How Should the Constitution Be Interpreted? | Who Decides Its Meaning?

Want to stream more content like this… and 1,000’s of courses, documentaries & more?
👉 👉 Start Your Free Trial of Wondrium tinyurl.com/mry43rr8 👈 👈
-------------------------------------------
While the US Constitution left many important issues unresolved, it was clearly designed to serve several primary purposes (regardless of disagreements over how it serves those purposes). Travel back to the 18th century and investigate the origins of the founding document of the American experiment-a story of crisis, rebellion, and compromise.
This video is Lecture 1 from the series "Law School for Everyone: Constitutional Law".
Stream the full series now at: www.wondrium.com/youtube
00:00 Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution
04:19 The Constitution's Origins
10:38 Internal Chaos and Shay's Rebellion
13:30 The Constitutional Convention of 1787
17:30 Primary Purposes of the Constitution
23:35 The Constitution and Individual Rights
27:43 Interpreting Constitutional Rights
-------------------------------------------
Welcome to Wondrium on KZbin.
Here, you can enjoy a carefully curated selection of educational videos from our library of history and science series.
If you’ve ever wanted to travel back in time, wondered about the science of life, or dreamt of exploring the stars, then Wondrium will be your new favorite channel!
If you decide you’d like to learn more about what you love, check out the full experience at: wondrium.com/KZbin
There, you’ll find in-depth answers to everything you’ve ever wondered, with mind-blowing surprises along the way.
Your brain is going to love this place!
-------------------------------------------
You can also read thousands of articles from the smartest experts in their fields at Wondrium Daily: www.WondriumDaily.com
And, of course, check us out on all of our social channels:
-Facebook: / wondrium
-Twitter: / wondrium
-Instagram: / wondrium

[@teresasevans1926]

Before I graduated from 8th grade, I was 14 and it was 1968.. I had to memorize the Preamble.. I still know it by heart and still say it to grand kids, my kids an myself. I think it was the best thing to have children at that age memorize such a document, to be able to go on to High school.

[@warlord8954]

You, and your children and grand children would be far more served to memorize The Bill of Rights and read the Declaration of Independence. The US Constitution is meant to lay out how our government works. Not the Rights we all have.

[@sallycriss353]

I had to memorize the Preamble in the early 80s as part of our social studies class. Guess what? My kids (ages 29, 26 and 16) also had the same assignment! That 70s School of Rock video helped all four of us! 🙂

[@warlord8954]

@@sallycriss353 Read and memorize the Bill of Rights and read the Declaration of Independence. Those documents are the ones that define Our Rights and how the government can't take them away.

[@howardnelson2942]

The Constitution states the rights which the government has (for example, taxation, declaring war) and does not have (for example see 1st Amendment). It also, similarly states the rights, often in ambiguous terms on limits, the rights retained by the People, shared with the State ( 10th Amend.). These confusions are to be clarified and resolved by SCOTUS decisions and through the Amendment process. The Constitution ideally is aimed at coercing fairness, fairness to be defined via exercise of our system’s separation of powers and majorities of stupidities and well-intentioned dumb luck.

[@francisdeleo9781]

Today government schools graduate 3rd-grade level reading level ! They can't even read the documents let alone memorize and understand ! and why the enemy of the entire human race wants us to breed with the peak at 85

[@KGTiberius]

A great recap would be a chart of where the checks and balances were weakly/strongly enacted by year, over the past 250 years… and why. Executive, legislative, judicial. Also point out voter turnout per election (the people as the 4th check). Identify constitutional changes/amendments. Lastly a heat map of originality vs modernist view of the Constitution. Also indicate relative strength of each branch (per year) via laws passed, impact/efficacy/intent.. some version of an Eisenhower matrix. Speak to this matrix/chart as the basis of the lecture.

[@starbase51shiptestingfacil97]

Checks and Balance is the main principle of American Democracy, and Separation of Power. All to prevent tyranny. All the lessons about the reasons they left England behind and moved to the colonies. Separation of Church and State is another important one. One of the most egregious malpractice of law, was forcing "confession" to being a witch for example, because the person was "believed" to be a witch. It was so egregious, 5th Amendment has the Right to Remain Silent, person does not need to answer any questions. As they say, talk is cheat, prosecution must be done through evidence. Church is relatively benign long as it doesn't have power. It can espouse all kinds of ideals, but not act on them. Stamping out evil by persecuting "witches" was in fact an act of evil. Why that happens, you would have to know the inner workings of social behavior. Religious zealotry, lacks rational (critical thinking) and simply moves based on feelings and beliefs, while being able to to use god's name in vain. Basically unstoppable, once it takes hold and requires fleeing to a safer place, like the colonies. Matrimony and same-sex marriage. The marriage between man and woman is based on need for connection to raise a child. Same-sex marriage lacks that kind of reason. It's more to do with social practices, rather than law. Constitution is entirely having to do with anti-tyranny more than anything else. All the laws in the Bill of Rights originate from malpractices of a tyranny, learned in England.

[@NN-sj9fg]

A wise man once remarked: "Don't tell me what it means, tell me what it says."

[@PRH123]

Very correct. Today one could add, "don't tell me what you heard other people say about it..."

[@Mike-qo4kp]

I really wish this had been available when I was in school.

[@MoiLiberty]

So if the constitution creates 3 branches of equal power, then why would it be ok for 1 of those branches to act the scope of another branch? In other words, why would it be acceptable for the Judicial branch to act in the scope of the Legislative branch? Will it be ok if the Executive decide and create what is constitutional? Either we have a separation of powers or we don't.

[@richardbryanesq]

That's part of what the debate is about. Separation of powers has to do with each of the three branches staying in their lanes under Articles I, II and III of the Constitution. Lots of matters are not spelled out in the Constitution though, and the document itself doesn't say which branch is authorized to make decisions about applying the Constitution to a particular fact pattern.

[@1m2rich]

It is called check and balances. Congress since it most represents the people declares war, writes treaties, controls the purse and has over sight powers over all branches of government. They write the laws and regulations. Judicial branch is the legal branch who follow and enforce our laws not write them. Executive branch run the agencies and the office of the President and VP.

[@1m2rich]

Executive branch of the president does not make law but Executive Orders. He does not declare war... Congress does since it is the people who fight, die and pay for it.

[@robinsss]

@@richardbryanesq he is talking about the court's ability to create law

[@robinsss]

creating law is an unavoidable by product of striking down a law and it doesn't violate the separation of the branches because the congress is the only branch with the power to write law the courts don't write laws they create them by striking down existing laws

[@charmelllee9034]

And the beat goes on. The game is to put supreme court judges on the bench that will rule in favor of certain issues..... So in reality that's where rights and wrongs are confirmed. And the beat goes on...

[@billofjazz]

Your comment is, unfortunately, true.

[@bipslone8880]

The supreme court became political and now no one should respect any opinion.

[@charmelllee9034]

@Fred Wills I Concur......

[@robinsss]

@@1-Wheel-Drive ''''''''Technically, the current court is (finally) doing its job and determining constitutionality of issues. Roe v Wade was unconstitutional because it established federal law that was never legislated. It is not the role of the SCOTUS to establish policy or law, only to rule on the constitutionality of laws and policies.''''' creating law is an unavoidable by product of striking down a law and it doesn't violate the separation of the branches because the congress is the only branch with the power to write law the courts don't write laws they create them by striking down existing laws

[@ianfitzpatrick2230]

I really wish this channel was available when I was in high school. These ideas being so dynamic and fluid, the opinions influenced by policy, religion, or none of these things really helps me today understand how truly incredible the constitution is. I have never believed it was originally written perfect at all but wow has my understanding of the founding fathers stories helped me see where people wanted this document to go and do. I hope as a people we can use these avenues of free knowledge to bypass all the legal and historical jargon to help wrap our heads around that great story which is our founding.

[@sr2291]

In the late 60's when I was in HS I was lucky enough to be able to listen to late night talk with Larry King. They had some hellified debates on both sides of the political spectrum. And my parents didn't stop me for some reason. Maybe they were heavy sleepers. School was _boring_

[@ianfitzpatrick2230]

@@sr2291 I used to awake late when I lived with my grandparents until they caught me, I was one of those kids who had a little too much energy during the day. They watched some of those late night talk shows which today of course a little more comedic but there was a touch of political give and take. I’ve always loved the human story, all the nuance along the way has just made it much more interesting

[@warlord8954]

WRONG! DO IT AGAIN!

