jacewoods411]

I like the Way Will Smith's Netflix documentary explains in detail the 14th in Amend 🤔😃😀👑

[@ladydragon7777]

The militia clause was put in the 2nd amendment to establish the right of the people to come together and defend their cities,towns,and state. The right to bear arms extends to each and every human being in America,that is why they worded it the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the 2nd amendment was about the militia they would have written the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,all weapons laws are illegal they are unconstitutional therefore they are null and void they are not legally law and no citizen is bound to abide by them.

[@JTMacek]

Wow! You have never read the Constitution and do not know history. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . ." The founding fathers did not want a standing army (check out Article I about military appropriations).

[@reallifechangingtruth7679]

The Second Amendment did not (and does not) create or grant to the People the Right to Life, the Right of Self-Protection, or the Right to Keep and Bear [adequate] Arms. We already had those preexisting, inherent, and inalienable rights. The 2nd Amendment means no more than that our right to Arms shall not be infringed by Congress (See what the High Court said in the U.S. v. Cruikshank case (1875), 92 U.S 542. In Cruikshank, the Supreme Court famously stated: "THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS NOT GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The 2nd Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." [While some may relegate this statement to dicta, it is nevertheless a SCOTUS statement]. The Second Amendment was made applicable to the States in the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision, 561 U.S 742, which means that neither are the States now allowed to infringe the right to Arms. While some aspects have not been addressed by the High Court (high capacity magazines, for example), it remains clear that the whole of the 2nd Amendment was incorporated upon the States. In one of my 2nd Amendment treatises, I wrote: SO, YOU SEE, my friends, the 2nd Amendment does not grant you a right of self protection and the right to keep and bear Arms but, rather originally simply prevented the federal government from infringing an inherent right, which the amendment acknowledges, that you already had. The amendment didn’t create “a Right” but rather acknowledge “the Right” that already existed. In another place, I wrote: AS SUCH, it has long been believed by the modern citizenry that it always applied to everyone in the United States as a Constitutional Right. Many proudly proclaim(ed) that their right to keep and bear Arms is a Second Amendment Right, which cannot be infringed. These proclamations declare the idea that the right of Arms, both ownership and right to bear, flow from the Second Amendment. Almost no person I know of has done much to clarify those beliefs. The real truth is, my friends, that the Bill of Rights from 1791 to 1868 applied only to the federal government. That was confirmed in the landmark case of Barron vs. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833), when the United States Supreme Court proceeded to define the concept of federalism in U.S. constitutional law. The Court established a precedent that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments. It wasn’t until 1868, when, after the Civil war, it became legally possible to make various parts of the Bill of Rights incrementally applicable to the States, primarily through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. In yet another place, in my treatise on Selective Incorporation, I wrote: BRIEFLY, WHAT IS SELECTIVE INCORPORATION: It is a Court created doctrine and procedure that allows the U.S. Supreme Court to scan through the Bill of Rights and incrementally select various parts of the Bill of Rights and make such parts applicable to the sovereign States. Be aware, the Court need not incorporate a whole amendment and, thus it can either incorporate an amendment in it’s entirety or incorporate selected parts of an amendment, thereby incrementally making various portions of Bill of Rights law applicable upon and to the States. It is important to remain aware that originally the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government, which was confirmed in Barron vs. Baltimore, supra. With the ratification of the 14th Amendment (1868), the Constitution created a potential basis of law upon which the Court could use the Due Process clause or the Privileges or Immunities clause, for example, to make various provisions of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights law applicable to the States. That did not occur immediately, however. The first such incorporation occurred in 1897, in the case of Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railroad vs. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, which incorporated the protection against taking private property without just compensation (5th Amendment). Therefore, from 1791 to 2010 the 2nd Amendment wasn't even applicable to the States. The fact that 2nd Amendment groups and much of the citizenry assumed otherwise, notwithstanding. Take care and, as applicable, GOD Bless. From Pastor Mike Benjamins, Jr. of Oregon, USA. 2-29-20 @ 12:11 P.M. Oregon Time. For GOD, Country, Truth, Rights, Freedom, Liberty, and Peace.

[@fmccm4586]

Please teach me more in depth about States' Rights (10th Amendment) and how that protects our voting rights, our economic rights to liberty, and prevents congress from infringing on our rights. Thank you. Love it. Faye.

[@dlrowle]

"here's the problem, there's is no law to enforce the education of your rights, and you are definitely not going to do anything to demand this enforce " ( Benito Mussolini, the dictator of Italy you got to love it, baby)

[@newtonarock1802]

"Each right belongs to you"... until it doesn't. Rights are just ink on paper and can be changed or eliminated AT WILL of the offending government. (ie. see "America")

[@flatebo1]

Rights can be neither changed nor eliminated. They can only be violated. That government can violate your rights is not justification for doing so any more than your physical ability to injure another justifies your decision to do so.

[@newtonarock1802]

@@flatebo1 Really? Tell me about the abundant rights that existed in this land before our Constitution. Then words on paper and VOILA!!, we have temporary, suspendable, eliminatable "rights". You should listen to George Carlin, he'll teach you what he knew 50 years ago. Edit: How many of our "rights" were legislated away with the Patriot Act?

[@newtonarock1802]

@mike force obvious projection here, nice try Mr.Pence

[@summersoldier3311]

I just found this site and will revisit for more great posts, thank you!

[@stephaniewelch1407]

I need a good Lawyer to help me and my family fight for our rights to choose for ourselves and not be acted upon by others.

[@dlrowle]

"here's the problem, there's is no law to enforce the education of your rights, and you are definitely not going to do anything to demand this enforce " ( Benito Mussolini, the dictator of Italy you got to love it, baby)

[@sams7725]

This is very good! Much more detailed than other videos and very concise.

[@patc1309]

We have lost most of our rights during this tyrannical lockdown

[@usd25674]

They will until we push back

[@michaelfoye1135]

Rights cannot be taken away. They can either be respected and upheld, or disregarded and violated. The fact that anyone, including the government, violates an individuals rights does not change the fact that those rights are inalienable. It merely means that the government or individual violating the rights of another are acting in a criminal fashion.

[@patc1309]

@@michaelfoye1135 Then guess what...the government is acting in a criminal fashion and getting away with it

[@michaelfoye1135]

@@patc1309 Started in the so called Progressive Era. A century of undermining the Constitution.

[@usd25674]

@@michaelfoye1135 Very eloquently said.

[@philipe7937]

Thank you! I will listen to this several times to help me remember them.

[@madalynciabattoni1052]

Who do you sue when many of your rights have been violated?

[@Mr99RICH99]

Gotta locate a constitutional lawyer ....I hope lawsuits start flying after this plandemic is over

[@6StimuL84]

The men and women that violate their sworn oaths committing treason, violating your rights and their duties.....Treason is a capital felony.....

[@rfi-cryptolab4251]

@@Mr99RICH99 Scamdemic

[@carolmaplesden916]

@@rfi-cryptolab4251 yea scamdamic thats better but a planned scam non the less

[@robinsss]

@@6StimuL84 we should reduce the penalty for treason to a lesser penatly

[@tobeytransport2802]

5:39 CIVIL JURY! What? We do not have that in the uk. That’s nuts

[@tylerrhudy6043]

Just love this! Especially the nod to George Mason!

[@johnmcdonald1306]

Thank you for your information as a educated great teacher and presenter of American History that was boring in High School but now at 62 I am learning more and know we needed a James Madison. I felt deep despair after hearing that our founders could vote in their own raises. Can't anyone be a elected government official only to do what"s best for the country expecting nothing in return regardless of money? Unfortunately its what Ike warned us of what our government had become. As history shows US went bankrupt developing a navel force to protect large company traders of goods to the Europeans but were pirated and lost their goods. We didn't have the gold to back our debt (And hence the Bankers developed the Federal Reserve)

[@dlrowle]

"here's the problem, there's is no law to enforce the education of your rights, and you are definitely not going to do anything to demand this enforce " ( Benito Mussolini, the dictator of Italy you got to love it, baby)

[@brettanderson591]

To understand the foundational values, one must consider all three documents. First our Declaration of of Independence, second our Constitution and third our Bill or rights. It will s the First document, our Declaration of Independence that shows us what the country was truly fighting for. It came prior to the war, and therefore reflects the thoughts of our founding fathers the most. The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence clearly where our Rights come from: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalien- able right, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. - That to secure these rights, Government's are istituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, " There is no more important statement than this in determining what this country was founded on, a common belief in our creator. It is God who defines our rights. The government may not force a state religion, but that doesn't change that this Nation is founded on God's true Authority. People could practice any religion they wanted, but they were bound by the Laws of the nation. of course, God's adversary would eventually attack this "One Nation under God" philosophy of Government, slowly and deceptively over time. That attack began when a part of Americans had forgotten who defines our rights, and thought they had the right to keep Black slaves from having their equal Rights. This was the birth of Liberalism in this country. one Right all men are born with is our free will. it is granted to all men equally and justly by God himself. it is the foundation of all our other rights. We all Have the right to free will in the choices we make in life. Many of those choices will be in choosing to obey God's Truth, or a different truth of our own. Decisions of this kind come with serious Consequense, every time. It is an observable, testable and repeatable universal law like physics. Good choices produce good consequences and bad choices produce bad consequenses. This is the begining of wisdom. It is wise to use ones free will to listen to and learn God's will for you. He isn't going to force you, or you wouldn't have free will. God gave us free will for a reason, because Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. God knew of Satan's plans to defile what God had created when Lucifer became Jealous when he learned God was going to create Man to be both physical and Spiritual. God knew that giving man free will, Man could learn from his mistakes and return to him willingly, like we willingly walk away from him. Wisdom is what let's those who have it, determine what they have a right to do and what they are wise enough not to do. Liberalism teaches freewill and rights are the same. Liberalism is a sense of wisdom because Liberalism is freedom from God and his Authority. Liberals on the left act upon their selfish desires, without consideration for the consequenses their choices have on others. Liberalism creates devision, conflict and destruction to humanity due to their abuse of Liberty. Then we have the Right.or Conservatives. Not Perfect, but those also equiped with the wisdom of knowing their mistakes when failing to listen to God and the negative consequenses because of it. not so much consequenses on them, but more importantly the consequenses on others. So they see the wisdom of listening to God and the wisdom of placing the good of all higher than the selfishness of the individual. What this has resulted in, is like I mentioned earlier, Men thinking it was ok to own others as their slaves, and today things like thinking it's a woman's right to abort her unborn child, or the right to live LBGTQ lifestyles. Both harmful to humanity as a whole because of the example they set. Liberalism is is live a virus, or a disease that spreads from one to another forming a belief system that denies God's Authority. Which in reality will never be accomplished. Liberalism is the enemy to freedom. When people think they have the right and are free to do as they please causing harm to the greater good of humanity. The greater part of humanity will eventually use their True right to teach the Left a lesson, and take their form of Liberty away. And in this day and age where a leftist army would be made up of men wearing Camoflage Dresses, high heeled combat boots and a tampon up the ass who think guns are icky ewey, it won't be hard to teach them that lesson. God rules this Nation, and the Universe. Wisdom is a blessing handed out by the Lord God, to those who know him.