[@danielkingery2429]

When we read the EXACT content to which opposing parties agreed, we no longer need to know what each individual signer thought. After all, they signed on behalf of their constituents....NOT THEMSELVES. Therefore, to properly comprehend these elementary documents, we only need dictionaries that existed as close to and before the writing of the instrument.

[@sr2291]

@@danielkingery2429 Yeah its nice to know and apply the vocabulary of the time and not use today's dictionary meanings to manipulate people.

[@malcolmneate5852]

These are such great lectures.

[@fkutube933]

If you are a crack head that will believe anything. Then yes.

[@TrueCapitalist]

The US Bill of Rights and the Original Constitution are Legal Binding Contracts between the Govern and Our Government. The Declaration of Independence is a Social Contract, that lays out our Duty when the Contract is Violated. Inalienable Liberties defines its meaning. Its very simple, but it's corrupt individuals who make it Confusing or Complicated . . .

[@danielkingery2429]

We, the people, literally have no clue as to how to ENFORCE the terms of the Constitution AGAINST government officers who violate it: or how to enforce the terms of The Declaration against each other when we violate the terms of The Declaration.

[@TrueCapitalist]

@@danielkingery2429 Um, The Declaration of Independence lays out it is our Duty to Enforce the Contract for the Continuity of our Constitutional Republic. I pretty much just literally said that. American Citizens are just afraid to stand up to their Government, in a clear Dereliction of Duty. As far as dealing with Eachother as Private Citizens. Municipal and Local Laws lay out what Liberties you have to defend yourself against another Private Citizen in a given situation . .. .

[@danielkingery2429]

@@TrueCapitalist To repeat and clarify; The Declaration deals solely with the relationship among the people; not in or daily lives; but specifically regarding what kinds of powers we may of right grant to government, who is eligible to vote, HOW our votes are supposed to be counted, as well as several other elements of our relationship to each other regarding control over our government.

[@TrueCapitalist]

@@danielkingery2429 You keeping this conservation in a loop. Like I said, If you want to know your duty when Government gets out of line, Read the Declaration of Independence. If you want to know whay to do when Private Citizens get out of line, Read your Municipal and Local Laws. The bill of rights os a Constraint on the Government, not the Private Individual. And the Constitution sets up our the Government of our Republic. I dont know what else to tell You. We are not Obligated to get along or even work with eachother. People have the right to be left completely alone. If you want a Legislature that changes the Voting Laws in your favor you need to makes sure you put you and like minded people in that position of power. Voting is Everything I'm this Country but it's Very Important to Vote and get those who think like you to vote . . . .

[@danielkingery2429]

@@TrueCapitalist I agree, that The Declaration does not directly govern the day to day interactions among the people. I also agree that with respect to government, The Declaration is the peoples' guide to controlling the corporation called government that they created or inherited from previous generations. However, there is one, most important element of government that goes un-noticed and all too frequently, un-discussed. That PART of government is The Sovereign Authority that grants to government its power. That sovereign authority is NOT the people as INDIVIDUALS, but as THE body of people who register as voters. Well, let's read The Declaration; at least a small part of it. From the top of The Declaration, Paragraph 2: "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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..." 1) Those who can grant or WITHHOLD their CONSENT are the voters. We simply pre-register today. 2) Government Purpose: The equal security of all of our rights; thus, the restriction on what kinds of powers we may grant to government. 3) CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, is the HOW our votes are supposed to get counted. This simply demands that the MAJORITY of people who register AS voters MUST CONSENT to any balloted item or candidate, or those items and candidates are supposed to FAIL for lack of consent. In this aspect, OF CONTROLLING OUR GOVERNMENT, we are REQUIRED to work together, as a unified body. No person is required to vote, so they do not register as a voter; and if so registered, they may remove themselves from the registry if they choose to abstain, or not vote. ALL laws, local, county, state, and federal MUST be made in pursuance to Th Constitution for the United States of America, as pet Article 6, Parsgraph 2 regarding The Supreme Law of the Land. The entire U. S. Constitution is NOT a direct restraint against the peoples' rights; but indirectly so, based on the honorable laws MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF. The Declaration is the ONLY instrument through which to alter how voting in these united States of America. It has not yet been amended, repealed, or replaced.

[@KansaiBoxer]

I very much appreciate the fact that it’s here now!

[@shellimendoza6875]

In my high school in Ames Iowa we were taught some of this. But I have a hearing impairment so I didn't pay much attention this is good Channel

[@ashleyh4291]

Thanks for this! 💕

[@BouncermanDotCom]

The constitution was written to not need any type of translation, or question of meaning. Since it was written though, the government (as the forefathers surmised would happen) began to act like children. The constitution says (for example in the second amendment) "...shall not be infringed". Then the government like children after their parents said "NO!" began to conspire a way to get what they wanted..."Well, did they really mean NOT?"..."Did they use our full names?"..."Maybe they were going to say UNLESS, but didn't know that word at the time...". So they used the Marbury v Madison case to begin pushing the legal system over the lawful system. The average simp has no comprehension of legalese, because it was made to confuse (as any word can mean anything) as it is nothing more than poetry (as is proven via 1 U.S. Code § 1). They knew that until they moved away from common law, they would not have any power and would not make any money. First and foremost the constitution is a contract for the people (the benefactors), telling the government (servants) their place, and how to not overstep their limits. This silliness of the constitution needing to be translated is nothing more than children run amok.

[@PRH123]

Essentially agree with you, although I would not refer to them as children, but rather as manipulative, self interested, and often cruel adults. I've had a bit of experience with legalese in other countries, and the comparisons are interesting. Us legislation is often very vaguely and almost incomprehensibly written. This is obviously intentional, for various reasons, eg to deceive the public as to the actual meaning, to leave it open to interpretation and freedom of action by those lawyered up enough to do so, and to allow freedom for the govt to enforce it however they might like. This is not the case everywhere. The British contracts for example that I reviewed were written in clear, straightforward, and easy for anyone to understand language. In other countries contracts are read exactly as they are written, no flexibility for interpretation, in court the judge does not ask anyone to testify or ask for their verbal opinions or arguments, they sit there and read the paper and make decisions accordingly.

[@BouncermanDotCom]

@@PRH123 "Essentially" I 100% agree with you on the child part LOL. When I wrote this, I was still in the testing and drafting stages, attempting to figure out the best way to explain it in a way that more people could easily digest what they have done; and make it as relatable as possible. Verbiage became the easy part, the hardest part was condensing the time frame in a way as to not water it down, make it as accurate as possible, and short enough that in a society where Tik-Tok is popular because of short attention span... everyone can follow along.

[@johng.1703]

10th amendment addresses this, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. marriage at the time was a person thing not a state licensed thing. so that is a right of the people. the federal government was the first to recognise marriages back in 1913, and states added the requirement for a marriage license in 1929. but constitutionally speaking, it is a right of the people, not a permission of the state.

[@kerryphillips7508]

This is what I came to say. Glad someone else had this already posted ❤

[@BOOLsheet]

But no government in the world (including the US and every state) had ever recognized gay marriage until like 2001, so how could it be a right of the people yet when in nearly all of human history every society and government known to man thought it wasn’t? The case mentioned here claimed right to government benefits, so it can’t be that it has nothing to do with government.

[@johng.1703]

@@BOOLsheet it is still a right that belongs to the people. I'm not sure that you really grasp how rights work, these are something you have, they are inherent. you also have to understand what a marriage is, and no it has absolutely nothing to do with religion, although you do have religious ceremonies for marriages, but the actually marriage is separate from the religious ceremony, marriage is to do with property, and distribution of property.

[@BOOLsheet]

@@johng.1703 actually it appears to be you who doesn’t understand how rights work. Governments recognize some rights and don’t others- or can outlaw certain things you think are inherit rights. In this case, you claim this is a right- specifically to a government benefit- but you have not one single example in US history (or in human history) of any society or government recognizing it as such, and that’s exactly what the case mentioned in this video was about.

[@johng.1703]

@@BOOLsheet the US is kind of special, due to how it came about. you have an unlimited right to contract, and as such you can marry anyone you want to who is legally permitted to marry, the supreme court case doesn't give you the right, it protects that right. but if you do go back in history, the vast majority of places were theocracies and as such had the death penalty for gay relationships. so with that in mind I very much doubt that people would exercise that right and be killed for it. the US isn't a theocracy and so no death penalty for being the person you are. and it was the Abrahamic religions that started the thing of keeping records of marriage, before that there really wasn't any marriage records, but the religions had a financial interest in keeping track of marriages.