[@lufknuht5960]

Why leave out the Treaty of Paris of 1783, which establishes the United States as a legal entity by the King of England?

[@rickygage4024]

Lol there is no God buddy. Religion is an idea used to control the masses.

[@kimdotnet2110]

unfortunately the 6th amendment doesn't appear to apply to the FISA court, and whenever someone utters the magic words "national security."

[@machellelokersonvlog1273]

I just viewed your video. I know - 2 years later. Probably watch it again. Anyway, I’m interested in your interpretation of what is currently happening with the Biden administration. Thank you

[@kristybarnes2563]

simple...fraudulent.

[@turavalphacygni6234]

Democrats own the vaccine. Democrats just wanted the presidency.

[@dlrowle]

"here's the problem, there's is no law to enforce the education of your rights, and you are definitely not going to do anything to demand this enforce " ( Benito Mussolini, the dictator of Italy you got to love it, baby)

[@24-Card]

Right to redress your government without fear of reprisal. there are five elements to the Very First Amendment.

[@lastrabrown6856]

Sir it was a nice video, on the 2 amendment you only told half of that amendment. You see your felony laws violate the bill of rights then it violates the constitution .

[@turavalphacygni6234]

Felonies have no rights period; therefore, there is another set of laws.

[@dlrowle]

"here's the problem, there's is no law to enforce the education of your rights, and you are definitely not going to do anything to demand this enforce " ( Benito Mussolini, the dictator of Italy you got to love it, baby)

[@lastrabrown6856]

Thrace Alpha Cygni I see you clearly never read the first ten amendments cannot be changed unless everyone in the states vote on the amendments

[@SineEyed]

@@lastrabrown6856 the amendments can't be changed without everyone's votes? I guess somebody shouda told the Supreme Court about this rule back in 2008 when they changed what the second amendment meant for 200 years in this country, into what it means now..

[@lastrabrown6856]

@@SineEyed so if congress never got the states to ratify the constitution then it is not a law article 6 clause 2. So stop tell people to believe those lies because I do not follow unconstitutional laws.

[@michaelfoye1135]

Rights cannot be taken away. They can either be respected and upheld, or disregarded and violated. The fact that anyone, including the government, violates an individuals rights does not change the fact that those rights are inalienable. It merely means that the government or individual violating the rights of another is acting in a criminal fashion.

[@reallifechangingtruth7679]