[@amazingmoy]

The US Constitution doesn't grant courts, ultimately the Supreme Court, the power of Judicial Review. It is a power granted by the Supreme Court to itself. While the power of Judicial Review is important for checks and balances, can the Congress pass a federal law defining the scope of the Judicial Review? If the Congress passed such a federal law, can the US Supreme Court, through a decision, strike it down for being unconstitutional? Can the Congress override a Supreme Court decision without amending the Constitution?

[@OceansEpilogue]

This is the content ALL Americans need before or during High school.

[@hogg4229]

He lied about what the document said, so I wouldn’t be sure.

[@carlroberts4963]

The.conistutun.is.not.cast.in.concrete.

[@Eri-Wi-]

We had to learn this in middle school and high school as students

[@scark00]

Any power not covered in the constitution is given to the states or the people. John Roberts was 100% correct. That is also why the founders made the document amenable but also not easily done on a whim. We the people are the ultimate power, not the Federal government.

[@mrsatire9475]

John Roberts was 100% wrong. We the people are the ultimate power, not the Federal or State government.

[@chrisstanford3652]

Wow! Yes, this is a must topic for all Americans 🤗🤗

[@chrispreston256]

What more lies? The constitution is the structure of government, it doesn't pertain to man/woman.

[@riccarrasquilla379]

thanks for the lesson.

[@khankrum1]

I am am Englishman and I am led to understand the constitution was meant to be a guide, not a stick to beat one another with!

[@1m2rich]

The Constitution is to say what the government should be to prevent tyranny. Even the Bill of Rights doesn't limit private life.

[@timmartin6410]

Easy question, which Thomas Jefferson answered long ago: “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.”

[@PRH123]

Good quote, thanks...!

[@michaellawrence5492]

The US Constitution is still alive by the Generation alive that defends and protects it. So far 245 years. The ideals stated within the Constitution are of actions to protect and defend the ones who protect the Constitution which sole purpose is to prevent ever the darkness of Tyranny by one to many but never all. Best common sense acted upon by mankind written within and still respectful to Almighty believed or not.

[@SNESpool]

There's a lot of patriotic buzzwords in there, but it's hard to tell what you're actually trying to say, with this statement. Essentially, constitution = good, I guess?

[@Deus69xxx1]

except it has exactly nothing to do with an almighty, except to make sure it stays the hell out of our politics.

[@identifiesas65.wheresmyche95]

Shouting fire shouldnt be illegal in and of itself, only if it's intended to cause a panic should that be the case, and then not because of the word but because of attempting to cause a panic. I believe thats consistent with the absolute writing.

[@Yamobethere]

3/5ths Compromise was actually a direct action by abolitionists to eliminate slavery. If they said "Don't count slaves at all", then the slave holding states would never sign on to ratifying the Constitution, which ultimately created the frame work to abolish slavery. If they counted the full population of slaves, then the slave holding states would have overwhelming power in the federal government and the abolition of slavery would have taken much longer, if at all.

[@SwissOnZ]

The “slaves,” were double counted. It’s a provision.

[@SwissOnZ]

A provision against dishonesty.

[@cydoman8014]

Slavery was abolished because the North attacked the South and fought to reclaim the South for the sake of the Union. The South broke its bonds with the North and thereby 1) threatened the promise of the Union dream and 2) threatened the right to wage earners to be paid for their labor. Unlike the wageless slaves, Northern (and some Southern) wage earning workers were a threat to wealthy Plantation owners. It was the use of slavery to force humans to accept being treated as only property to be used up for profits that goaded the South to leave and the North to invade. Neither of the two warring entities could survive with slavery because wageless labor would have destroyed the rights of all but the very richest. Lincoln proclaimed the freeing of the slaves but the actual freedom has taken more than 150 years to get anywhere. The withdrawal of slave owning States was an act dedicated to the ownership of other human beings, including the right to deny them wages, education, trial by jury, equal protection of the Constitution and even the right of parents to keep their spouses and children. In slavery, both sexes and their offspring were categories of humans which were trafficked at will by white slave owners. The withdrawal of Southern States from the Union was praised as an economic benefit to white owners because it allowed them to profit from wageless labor and simultaneously to benefit through the selling of slave children as well as their parents to anyone, anywhere, anytime. Later efforts to claim it was all about State Rights is proven false by the regular adoption by Southern States of the same US Constitution the North fought for, with the exception the Southern Constitution included the right of white Southerners to own and sell their slaves to anyone willing to pay the highest price. The mistaken notion that the North must stay silent as Jim Crow took over to not rile up Southern resentment over equal treatment of African Americans is an example of stupid responses to questionable intentions. No racial theory of superiority over other races lasts when actual accomplishments are stacked against shallow theories of exceptionalism. Humans are born gifted. Those gifts are to be nurtured, respected, embraced, treasured, supported. The only real glory the US can claim is our ability to meld variations of human gifts. When we are free to embrace various talents like thoughts, dress, race, fashion, commitment, food, religion and bravery everyone can benefit. Our attitude that permits all gifts to be respected, cherished and protected is what makes us stand out from others. People are the important component, opportunity the needed lubrication, respect the necessary commitment. To the extent our government amplifies our avenues of greatness, our talents and gifts and brotherly love, it is a help not a hindrance. To the extent it does not is the only reason we need to insist on a change.

[@SwissOnZ]

@@cydoman8014 that’s a misinterpretation of the constitution. Like it or not it’s Pythagoras. My grandfathers wrote the constitution. There are more supporting documents Thant just amendments and the bill of rights which are just clarifiers. Not all men have the proper education to fully interpret the constitution and the there’s the internal wars. It’s also says we the people as ordained, James Madison, “if men were angels,” and the congress shall establish no religion. It’s an Anglican monarchy. George Washington is my grandfather. I’d prefer all people leave now - not personal.

[@bobbywise2313]

@@cydoman8014 Slavery was abolished because of the 13th amendment. For most of the Civil War there was no intention of abolishing slavery. The intention was to bring the union back together.

[@KingLarbear]

I had this channel in high school then I would of loved history

[@jnb756]

I hope that Citizens United is one of the decisions that are discussed. This decision based on flawed theories used as an excuse for the court to favor the wealthy corporations and shadow money is when we went from "We The People of the United States of America" to: We the Corporations of the unlimited donation amounts

[@margeferguson8145]

The Citizens United decision is one of the many things that is wrecking the republic along with the gutting of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the overturning of Roe v Wade thanks to the high court under John Roberts.

[@KingLarbear]

I agree

[@zoanth4]

Yup. So many politicians are funded by out of state/out of country money. It's insanity. Might as well let foreigners vote in our election

[@shuttlemanjack]

One of the most flawed and dangerous decisions ever.

[@zoanth4]

@@shuttlemanjack and favored 100% by the conservatives on the bench...wtf were they thinking. Neo liberalism is a plague

[@craigkessler1]

Funny that the federalist papers were not mentioned in this speech , notably that he focused on the reification issue and the need for agreement on the constitution. If yo are careful , you can see the tilt towards progressive and away from conservative views . The overall key theme is quite correct , all politics is about power .

[@McRod-1]

Indeed. You mix some truth, logic and subtle changes and in the future it will become fact.

[@franciscojose6496]

Information is here of course channel number one

[@altinmares8363]

Please post more videos about - Aristotle - Plato - Cicero

[@Wondrium]

Hi Altin, great recommendation, we'll pass along to our course development team. Let us know any other ideas you have!

[@altinmares8363]

@@Wondrium videos about - philosopher king - Cicero (on the ideal orator) - aristotle (rhetoric) - presocratic philosophers Thank You

[@anitastreiffert3448]

What language is the heading in the video written in and why?

[@Wondrium]

Hi Anita! You can change the subtitle language by using the settings gear at the bottom right of the video.

[@grayj7441]

That the general freedoms and individual equalities should be protected and promoted.

[@seanburton5298]

A person asked me what I think liberty is. I used to define this as time away from a Naval vessel. Now I have no definition. That idea is still under construction.

[@PRH123]

The word liberty as used by the founding fathers meant liberty for themselves, for large property and business owners. It didn't mean liberty for you, or for anyone else. This is a great deception that's been repeated billions of times over the years and still today, the idea that this word they meant for themselves, applies to everyone... they never intended or wanted that....

[@seanburton5298]

@@PRH123 I understand stand your meaning. I hope you understood my meaning when I mentioned Naval vessel.

[@vmgreenspoon]

So excellently done! Although not American, I deeply appreciate the unbiased depth of your explanations .

[@AmericanConstitution]

We do. The people gets to choose its interpretation

[@homesculptor]

I've learned that defeating policy ending the protection of rights was clearly adjudicated to remove the concept of what the despots used to escape deterring punishment for abuse of power under the color of law. This concept was the dogmatic term of sovereign, a relatively new term created in the 14th century around the time that diplomatic immunity somewhat solved the problem of sending dignitaries into arbitrary nations where their safety was at the peril of tyrants that would leverage their lives for spoils without battle. So, the 11th amendment was the first law that modified the result of centuries of arbitrary despotism where "redress" would only spark "repeated injurie," even in "murder" cases where the crown or state would arbitrarily murder people objecting to abuse of power under the color of law, quoting the declaration of independence. This amendment granted dogmatic sovereign immunity from "suit or prosecution," see 11th amendment. This speaker mentions "sovereign" as the power monger to protect so-called rights. Anti federalists wanted a bill of rights, opposing the typical wealthy federalists that wanted lots of leeway to protect them from negligence or corruption they may be accused of, sort of like Mafioso would seek through bribery. So, this speaker says, "constitution is to protect citizens from government." But the 11th amendment ended this because it granted immunity to officials that ignore the bill of rights. So, why does this not ever become part of the conversation?

[@BillMurray137]

I have read the Constitution several times, some parts dozens of times, and what I always find is that other people want to misdirect it's intent and I sense and honestly doubt this video is any different. The Supreme Court does not adhere to the US Constitution and anyone that says otherwise is either lying or ignorant. Nor does the Supreme Court care what we think because it is a lifetime appointment and nothing can or will ever be done about it. When the rest of you want, I mean really want, to follow the Constitution, let the rest of us know and we can start but be aware, it will not always make you happy and you will have to pay your own way.

[@hankgoodwin202]

Must watch ted R weiland on the constitution!!!

[@stephenlight647]

Minor point, but the decision to have crawling TV monitors on set to ‘jazz’ up the presentation is just distracting.

[@donaldmccallum8453]

I thought so as well, as is the habit of moving to and fro as if hes addressing a real audience.

[@drbuckley1]

Is it fair to say that the "Unitary Executive Theory" contradicts the original intentions of the Framers?

[@inwalters]

Not only fair to say, but correct to say.

[@danielkingery2429]

Articles of Confederation allowed for disputed among the states, Article 9, paragraph 2, " in all disputes and differences now subsisting, or that hereafter may arise between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatever..." and details the process. I find that so many people who talk about The Articles of Confederation have not read it any more than they have The Constitution for the United States of America.

[@donaldmccallum8453]

Your finding I do not dispute, however the articles of confederation did not provide any effective means of resolving disputes between the states other than civil discourse. Of course I think we may all have doubts about the efficacy of that, especially nowadays.

[@danielkingery2429]

@@donaldmccallum8453 Efficacy, defined as; "the ability to produce a desired or intended result:" Articles of Confederation, Article 9, Paragraph 2 "The united states, in congress assembled, shall also be the last resort on appeal, in all disputes and differences now subsisting, or that hereafter may arise between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following. Whenever ...." That paragraph, a long one, continues with the step by step process of selecting, what we would today effectively refer to as The United States supreme Court.

[@MinhNguyen-nl8zz]

@@danielkingery2429 You forget the part about 9 of the 13 states must agree in this case to pass a resolution on this matter and the reality that the “Federal” government have not army, or money to enforce or bride states into compliant under the AOC.

[@johnlaudenslager706]

The logic of the first case discussed eludes me: how then can the US prohibit bigamy? I'd think the Supreme Court would best simply refuse to rule when the intent of the Constitution at the time written is moot. Novel situations then would be left to legislation. For instance, we now have two permanent, powerful political parties that the Supreme Court says can be given as much money as anyone wants to give ($ = free speech), and those parties' anointed candidates (through advertising) become practically independent of voters. Did the Supreme Court divine that was the intent of the Constitution?

[@treyhudson73]

I was in 5th grade, 1984 in Houston, TX. We memorized the Constitution and had to write it from scratch! Also, I wonder how many takes he messed up on the winter in Massachusetts?

[@gillypuente1794]

Dude, no one can memorize the entire Constitution. You're talking about the preamble to the Constitution.

[@treyhudson73]

@@gillypuente1794 The preamble? No. I'm talking about the whole thing, I assure you.

[@treyhudson73]

@@gillypuente1794 "No one"? You know there are people who have memorized Pi to several thousand digits, right?

[@gillypuente1794]

@@treyhudson73 A timy fraction of 1% of people. I was being hyperbolic. Of course there are SOME people who could; a tiny, tiny minority of the population. But the point is that so few capable of doing so, the claim that this was required material for all 5th graders at the time you were in school in Texas is incredible. And not in the good way.

[@treyhudson73]

@@gillypuente1794 Luckily for me, I couldn't care less what you think. It's only 4K words though and a bunch of those are the same structure and format. I also left out that I was in the gifted program back when it actually meant something. But go on and tell me we didn't do it enough and I'm sure you'll be right.

[@howardbloom6974]

Read and understand the 1st 15 words of the preamble.

[@PrimoGIU]

Holmes was paraphrasing a dictum, the statement was non-binding, it was never "law", and Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 basically made it moot. Yes, you CAN shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

[@Turnitupluber]

Should be interpreted in the spirit of why it was written. The big caveat is that the founding fathers knew the country would grow and the need to amend it would be necessary.

[@michaelwoods4495]

There are some good points to be made for legal recognition of various couplings in marriage. Some of those points stress privacy rights and are correct in that other people’s private life-style and finances are none of my business. But there are public policy aspects too. One question is why legal recognition is extended to marriage at all. Examples of that recognition are tax-free inheritance through joint property and income-splitting in income tax calculations. No one told me this, but I had always supposed that the reason to recognize conventional marriage is that there’s a societal interest in the welfare of children, who are the usual and natural result. If that’s correct, there is no reason that recognition should extend to couples who, by their nature, cannot produce children. I like things as they are, but if there must be a change maybe it would be better to recognize families at law only during the minority of any children than to expand legal privileges to people who don’t need them, causing others to bear an extra share of our society’s total cost.

[@Patriot1789]

I believe that under English law (and our American law until recently) when a woman married, she and her husband were consider “one legal person.” Any property she had came under his jurisdiction unless stipulated otherwise..when the husband died, the property reverted to her as the other half of that legal entity. If he had children from a former wife I believe he would have to stipulate any amount he wanted to leave to the, otherwise his new wife got all of it. In fact, until the late sixties a married woman had to have her husband’s or her father’s or some other male signature to hold a bank account in “her own name.” I am old enough to have had to do that!

[@ravindertalwar553]

I REALLY LOVE AMERICA AND AMERICANS.

[@donaldmccallum8453]

Thank You Kindly!

[@MatthewBlank-vi3pn]

The reasoning behind the 3/5th decision was to NOT give the slave state's an overwhelming advantage in Congress. Without that, the Southern slave states could have ran the country. As far as protections for slavery. 20 years, although a "kick it down the road" move. It did 2 things. It insured the nation would have to live up to its own ideals, and it gave us a nation. Without that compromise, there would be none.

[@Mike-qo4kp]

Historians make the best teachers I think. No political slant, just accurate historical lecture.

[@McRod-1]

Meh... Don't drink the kool aid. He has some flaws.

[@bipolartyranttroller]

Courts should not be telling us how to live at all. They passed Qualified Immunity via Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), then modified it in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), and again in Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) because there are so many laws that the enforcers couldn't possibly be expected to know them all while to we the people ignorance of a law is not a defense! Meanwhile the National average IQ for cops is 104 and several applicants have been denied interview for test scores that were too high! one guy I know of had a 124 iq and was denied an interview because of it. That isn't even high!

[@viatranquilla]

Our dictionary has alleviated the need for interpretation.. Next..? Can the following be interpreted other than how it is intended to be understood..? "No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."

[@LethalBubbles]

interpretive freedom is the difference between a free society and a psuedo-democractic tyranny

[@MinhNguyen-nl8zz]

The Shaw rebellion is a local rebellion and the state of Mass should have handle it, unless it legislature petition the Congress for aid. The fact that the Federal government can’t is a problem but legally it is not a federal government problem unless it Congress declare an internal rebellion exist.