I think that far too many people misunderstand the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment in particular. In various places I wrote concerning such issues, as follows: The Second Amendment did not (and does not) create or grant to the People the Right to Life, the Right of Self-Protection, or the Right to Keep and Bear [adequate] Arms. We already had those preexisting, inherent, and inalienable rights. The 2nd Amendment means no more than that our right to Arms shall not be infringed by Congress [See what the High Court said in the U.S. v. Cruikshank case (1875), 92 U.S 542]. In Cruikshank, the Supreme Court famously stated: "THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS NOT GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The 2nd Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." [While some may relegate this statement to dicta, it is nevertheless a SCOTUS statement]. The Second Amendment was made applicable to the States in the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision, 561 U.S 742, which means that neither are the States now allowed to infringe the right to Arms. While some aspects have not been addressed by the High Court (high capacity magazines, for example), it remains clear that the whole of the 2nd Amendment was incorporated upon the States. In one of my 2nd Amendment treatises, I wrote: SO, YOU SEE, my friends, the 2nd Amendment does not grant you a right of self protection and the right to keep and bear Arms but, rather originally simply prevented the federal government from infringing an inherent right, which the amendment acknowledges, that you already had. The amendment didn’t create “a Right” but rather acknowledge “the Right” that already existed. In another place, I wrote: AS SUCH, it has long been believed by the modern citizenry that it always applied to everyone in the United States as a Constitutional Right. Many proudly proclaim(ed) that their right to keep and bear Arms is a Second Amendment Right, which cannot be infringed. These proclamations declare the idea that the right of Arms, both ownership and right to bear, flow from the Second Amendment. Almost no person I know of has done much to clarify those beliefs. The real truth is, my friends, that the Bill of Rights from 1791 to 1868 applied only to the federal government. That was confirmed in the landmark case of Barron vs. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833), when the United States Supreme Court proceeded to define the concept of federalism in U.S. constitutional law. The Court established a precedent that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments. It wasn’t until 1868, when, after the Civil war, it became legally possible to make various parts of the Bill of Rights incrementally applicable to the States, primarily through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. In yet another place, in my treatise on Selective Incorporation, I wrote: BRIEFLY, WHAT IS SELECTIVE INCORPORATION?: It is a Court created doctrine and procedure that allows the U.S. Supreme Court to scan through the Bill of Rights and incrementally select various parts of the Bill of Rights and make such parts applicable to the sovereign States. Be aware, the Court need not incorporate a whole amendment and, thus it can either incorporate an amendment in it’s entirety or incorporate selected parts of an amendment, thereby incrementally making various portions of Bill of Rights law applicable upon and to the States. It is important to remain aware that originally the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government, which was confirmed in Barron vs. Baltimore, supra. With the ratification of the 14th Amendment (1868), the Constitution created a potential basis of law upon which the Court could use the Due Process clause or the Privileges or Immunities clause, for example, to make various provisions of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights law applicable to the States. That did not occur immediately, however. The first such incorporation occurred in 1897, in the case of Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railroad vs. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, which incorporated the protection against taking private property without just compensation (5th Amendment). Therefore, from 1791 to 2010 the 2nd Amendment wasn't even applicable to the States. The fact that 2nd Amendment groups and much of the citizenry assumed otherwise, notwithstanding. Take care and, as applicable, GOD Bless. From Pastor Mike Benjamins, Jr. of Oregon, USA. 2-29-20 @ 12:11 P.M. Oregon Time. For GOD, Country, Truth, Rights, Freedom, Liberty, and Peace.

[@andykelly4056]

REAL LIFE CHANGING TRUTH the bill of rights is a a modern day smokescreen of people’s feelings and ideas that there freedoms and liberty’s are protected. Whilst America thinks it’s the land of the free..... the rest of the world without rose tinted spectacles look on and think 💭 mmmmm is it really a democracy. Your liberty’s are being violated unwittingly, the constitution is being used as a tool for manipulation. Who wants the freedoms of liberty’s of a country that allows its leaders to lie to there people to take them into false conflicts. A country that bankrupts its own people if there sick in order to receive basic health care. A country that can try and cover terrorism on there own people, 911...... a country that spies and collects data illegally on its own people. So taking yet more liberty’s away from there own. A country that has a mafia based supposedly legal agency called the CIA who are a law to themselves. Is this the life America really wants. A country that allows the ruling elite to create a federal reserve bank that neither federal or has reserves to back it up.... that keeps there people enslaved in perpetual debt. Hmmmmm I think people love the idea of the constitution and the protection from the bill of rights, but the ruling elite always finds away around keeping people in line. America is one of the least free countries. Mistress liberty weeps with people ignorance.

[@reallifechangingtruth7679]

@@andykelly4056 Thank you for your reply and comments. I understand your complaints and grievances expressed. Although I have addressed it, many fail or refuse to understand that where preexisting, inherent, and inalienable rights are involved, as with the right of self-protection, by the keeping and bearing of Arms, for example, it is not a constitutional RIGHT, which implies that such an inherent and inalienable right flows from the U.S. Constitution. The 2nd Amendment means no more than that the right to keep and bear Arms may not be infringed by Congress (National Government). The non-infringement clause is aimed at the government, restricting its powers. It is not, per se, a grant of rights to the People (they already had the right of Arms for self-protection and right to protect life). Now, here is the problem: The inherent and inalienable (I & A) rights we hold exist beyond standing or falling through a majority vote, especially in the event that an individual makes it clear that he or she does not agree or consent to have their I & A rights infringed. But, when we stand silent or fail to object in a proper and timely manner, the government may opt to assert a person's assumed or presumed agreement or consent to allow their I & A rights to be voted in or out of their lives. Moreover, when a gun rights activist becomes part of an effort, such as in relation to 2nd Amendment (2A) groups, to vote down anti-gun legislation,..... they are, by their own actions and by the doctrine of agreement by performance, agreeing that their I & A right to self-protection and right to Arms is a proper object to be voted upon! Such rights exist beyond the absolute reach of infringement by the government or by a majority vote (unless a person specifically or by operation of law agrees or consents to it). You can withdraw your consent, just as a person may withhold or withdraw their consent to a consent search. It is true that there can be those among the sovereign People (Chisholm v. Georgia: sovereignty devolved on the People, 2 U.S -Dall. 419), who opt (agree and consent) to subject their rights to a democratic voting process (fair enough). But, that does not imply that individuals, who do not so agree or consent to subject their I & A rights to a majority vote, must be inextricably bound by the tyranny of the majority. In other words, others have no ABSOLUTE right to vote your I & A rights away. If that were not so, then, in effect, it would nullify the very concept of I & A rights, starting at the individual level. I suggest that if you want to know more about all these doctrines, go to my Real Life Changing Truth YT channel and watch some of my videos (including, "Second Amendment Limitations"). I also have more videos at my Investment In Truth Review YT channel. One that I really recommend watching as well is entitled, "Can You Handle Freedom." When you have taken some time to view my instructional videos, you will open up a new understanding. That's all I can tell you here in commentary. I don't like to get too detailed here. Take care and, as or if applicable, GOD Bless. From Pastor Michel (Mike) Benjamins, Jr. of Oregon, USA. 3-1-20 @ 5:57 P.M. Oregon Time.