[@randyparker4126]

I keep hearing on this site that slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person and that is incorrect. The Constitution says that 3 out 5 slaves could be counted for representation. It does not say A slave is 3/5 of a person. Nor do they mention the abolitionist reason for agreeing which was to have a starting point to end slavery before the 20 year mark. In fact, the 3/5 compromise is considered by many historians to be the first civil rights legislation.

[@trevorprime2274]

Enslaved People* "Slavery" was their condition, not who they were.

[@randyparker4126]

@@trevorprime2274 It doesn't say that either. It says " ...three fifths of all other persons."

[@McRod-1]

Semantics mathematically. 3 people with 100% right and 2 with zero% rights equal 3/5.

[@peterthegreat996]

It’s not about civil rights because- slaves didn’t have not have any civil rights . You just have attended a poor school . The 3:5 comprise gave slave states more representatives then they deserved. Maybe at Praguer U it’s considered a civil rights… bahahahahaha.. I jut can’t .

[@randyparker4126]

@@peterthegreat996 Actually have heard it from lecturers at college. I would explain it more but since you can't converse without being a troll, it would be a waste of time. If you want to have a civil conversation, let me know.

[@maxdoubled4800]

As long as it's a person and they're 18 or over.

[@danielpalos]

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

[@drbuckley1]

If we only knew what "privileges and immunities" meant in practical terms, or particular cases..

[@danielpalos]

@@drbuckley1 Read any State Constitution and see if any Thing they may have come up with will apply better in modern times?

[@drbuckley1]

@@danielpalos California's constitution is easy to change by initiatives, which is why it is so long (74 pages?) and includes things like the Lotto. The U.S. Constitution is a prime example of "structural racism," granting disproportionate representation to slavers. How are we to know the intentions of liars (Delegates) who did everything they could to keep their deliberations out of public view? Why didn't they keep Minutes of the proceedings? In some states (Pennsylvania), Federalists were little better than street thugs. The story is much more complicated than it is portrayed in this video.

[@danielpalos]

@@drbuckley1 Here is part of what I mean (from Article 1, Section 3 of CA State Constitution): (a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good. (b) (1) The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny. (2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. A statute, court rule, or other authority adopted after the effective date of this subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

[@drbuckley1]

@@danielpalos They call that the Brown Act. Every public employee in California is familiar with it.

[@MichaelEdelman1954]

Fairly good, but missing many important historical point. One is a discussion of the debate between the federalists and the anti federalists, a debate that led to both a bicameral congress and the Bill of Rights. Give him a C.

[@McRod-1]

"C" is fair. He labeled our form of government wrong within the first 30 seconds of the video.

[@user-xl5pc3jo5m]

I am in America why can't the CC be in English?

[@jeanfitzsimmons7442]

Since this nation was built on the view that governments should function ethically for the benefit of the People, therefore the three legs of government should also behave ethically in handling of its job. I then would be lead to believe that unethical judgements and actions by any branch of government will both loose its credibility and its members when they behave unethically. The problem here is 1 who removes them are they 2 arrested and charged. 3 By whom? And under the circumstances we now find ourselves 4 how do we get this removal under way in a timely matter, and while we still have a country? The government is now staffed in Congress and Supreme Court with people who are obviously not ruling or behaving ethically, and have no interest in their Oath of Office other then it gave them the power and the ability of acquiring as much money or wealth, or lavish lifestyle as bribes, with out honoring Oath, Constitution, nation or serving any citizen but themselves. A vote is wonderful, but at this rate we will bot have our right to vote for very long, if like so many of us who do not have that right in some states, because the corrupt officials have erased us from the voting list, gerrymandered our vote worthless, stollen our voting venue in the dead of night and refused to tell the voters where the new venue has been moved. This is a mess. I wonder if we can count on being citizens if the wrong people decide that only their friends are allowed have human rights. I am worried. And i am not alone.

[@nonyabeeswax7111]

The first step forward is to make popular knowledge the hidden rule of law juries LYSANDER SPOONER (An Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852): "Our American constitution have provided five...separate tribunals, to wit, representatives, senate, executive, jury, and judges; and have made it necessary that each enactment shall pass the ordeal of all these separate tribunals, before its authority can be established by the punishment of those who choose to transgress it. " LYSANDER SPOONER (An Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852): "The authority to judge what are the powers of the government, and what are the liberties of the people, must necessarily be vested in one or the other of the parties themselves--the government, or the people; because there is no third party to whom it can be entrusted. If the authority be vested in the government, the government is absolute, and the people have no liberties except such as the government sees fit to indulge them with." LYSANDER SPOONER (An Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852): "This preposterous doctrine, that "ignorance of the law excuses no one," is asserted by courts because it is an indispensable one to the maintenance of absolute power in the government." LYSANDER SPOONER (An Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852): "...there can be no legal right to resist the oppressions of the government, unless there be some legal tribunal, other than the government, and wholly independent of, and above, the government, to judge between the government and those who resist its oppressions...." LYSANDER SPOONER (An Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852): "The bounds set to the power of the government, by the trial by jury, as will hereafter be shown, are these--that the government shall never touch the property, person, or natural or civil rights of an individual, against his consent, (except for the purpose of bringing them before a jury for trial,) unless in pursuance and execution of a judgment, or decree, rendered by a jury in each individual case, upon such evidence, and such law, as are satisfactory to their own understandings and consciences, irrespective of all legislation of the government[a]."

[@amazingmoy]

If the US Congress can create or accept new states to the Union through a federal law, can the US Congress, through a federal law, abolish any existing state?

[@MinhNguyen-nl8zz]

No. The Constitution expressly forbid Congress ie the federal government from abolishing, creating or joint part of any state without the express consent of the legislature(s) of the state involved. And no state can be deny its two Senators in Congress. VW being the exception, VA was technically on a break.

[@jayschumacher815]

This goes off the rails when he discusses the 3/5 compromise. Completely upside down and incorrect. The WHOLE point of the 3/5 compromise was to LIMIT the representation of the slave states in congress. Had the intent been to entrench slavery and delegate more power to the southern states then slaves would have been counted as 1 for 1, thus giving the slave states an even great population on which to base their representation.

[@stankozlowski3084]

Not true. The slave states were grossly under populated with legal citizens with voting rights. The 3/5 compromise boosted the population in order to increase congressional representation.

[@GameAholicsVideo]

The Constitution is a framework for government operations -- not a set of decisions or laws. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution -- but cannot add to or take away from the text. Within the powers of Article I, Section 8, the congress decides. In the absence of law, people are free.

[@MinhNguyen-nl8zz]

The Supreme Court don’t “interpret” the Constitution, it only power is to offer it opinion on the dispute between two parties on the application of laws as it come before it. Every citizens and elected official swear to defend the constitution, not judge interpretation of it.

[@johng.1703]

most Americans do not understand what the constitution is, it is the document that establishes the United states, and grants that new entity powers, the bill of rights was added after to limit and restrict those powers granted to the United States, and by incorporation, the many states. the constitution does grant any rights, bestow any rights, or even privileges or immunities. the constitution can't grant you something you already have. it is the people that give the federal government and the states their powers, not the other way around.

[@DavidJamesHenry]

I didn't realize that Shay's Rebellion were the good guys

[@danielroche9181]

Those who interpret the Constitution in an original intent way do not believe in the General Welfare clause in the Preamble. In fact the Preamble is the Constitution. The articles & amendments are the mechanisms to implement it.

[@charlestripp7786]

Really? The preamble was added after the constitution had been developed through contentious compromises. It is an addition, a statement of summarizing sentiments that cut out the states, the congress, and justified the new form of government.

[@bobbywise2313]

It does say PROMOTE the general welfare. But it also says PROVIDE for the common defense. What is the difference between promote and provide?

[@donaldmccallum8453]

@@bobbywise2313 I know, I know,I know!

[@MinhNguyen-nl8zz]

The Constitution is the General Welfare, anything done to undermine it is against the General Welfare by definition. It is for the General Welfare that the Constitution is written. It is in the General Welfare that the Federal Government power is limited and restrain as possible. It is in the General Welfare that no branch of the Federal government acquire too much power. So no the Federal government as it is now is not in sync with the General Welfare as spelled out in the Constitution.

[@juantellado9235]

I'm no.#4 on the thumb up icon. Give your thumbs up today! Thanks!

[@davidjacobs8558]

Remember, it’s NOT “We the People “ It’s actually “We the People of the United States”

[@McRod-1]

But it was clearly written for the people. Had they not agreed, they would still be the people with no United States. Today, we the people are less and less "United".