[@reallifechangingtruth7679]

@Kali Southpaw Thank you for your response. I now write and reply: * “Semantics?” Partially, perhaps. Who cares? The right question isn’t, “Who cares?,” but rather, Who ought to care?!? “None of that has any practical application?” I must strenuously disagree with that! Although, it may perhaps be beyond many how to bring the practical application into reality, for the betterment of mankind. “It’s just mental masturbation.” I like to call it doing your research, properly evaluating the information, and thinking things through. Masturbation generally produces no offspring! But, my practice and procedure may well produce useful offspring, in terms of correcting false beliefs and making the truth work for you, into actual reality. “Whether the amendment ‘grants’ or merely ‘recognizes’ a ‘natural right’ is MEANINGLESS and MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.” Wow! That’s a sweeping statement that is not only wrong,.... but,.... is the epitome of meaninglessness and making no difference, and having no real impact,.... in terms of the potential and actual import, application, and resultant benefits of the properly applied doctrine that has been set forth. “This is just minutia for lawyers and philosophers to quibble over.” Perhaps, “lawyers” and “philosophers” will find something in my research and narrative to “quibble” over,.... true! Let us hope that they and regular people do talk and think about it,... because,... it may well have a life-changing impact on their lives and upon humanity, in terms of knowledge and truth that was not adequately lodged in the minds, hearts, spirit, and soul of the People. * (1) The Bible states: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” [Hosea 4:6 (KJV)]. * (2) For nonbelievers: They too can be destroyed for lack of knowledge! * (3) The Saviour stated: “If ye continue in my Word, then are ye my disciples indeed. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” [John 8:31-32 (KJV)]. * I’ll close with this: My Friends and Brethren, it is a foolish thing indeed, to summarily dismiss or cast away the foundational Truth or your fundamental Freedom(s). Be careful what you dismiss or classify as “minutia.” Our GOD-given, Natural, Inherent, and Inalienable Rights are far too important to dismiss or cast away. Such concerns, the subject matter and explanation of which I have repeatedly addressed, however inadequately or incompletely, must not, if Truth and Freedom are to endure, be classified as meaningless or making no difference. From Pastor Mike Benjamins, Jr. of Oregon, USA. 6-6-20 @ 1:58 P.M. Oregon Time.

[@johnlennon1049]

GREAT, GREAT VIDEO!!! Thank you! Just subscribed and clicked the little bell too!

[@jimewelsh]

That last quote by Justice Jackson gave me CHILLS! Wonderful video thank you for posting.

[@TaylorSystems]

One of the best presentations on the Bill of Rights that I have seen! The fact that this IMPORTANT and ESSENTIAL information is NOT TAUGHT IN SCHOOL... demonstrates how bad our school systems have become.

[@MelkorTolkien]

The 2nd amendment isn't just firearms, but all arms to defend oneself.

[@AestheticSloth420]

Anything the government can do, we can do if we can afford it legally Whether the lobsters like it or not

[@SineEyed]

The second amendment doesn't say anything about an indivual right to self-protection. Seriously, there's no way to infer that meaning from the text..

[@MelkorTolkien]

@@SineEyed the right to keep a bear arms seems pretty straightforward to me. There are plenty of ways to infer the meaning of self-defense. Besides, state laws have expanded the meaning of the second amendment in most states.

[@SineEyed]

@@MelkorTolkien it's pretty straight forward to me too. It's right there in the very first words of the amendment: "A well-regulated militia..." So, it's the right of the people to keep and bear arms, in order to have a well regulated militia, in order to maintain the security of a free state. That security is the ultimate goal of the 2A; the right of the people is subordinate to that. And "the people" doesn't mean everybody, since it's never been the case where they allowed any American who wanted to join the militia to do so. Most everybody was excluded from joining, in fact. All men over 45, all boys under 18, all women regardless of age, anyone who is sick, or has been charged and convicted of a criminal violation, etc. None of those people were allowed to serve in the militia. You cannot, therefore, infer that the 2A speaks to any kind of individual right. At least... not without ignoring 200 years of our history, along with mountains of primary documents which _clearly_ said otherwise; not without inventing your own ad hoc definitions of well established law; all in order to fabricate your own head-canon, generate a fantasy in your mind of a new American mythos. Kinda like what Scalia did in 2008. I mean... _exactly_ like how he did in 2008..

[@MelkorTolkien]

@@SineEyed The 2nd amendment and the federal laws and state laws that uphold and have expanded it, have codified the right to self defense into law for more than a century. Something they never did with abortion.

[@jpmastertech]

Can you please make the video for the clause(s).... thanks!!

[@timothyclyne]

It's June 2020.. Update Video? Suggested Title "It looks good on paper."

[@mcrunnin1737]

Worked well for over 200 years.

[@timothyclyne]

@@mcrunnin1737 'keep and bear' not on you, don't be silly

[@primobenavides4741]

If constitutionally the Bill of Rights are guaranteed, why is it that corporations, judges and the U.S. Government can waive your constitutional?

[@robinsss]

how are they doing that?

[@ladydragon7777]

The second amendment is about hunting to eat to survive,and each and every human beings right to protect themselves and their families.

[@cautious1343]

@John D I think we passed it already John.

[@cautious1343]

The 2nd amendment is about security B.

[@kiyostars]

Can you explain more about the tenth amendment? I'm still a bit confused. Thanks.

[@PacificLegalFoundation]

Great idea. We'll consider it!

[@robinsss]

the drafters were saying that if an activity was not forbidden by the constitution up to that point then it is left to the state's and the people

[@michaelwhitton8226]

I was speaking of the 2nd Amendment which was what was being discussed. I find no place in this sentence about individual rights. As for the 9th and 10th perhaps there's something there. I will gladly study these Amendments. Remember I am not a professor, I have GED, that stands for ,well.. if you don't know you probably got one too. ( I stole that from Ron White)

[@stevenmccormack2014]

Is it true that in 1905 the supreme court ruled that the right to travel by whatever popular means was a constitutional right?

[@robinsss]

if so that was a bad decision

[@cautious1343]

Excellent! I would like to see our rights more detailed and defined. Perhaps examples of a not so obvious nature, and some ways of asserting our rights during police encounters or in court. Give us some phrases to memorize...and deep understanding

[@dlrowle]

"here's the problem, there's is no law to enforce the education of your rights, and you are definitely not going to do anything to demand this enforce " ( Benito Mussolini, the dictator of Italy you got to love it, baby)

[@canigetachannel]

The UNITED STATES is a corporation for profit; America is a nation of people. They are two entirely separate things. The Constitution is Common Law and Commerce is Maritime Admiralty law.

[@lk6380]

Lmao...i died at george mason. But man great breakdown, this was easy and entertaining to digest.

[@dlrowle]

"here's the problem, there's is no law to enforce the education of your rights, and you are definitely not going to do anything to demand this enforce " ( Benito Mussolini, the dictator of Italy you got to love it, baby)

[@kyriee.2717]

Thank you!...We The People!

[@sumvs5992]

If only the UK had such laws, now we get arrested for slightly edgy jokes

[@sumvs5992]

@Inyalabudbud Punjabbidaliwad not yet, but we are allowing ourselves to be driven blindfolded towards it. Thankfully we are keeping a pro capitalist party in but they are caving to the SJW's slowly.

[@hellwithit]

The Alright Tank Historian better turn in your guns. It’s sure to help you out!!!👆🏽👉🏽👈🏾 Nice to see you are at it again YT. I keep records of it. So many records.

[@javlynblue2024]

Axes, shovels, pitchforks, etc. You Brits forgot who you are! Fierce, fire filled, and strong! Have we people become too civilized, too week, or too afraid of losing our stuff? Have we allowed others to unreasonably shame us into submission. Are we too afraid to be called names? The cultures moving in will not be so tolerant nor weak when they are the majority!

[@sumvs5992]

@@Will-dm1pv I'm pretty sure the queen has less power than someone that is homeless

[@phloridababe]

And defending yourselves 😣

[@ryananthony4840]

I bring up the 9th ammendment whenever I'm having a discussion about liberty

[@frankkoller2622]

I just subscribed! Thank you for all your work! Let's remove ALL the oath violaters from office! USC 18 1918 USC 5 7311

[@6StimuL84]

18 USC 2381.....

[@dlrowle]

"here's the problem, there's is no law to enforce the education of your rights, and you are definitely not going to do anything to demand this enforce " ( Benito Mussolini, the dictator of Italy you got to love it, baby)

[@alma27ram]

Thank your for your time!