[@nebtheweb8885]

@@McRod-1 "E Plebnista" kzbin.info/www/bejne/aZO8nIGmqbR9pNU

[@davidjacobs8558]

@@McRod-1 It means the Constitution of United States ONLY applies to US Citizens. NOT to foreigners.

[@davidjacobs8558]

@frost ice obviously you have never read the constitution. it clearly says "We the People of the United States".

[@davidjacobs8558]

@frost ice so, I was right.

[@annsanse2935]

everybody should read the constitution and, at the very least, understand the protections guaranteed to each of us under the bill of rights. this is particularly important in the way the police interact with the public and then how the courts treat defendants. it is also vital that people get to know the history behind the drafting of the constitution. i just recently learned that the 2nd amendment was created at the behest of patrick henry and george mason to empower states to regulate the militia (along with congress under article 1), so to make it easier for states to put down slave rebellions. pretty ugly.

[@richardworley7430]

Your "recently" learned information is typical progressive trope. The United States was NOT founded on the basis of slave labor by oppressive white males in 1698. In fact the charter for the Northwest Territory specifically prohibited the introduction of slavery & that document was drafted during the lifetime of many of the Founders. The Founders made a obviously obnoxious compromise regarding slavery to enable the formation of a Union of States without which the southern states would not agree to abandon the Articles of Confederation & participate in the formation & ratification of the Constitution, urgently needed because the Articles were inoperable & the Confederation could not efficiently engage in intra & interstate or international commerce threatening collapse of the entire Revolutionary effort. Remember also slavery was at the time & for millennia prior been a constant & accepted part of human history, right or, obviously, wrong. Only one nation willingly forbad slavery (Great Britain) & the US fought one of the worlds bloodiest conflicts to expel it ultimately resulting in equal legal standing for all races. The struggle continues to a degree but the progressive garbage about this nation being founded in slavery & thus irredeemably foul is just that, foul garbage. The Founders & many citizens of the Revolutionary, Articles & Constitutional eras were very leery of a standing military as a result of the oppression of British troops. Their "original intent" was to not have a standing national army but rely upon the states to present their militias to be organized into a national army should the need arise, thus the rationale for the Second Amendment. It was soon realized as a result of the seizure of American citizens & property along the northern coast of Africa by pirates based largely in Tripoli that a national Navy would be required to protect U.S. international interest & citizens. The need for a standing national military arose subsequent to those events. The States are sovereign political entities subject to the over riding law of the Constitution, its powers sharply limited with powers beyond those limitations to devolve to the States & then to the People. As such, the States retain the right to maintain the means of political/state self defense by retaining a militia of willing & able citizens. The militia stands apart from the National Guard; they are separate entities clearly defined as so in US Code - look it up, do your homework before you make accusative, contentious & erroneous remarks polluting actual historical fact in an attempt to support your progressive ideology. The militia is a military organization by definition & as such the Second Amendment defines an individual right of the citizen to keep & bear arms of a military capability. Again, if you will do your homework & research documents of the era you will find individual states (Google Virginia as an example) requiring those arms to be of a certain caliber & the citizen to maintain proscribed amounts of dry power & numbers of ball ammunition - military capable firearms, NOT firearms for hunting & self protection. Likewise, one will find reasonable local prohibitions related to firearms; eg. pistols may not be carried into taverns. The Second Amendment is intended to arm the individual citizen member of the State militia with military capable firearms. The body politic, in the modern era of weapons unimagined by the Founders, have reasonably restricted some of that military capability to exclude fully automatic small arms & to make the ownership of operable mortars, cannons & tanks VERY difficult & expensive (yes you CAN own a tank, yes you CAN shoot its main gun, yes you CAN own a surplus jet fighter with operable weapons BUT is it prohibitively expensive & onerously regulated by design). In addition to the capability of the National government to "call out the militia" if needed, the Second Amendment stands as a bulwark between the sovereign states & Federal government tyranny & oppression. BUT, you say, the state militias cannot possibly prevail against the Federal Army in an attempt to throw off a central government grown tyrannical & oppressive. Well, subjectively don't bet the ranch but objectively the Second Amendment stands as a visible, tangible symbol before the Federal government that We the People ultimately are sovereign as citizens in our separate States retaining the right & the means to protect our Natural Rights granted by our Creator. This is just as a police officers uniform & badge are a symbol of authority, including the legal ability to interfere with our civil liberties carefully proscribed by the Bill of Rights, as we as a body politic agree to respect that symbol so that a very few police offices can maintain safety of order among a vastly larger body of citizens. Disrespect of the symbol disrespects individual safety & the right to the promise of the Declaration & thus progressive policies disrespecting the police have led to rampant crime & societal disruption. (Yes, there are bad cops, they are an extremely small minority & are more often than not appropriately disciplined or dismissed.) The ultimate goal of the Progressive movement is to disrespect & destroy the political construct guaranteed by the Constitution thus leading to our present political turmoil, much more so than any Republican or Trump. AND guess who will ride to the rescue; an oppressive, tyrannical Federal (Progressive) government That is the ultimate goal of the progressive movement. Some progress from Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness to if you disagree with me or make me feel "unsafe" I can take your job away, stalk you wherever you go, harass & threaten you, allow your business to be burned down, perhaps even put you in jail for speaking your mind. THAT is why we need the Second Amendment. THAT is why the Founders included it as the second article in the Bill of Rights (moving it up from an original obscure thirteenth position). THAT is why a citizen may indeed own a "weapon of war". The Second Amendment had NOTHING to do with slavery.

[@annsanse2935]

@@richardworley7430 "there was an original purpose to the 2nd amendment, but it wasn't to keep people safe. it was to preserve white supremacy and slavery." elie mystal, on the june 1, 2022 msnbc mehdi hasan show. mr. mystal's book: allow me to retort -- a black guy's guide to the constitution. patrick henry and george mason said they needed the 2nd amendment bc they needed the armed disciplined militia to put down slave revolts. and they were worried that under the original constitution the federal government had all the power to raise the militia. the 2nd amendment gives states the power to raise the militia on their own.

[@danielkingery2429]

Are there REALLY any issues at all that either The Declaration OR The Constitution do not cover? The Constitution covers (fully automatic machine guns, rocket launcher, nukes, etc.) by way of the 1785 definition for Amendment 2: ARMS (A Weapon of offense; An armor of Defense) The Constitution covers (cell phones computers, cars, planes, etc.) by way Amendment 4: EFFECTS (which, after the 1785 definitions and defining the words of that definition; includes everything you can take with you -moveables- and excludes real-estate.

[@marvinhacking5777]

Well if you are saying there is no room for compromise in it (Active Ongoing Societal Agreement) Then the piece of paper has no power to grant any rights . And your rights are now dependent on what force you can bring to bear.

[@danielkingery2429]

@@marvinhacking5777 Neither The Declaration, nor The Constitution "grant" any rights what so ever. Both, simply identify but very few of the rights we possess. Any specific reference to any right deals with the application of that right, in The Declaration; or the government's relationship to that right, in the Constitution. Ultimately, the security of our rights have ALWAYS relied upon the will and force of the people in a WELL-INFORMED and UNIFIED body to stop government from unjustly violating our neighbor's rights.

[@donaldmccallum8453]

@@marvinhacking5777 OOPS! The Constitution sets as one of its lofty goals the protection of the rights we were given by our creator (however you may interpret that) not the granting of any new rights. And your last two thoughts are spot on, which is why the second amendment is so danged important.