[@nobodyspecial1553]

1st Amendment protects our right to peacefully protest government actions we disagree with. Governors during Covid: I'm gonna pretend I didn't hear that.

[@lufknuht5960]

Where does 1st Amendment do anything besides forbid Congress to make certain laws?

[@nobodyspecial1553]

@@lufknuht5960 This is the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." It explicitly states the government isn't allowed to prohibit/abridge the right of people to peaceably assemble.. (It also doesn't say "unless there's a pandemic.") And you may say, "Well, it's an executive order," to which I'd say that executive orders are not laws and completely unenforceable and therefore makes it illegal to forbid me from peaceably assembling..

[@marshalllaw4116]

The first 10 "amendments" to the Bill of Rights are actually Articles, they were drafted and ratified the same time as the constitution.

[@tooge47]

Hate to burst your bubble, but we ended up with tyrannical gov't anyway

[@leifc.6045]

@@yiyid4974 liberals

[@robinsss]

no we still have the right to sue , the press , to vote own certain guns

[@tooge47]

@@robinsss LOL, you kids. Sue ONLY if you have MONEY, next to impossible to prevail over corrupt gov't officials / cops in a courtroom, the press are nothing more than mouthpieces for the state, voting improves nothing, CERTAIN guns, that right there should prove you live under tyranny..........THINK, and quit being a glorified ward of the state

[@robinsss]

@@tooge47 you can get a non profit to pay for your suit some people have won in cases against the government the handgun ban in Chicago was struck down all the congressmen in office are there because of voting which ever side you are on without them things could be much worse without the congressmen you elected

[@tooge47]

@@robinsss Non-profit, pffft.............you've not walked in MY shoes ! yes, "some", not many, not most, "some." Chicago........pffft. Thanks to an angry now EX-wife and her not-so-grand daughter, I have been STRIPPED of my 2nd amendment rights. I'm not on EITHER side, unlike YOU people You live in LaLa Land

[@howiealderdice6386]

You know I enjoy listen to educated common sense people talking I learned something today thank you

[@bobchiggs]

Second Amendment says arms, not firearms. Firearms are just one subset of arms. Arms are much broader than firearms.

[@amoongos4831]

Idk bro my arms are fucking massive

[@shelleypilcher3812]

This is just great knowledge. The brave and the cowardly are the result at the end of it being upheld.

[@northwestcornerpodcast9420]

great video, but hey, i learned a lot from reading comic books, my reading improved mostly due to following batman and wolverine, always let kids read age appropriate comics, excelsior!

[@dlrowle]

"here's the problem, there's is no law to enforce the education of your rights, and you are definitely not going to do anything to demand this enforce " ( Benito Mussolini, the dictator of Italy you got to love it, baby)

[@billymeadows1739]

What can a American civilians do to defend themselves when the government is violating our rights or is allowing our rights to be violated by not defending or acknowledging our rights when they are being violated?

[@PrivatelyHanging]

The right to travel is also protected, that means your property on the highways. Driving may be a commercial term for hire, but traveling in your personal conveyance does not require permission

[@Loader7272]

A license is permission to do something that is otherwise ILLEGAL! www.etymonline.com/search?q=license

[@Loader7272]

@Kali Southpaw Mate, your ignorance is apparent. Note: there is a difference between ignorant and stupid. I will not stoop to name calling. If you do not know your rights you have none. peace

[@AQS521]

Yes traveling is legal but driving is a privilege. Hence why you have to renew a government issued driver’s license.

[@SineEyed]

The right to travel is protected, sure, but if you're going to enjoy access to and make use of the roads built and maintained by the government, then you're on private property, and you need to follow the rules thereof..

[@PrivatelyHanging]

@@SineEyed how do you explain property tax then? It's yours but the governm3n5 owns everything so you must pay? Edit, I agree to an extent. Following a standard ie; stop sign and speed limits, dui's, or texting while driving are absolutely a necessity to allow the safe travel of all. There is absolutely no tolerance for negligent individuals.

[@eleinawilson6592]

Why does James Madison look like a dollar tree Dr. Strange...

[@griam7641]

Hmmm......the 2nd amendment. “Right to bear arms”. Does this mean I can own nuclear arms?? Or should we agree there are limits?

[@nancymcleveland115]

Could you please get one for the Declaration of Independence done??.

[@huddless50]

I'd love to see a list of rights or powers reserved to the people that that state and/or federal governments haven't assumed for themselves in one way or another?

[@dlrowle]

"here's the problem, there's is no law to enforce the education of your rights, and you are definitely not going to do anything to demand this enforce " ( Benito Mussolini, the dictator of Italy you got to love it, baby)

[@cynicalsympathspodcast]

Can you elaborate on the 9th

[@raajeweler6569]

Most PEOPLE Don't know that there are 2 Constitution's at Play....... So Damn SAD

[@sidneyr8828]

Please explain

[@davidlangford9107]

The constitution for the united States and The CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES! The original constitution had the 13th Amendment "Titles of Nobility" clause, which has been replaced with the "No Slavery Clause" per the Lincoln Presidency! Read and research and find it's true.