[@marvinhacking5777]

@@donaldmccallum8453 What does the word Amendment mean ? The Bill of Rights is Amending the Constitution. Ergo it is part of it. And how would it be possible to Amend the original body of words ? By "ACTIVELY AGREEING" which like it or not is done through Compromise of differences. So when you walk away from the process of active agreement . Then you erode the power that grants rights. And are left only with rights granted through the good graces of your social betters who are still engaged in the process that grants rights. Also if you want to believe the constitution was inspired by God for humans to live in a better way. The main point would be the process in how to avoid bloodshed ... No ? Thereby placing so much importance on the second amendment , to the point of it being what matters most , so that we can just walk away and enforce our difference of opinion to not compromise. That is what I would call worshiping a false god , or idol worship. Because God surely didn't mean it to be a bargaining chip in the process of agreement. IMHO

[@donaldmccallum8453]

@@marvinhacking5777 The original body of the constitution did not include the first ten amendments which were added after it was ratified at he insistence of some of the states as part of their compromise bargain to ratify the original. Amendment means something that repairs something else such as a patch on a torn pair of pants usually with the intent of extending the utility of the amended item forward in time. Also the constitution does not grant any rights at all but attempts to protect the rights that are inalienable due to their being natural rights. However, there are those, who being dis-inclined to the common man having any rights at all are willing to force their "understanding" of how things should be on those they think of as their inferiors. These folks may give lip service to the concept of God, but actually serve the Anti-Christ. They have no natural affection for mankind and would today be called sociopaths. Cold, uncaring and unfeeling. A defect walking among men. It is this creature that the 2nd amendment is for. All men have the natural right to defend themselves from these evil creatures using whatever means they have at their disposal. The main point therefore is not the avoidance of bloodshed but the acknowledgement that sometimes bloodshed is unavoidable, though it is always preferred to avoid it IF possible. Adolph Hitler was an example of such a creature as was Joseph Stalin and some notable others. The British statesman Neville Chamberlain tried to compromise with him but soon learned that you can't abandon your principles while dealing with a devil. But external threats to the countries security were not the only thing that concerned the founders as they reasoned that an internal threat could arise within the country and by use of persuasion might come to hold sway over a large group of people who would be willing to help this internal threat become a tyrant and having broken away from King George the third they had NO desire to fall under another. Some might say the Democratic Party today is such a threat due to their extreme leftist views. Incidentally the Constitution made NO provision for a two party system as the founders expected a large number of smaller "parties" to come into existence to represent the needs of the individual states. It is therefore fair to think of the way things are now as UN-constitutional. The need for the second amendment is now greater than it has ever been. I rather suspect your accusation of supporters of the 2nd Amendment as being worshipers of a false God as being very self righteous. Once more for effect, men don't grant other men "rights". All men are given rights by God right from birth. All that men can do is to try to protect those rights for everyone which is what the Constitution strives to do. And seldom uttered, but true, is that any man's "rights" end where another man's "rights" begin. So that if one man attempts to rob another of his life, that first man forfeits his own "right" to life. And for those ready to accuse me of misogyny, feel free to substitute woman or women as suits you in the above text. Finally, in the expression, "to keep and bear arms", by definition of arms, means anything you can use to defend yourself including your bare hands, if that is all you have when you need "arms". Bare hands are all some folks need. 8>)

[@WiCapitalco]

We the people decide.

[@davidjacobs8558]

Remember, it’s NOT “We the People “ It’s actually “We the People of the United States” Read the constitution.

[@nebtheweb8885]

@@davidjacobs8558 Sounds familiar... remember this? *E Plebnista!* kzbin.info/www/bejne/aZO8nIGmqbR9pNU

[@peterk4134]

How does Christianity fit in ?

[@Eric-ye5yz]

In a controversial case, when the Courts do not decide in for the interest of the majority, it should be decided by a referendum. The final decision belongs to the people. This means a referendum cannot mandate abortion but make it the right of those who feel it is necessary for the family as a whole. To quote Roosevelt "Only the person in the arena can know the great sacrifices that need to be made and their ability to make them" ......

[@Eric-ye5yz]

@Fred Wills ... Its not contrary to the constitution. The country came into being for the wishes of the people, freedom etc. that means the freedom to decide what happens within the family. Every two years the people express their freedom as to who they wish to govern them .... the peoples choice. As it is now the states can choose if a woman can or cannot abort, it is just a short step to saying on this matter 'the people can choose', either by referendum or individual choice. That way each person carries the consequences of their actions, not others deciding for them who do not carry ANY consequences. There is nothing in the constitution that says abortion is unconstitutional. It is simply the few imposing their wishes on the majority, instead of a King you have nine judges. These last judges were chosen because they are against others having an abortion, while at the same time having that as an option for themselves due to their superior financial position. Only those who want an abortion can know why they want/need an abortion and that has been the case for the past 50 years.

[@kenlee5015]

@@Eric-ye5yz The Court is saying that the Roe vs Wade decision was unconstitutional as there was no basis for it, so they RETURNED it to the States where it was in the past. The US cannot have referendums but States can if they allow for it in their own Constitution. If it's ever to be legal nationwide it will need to be passed by the legislature and signed by the President or the Constitution will need to be amended. Both of those will be very hard to do.

[@Eric-ye5yz]

@@kenlee5015 Unconstitutional ?? .... That's all that stands in the way of a rational decision ???. The courts that passed the original R v W did not see it as unconstitutional. It is as if you are saying, if it is not in the constitution then it must not be permitted. Imagine a family 2 children Mother, Father, mortgage, Father working full time, mother part time. And she finds herself pregnant, it is going to cost her the job she has. This will impact financially on the children she has. If she gets an abortion and Proven she goes to jail and the Father can no longer work and look after the children properly, if she has a miscarriage but the courts believe it to be an abortion, she goes to jail with the same end result. If she goes to full time and dies, again the end result is separation of family. If she survives who knows what difficulties. Where their family is concerned parents will do what is best for them and they should not be hindered in that. This patchwork of laws and rules is way out of date. All this because of a clump of cells we call a fetus, that can neither think, breath, feed itself..... it is a parasite utterly. Anyone (supreme Court included) who says the fetus is most important is indifferent to the real problem, 'the effect on the family as a whole', which the court of Row V Wade was not. This mindless attitude of the present court reminds me of the mindless attitude of the Taliban when they ban girls from going to School and getting an education and everything else they ban. They do so because they read between the lines in the Quran or hadith and ignore reality... as this court has done with the constitution. Do you see the Taliban as intelligent and caring Ken Lee ??

[@kenlee5015]

@@Eric-ye5yz Wow, take a breath and remember what your argument was for originally, referendums. We don't do that in the U.S., though some states do. It's possible that I misspoke but the theory is sound on the constitutionality. This court found that the original court went too far in deciding Roe. There was no basis in Constitutional law. Sorry, but that's fact and your "feelings" won't change it, no matter how passionate you are about them. Insulting me and others, or comparing this to the Taliban is ridiculous and won't help you win any arguments. It makes you look foolish and uneducated. Grow up. Edit: You made a few mistakes as well. No one who has an abortion or miscarriage is going to jail, even if thought to be a disguised abortion, in any state in the nation. There's not a single law that would make that happen and no state is considering it. Every single state has exceptions for the health of the mother, every one.

[@jdtcskate]

@@Eric-ye5yz Your feelings and your BS hypothetical situation do not matter. The power to legalize abortion was not specifically granted to the US federal government, nor was it prohibited to the states. THAT means it was only up to the states or the people of the states to decide. The power to MAKE law is not granted to the SCotUS. They are to rule on the constitutionality and interpretation of laws.

[@handydan5150]

I find it interesting how almost all scholarly presentations of this nature avoid discussing the second amendment. A little disappointing, frankly.

[@specialsause949]

The great irony being that the second amendment is probably the most controversial in terms of contested interpretations yet it is the amendment that seems to be the most explicitly stated. I hear people say "everyone always ignores the militia part". They say this not understanding the difference between the justification clause and the operative clause. I've seen people argue that "militia" actually means "military". Why would the government give itself permission to own guns? Looking at the context in which the second amendment was written, the second amendment becomes more clear. The framers had recently finished a war with a tyrannical government, which they fought with privately owned arms due to not having a standing army. The framers wanted to make sure if it ever happened again that the citizens had some the means to fight back. ...but it says "well regulated". I can't be too upset at this because I was always perplexed as to why the militia should be "well regulated" but the right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". I didn't understand. It made more sense when I leaned "regulated" meant "trained" in common parlance at the time the second amendment was written. Imagine writing something so explicitly and learn that centuries later people will argue over it's meaning.

[@Deus69xxx1]

@@specialsause949 which is part of the federalist papers, explaining their use. such as the one that's saying that not everyone should be part of a militia, so that productivity isn't hurt. i don't know why this is difficult, it's essentially the national guard, some people from each state, trained in their state, as part of those whom the state can mobilize, or the nation if needed. those people's right to have a weapon in the defense of their state or their nation when called cannot be argued.

[@MrTodayistheday]

The Constitution is quite clear. Laws are to be created through the legislative process. That ensures the will of the people is implemented. Judges are not accountable to the people and are charged with interpreting the laws created by the Legislative branch. Judge Roberts was current. It was inappropriate for the Supreme Court or any court to make a ruling. Before the courts can rule on same-sex marriage. I think we need to agree on the original intent of marriage. I suspect after we think this through we will conclude that same-sex marriage special class of marriage may have some unique rights and responsibilities.