[@phloridababe]

DAVID LANGFORD thank you for shining a light! I like to explain GW was number 7, not 1. We became a corporation with limited freedom by becoming citizens instead of remaining Citizens.

[@davidlangford9107]

phloridababe You are correct. I believe now they use the capital C Citizen to re-present those so called Elected Officials as the newly formed Citizen from the lowly existing citizen! I still firmly believe the 10th Amendment reserves the power to the people, but the people have to act like people and not persons!

[@davidlangford9107]

phloridababe Oh yea, most people have no idea that there was several presidents before GW, and they don't even know what those were president of?

[@charleencnossen9930]

Excellent. Thank you! Very helpful!

[@reasonablespeculation3893]

Hunting was not mentioned in the 2ND because it was understood that hunting was a common and necessary activity, and firearms were an essential tool in that pursuit. Protecting your house from intruders was also not mentioned ,,, it was assumed. These things were NOT within the scope of Government, anymore then the right of the people, to use the Outhouse, was a concern of government. However, "a well regulated militia" ; organized to defend against everything from foreign invaders, to abusive or excessive Government intrusion,,,, to an overbearing Militarized Constabulary IS "necessary to the security of a free State" From the Founders perspective there was an obligation, for all able-bodied men, that they organize and be part of "a well regulated militia"

[@carlosnavarrojr.6912]

We ARE THE MILITIA! WE THE PEOPLE

[@Sherayx]

What about the original 13th and 14th?

[@stevencooper5283]

"The other rights retained by the people". One of these rights is to eat real, untainted, unadulterated food. We have a right to clean water. We have a right to clean air. So we SHOULD have a right pure food. God gave us pure food. That's our right from God. Students in public schools are denied this right every day, because they are given GMO foods, which is not right at all.

[@lufknuht5960]

What is your proof that we have the rights you vociferate?

[@fremanhuachucalamarchahta1882]

What he's not telling you is if you claim to be an American citizen you have no rights,you are a citizen of the United States corporation. And the constitution and bill of rights do not apply to you. But if you are a Naturalized citizens of the Republic of which ever Territory you reside such as Texas or Utah the constitution and bill of rights apply to you. Also lawyer take an oath to the bar which is the crown of England dont believe me go read for yourself..

[@EnochElijah777]

Sexy bearded bear. Grrrrr❤

[@ashforkdan]

How can a state governor refuse the Supreme Court's decision and not be removed for violating the Supreme laws?

[@Gutenburg100]

Sooooo basically the government banning add ons to my firearms could be a violation of the 9th amendment because its not written saying said objects are protected but it does prevent me from exercising my freedom as an American? Am I getting that right?

[@TommyRosaTommyProductions]

Dude! You are the MAN!

[@jeads21]

Why is it that no one starts at at the Preamble of the Bill of Rights,the Preamble gives the Context for all that comes after it.

[@malakirogers4000]

I would like to know what them arguments was about,

[@kristybarnes2563]

I want to know what those Clauses are please

[@charliedominguez6960]

The three branches of power 1. executive the President co administration military etc etc. 2. Representatives Senate 3.supreme justices etc.... But the people are the most powerful and they control it all+ ...

[@pverde157]

can you make a video about state and federal government?

[@dereksfire]

I would love to see what those causes were.

[@oihilguest5902]

I was arrested and charge d for tresspass on my own property and three other felonies added falsely prosecuted az

[@peteocean2848]

Geez. I'm 17. I'm woke! Now, I know. Appreciate it. I'm going to the library read this up like no tomorrow.

[@isaiahtorok7079]

this video left a lot of nuance out and several aspects of some rights as well as some of the more contested ones, to college students trying to use it on an exam it doesn't have all the relevant information

[@H.C.-Transparency]

Why only cover 4 of the 5 parts of the 1st

[@sebrinadaniels2996]

is there protection in the 9th or 10th amendment if you DON'T(DIDN'T) KNOW your rights and they were violated? You learn AFTER the fact. Is there redress?

[@margiep3364]

I'd like to see a video on what those clauses were!

[@sascotttx5145]

I started reading The Federalist Papers last summer and never finished. Hamilton had a way of creating a paragraph that would cover half a page and be made up of just one long sentence. Their vocabularies were quite impressive, yet made up of many words that are rarely used today. There were times that I was reminded of Charlie Brown's teacher. OK. That's enough of an introduction. Does anyone know if there exists a version of The Federalist Papers that has sort of been updated with the language that would be more common today? It's been done with the Bible.. I'm not looking for an abbreviated version, or Cliff Notes. Just something that rolls off the tongue a little easier.

[@sascotttx5145]

I found it, in case anyone that couldn't answer my inquiry would like to know. "The Federalist Papers In Modern Language," by Mary E. Webster, was just what I was looking for. It's not a complete rewrite. I would guess that maybe 80 percent of the original language remains unchanged.