[@amarjeetsehmi8995]

Interpretation of each of constitution and in English need prime need of proper education to interpret and morphology of each word and philososophy and spirit of the writters who enclosed his comprehension of each world and interpretation of Constitution coposers.

[@donaldmccallum8453]

Sorry Amarjeet, but you need to more thoroughly exercise your right to learn English more thoroughly before attempting to express a complicated thought with a word salad like the above.

[@spiderlime]

there's a feeling of urgency to the presentations in this channel, and to me it seems that this is so because people think that the constitution is threatened by something. it's studied as something of a battle plan...

[@donaldmccallum8453]

Some or all parts of it are being threatened today. Awake from your slumber my friend and stand ready to defend your rights and your country from the WOKE idiots who would rob you of both.

[@VanessaVaile]

Does not compare well with Dr Stoler's "Original Intent" video

[@nuqwestr]

New States north of Ohio River would not be Slave States, that was left out.

[@nuqwestr]

Members of Shays Rebellion lost the battle, but won the war, because they gained political control, that fact was left out.

[@margeferguson8145]

Here we go again. Things are falling apart in 2022. Those that fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.

[@tombakabones274]

Actually that's where you're wrong the act of screaming fire in a crowded movie theater is protected what is not protected is the intent of said act if the intent of said act is malicious and therefore causes harm to others as well as damaged property then that is where it becomes illegal but the act itself is not illegal because I can be on stage in a theater and yell fire all day long if nobody panics and there is no harm to people or damage to property then there is no foul so therefore I cannot be arrested for the act of doing that

[@jamesherron9969]

But all state and federal laws require licensing to be issued equally to all their first date cannot deny of marriage license to same-sex couple this same decision was just reached again in June 20 22 by the Supreme Court and it’s ruling against New York’s requirements to concealed carry permits

[@danielpalos]

Some on the left believe right-wingers are simply clueless and Causeless. Our Second Amendment is clear as to whom it applies when Necessary (and proper.)

[@bubbercakes528]

The constitution is a wondrous document but it was created by humans and humans are flawed. There are times when it will not be enough merely to go back to the constitution when making decisions. In my opinion I believe it would be better to ask the question, “are people being injured?” This would often be a better form of judgement in many cases.

[@mdb6438]

Which begs the question, who is to decide what injury is? For example a pro-lifer will say a person is being injured when an abortion is performed, a pro-choicer will say a person is being injured if an abortion is forbidden. It comes back to your original problem with the Constitution, it was created by flawed humans. Flawed humans would have to be the ones to decided who is injured and, in deed, what injury consists of etc. ... and you are back at square one.

[@peterthegreat996]

Actually language is flawed . Words are ambiguous and vague .

[@stewiesaidthat]

"poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids,” Can the state give poor kids a right that is not available to white kids in order to promote the poor kids above their stature?

[@bobbywise2313]

@@peterthegreat996 It is extremely simple if you get right down to it. All it is is a document establishing what the powers and limitations of each branch of government are and the relationship the federal government has with the states and the people. Our federal government was intended to have few and defined powers. The states are intended to have numerous and indefinite powers. This is why the federal constitution is so simple in my opinion.

[@wayneoliver2721]

@@peterthegreat996 What do you mean, "vague"? :-)

[@mr.e3275]

Defund politicians

[@bipslone8880]

Defund the supreme court

[@bipslone8880]

@WhiteWabbitWarrior Division is only being pushed by right wing media. They sell fear, hatred and division.

[@corin164]

Toward the end of this segment posed the question of who decides the meaning of the Constitution. For the Constitution to be well understood by all, it should have one meaning. Therefore, it's original intent should be adhered to which would avoid any ambiguity to its meaning. The recent decisions by the current SCOTUS, was correct to emphasize the original intent of the Constitution, when it was ratified, as the basis its interpretation.

[@peterthegreat996]

Language is ambiguous. There is no such thing as - objective reality. And regarding individual vs., states rights - screw states rights .

[@corin164]

@@peterthegreat996 - Then move to another country if you're unwilling to live by the rules established in 1788.

[@danielkingery2429]

@@corin164 The SOCIAL RULES regarding government controlled by the people, was established in 1776. The Constitution was intended to be amended as each generation saw fit... To better preserve their rights.

[@corin164]

@@danielkingery2429 True, but the Constitution did set up a mechanism on how it was to be amended. It wasn't set up to where each generation would redefine its meaning based on nebulous definitions.

[@danielkingery2429]

@@corin164 By "nebulous", do you mean (unclear, vague, or ill-defined)? If so, I must disagree. There are two very precise mechanisms regarding the amendment and/or replacement of any constitution. Article 5 is one method, primarily developed for governmental internal checks against unjust powers. The Declaration is the ultimate check against unjust powers, and especially when the internal checks fail because of corruption. Yes. Every generation is supposed to keep the government under the peoples' control --- but NOT with unclear, vague, or ill-defined amendments. Each element in the Declaration, the Constitution, or the Law -- MUST be examined in accord with the AT THE TIME WRITTEN version of original meaning. This does not permit that the entire Constitution becomes subject to a 1992 dictionary, simply because at about 1992, with Amendment 27, as the last amendment. A 1992 dictionary would apply only to Amendment 27.

[@WorldGoyimUnite]

The Constitution doesn't need much interpretation, its not written in Japanese,, and "How should the Constitution be interpreted " Easy answer : With common sense "

[@alexclaton]

unfortunately common sense isnt very common

[@McRod-1]

That's how they sow discord. With statements like "common sense gun laws" and surely the founders "couldn't have foreseen the changes in society" so we need to change the constitution to keep up pace.

[@WorldGoyimUnite]

@@McRod-1 Easy, Gun Laws , reference back to 2nd amendment, done ✔️

[@nebtheweb8885]

@@WorldGoyimUnite The 2nd makes no mention of Guns, or FIREarms. They could have meant pitchforks, swords, sabers, daggers, knives, or slingshots for all we know. At best, flintlock pistols and rifels. Don't forget your ramrods!

[@wmorris3484]

How Should The Constitution be Interpreted? | Who Decides Its Meaning? The Supreme Court interprets the law. How they do it is no one’s business after confirmation.

[@MinhNguyen-nl8zz]

No where in the constitution do it say the Supreme Court is the final decider of the laws or the constitution. The Supreme Court need to be cut down to size.

[@chrispreston256]

The constitution is limitations and duties of the government. Bill of rights are rights government is not allowed to touch.

[@ravindertalwar553]

LONG LIVE AMERICA AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.

[@McRod-1]

America is not a democracy. Long live American Liberty and the Republic!

[@MinhNguyen-nl8zz]

The first amendment forbid the Federal government from limiting speech and assembly. This is a restrain on the Federal Government, but the right to free speech and a free press and assembly are also social virtues. I had this conversation with a liberal “friend” last summer and how she became a former friend. You can’t say you support the first amendment and in the same breath say you have no problem with people whom opinion you disagree with being fire from their job, their Children ostracized and their live ruin because “action have consequence.” I don’t ask if the boss action is legal, I asked if you agree with the reaction.

[@vinceypma8962]

The constitution specifically states that anything not mentioned in the constitution is left to the states to decide.

[@bobbywise2313]

Exactly Federal powers are meant to be few and defined while state powers are meant to be numerous and indefinite. We have lost our way over the years and now it seems opposite of the way it was supposed to be.

[@donaldmccallum8453]

OR THE PEOPLE who are the wellspring of all government power.

[@vinceypma8962]

@@donaldmccallum8453 Yeah, the people elect representatives in their states.

[@bobbywise2313]

@@vinceypma8962 Exactly. Our founders feared a strong federal government more than anything. Yet the Articles of Confederation left us with nothing but an alliance basically. So the states agreed to let the federal government have a few defined powers. All other powers were to be up to each state. State powers in the constitution are numerous and indefinite.

[@brucelytle1144]

Just have to comment! Repeal the 17th Amendment! NOW!

[@bobbywise2313]

Absolutely 100% agree. The federal reserve act, the IRS and the 17th amendment all occurred within a year of each other. I don't think it was a coincidence at all.

[@chipsramek3868]

First thing people should do is look at who is behind all publishing...schooling...banking...entertainment... and ask why we have 40+ members of Congress with Israeli Citizenship...Their favorite month is now.

[@McRod-1]

I bet you cant list 40 active American congressmen with Israeli citizenship. List them, here, below! I want names!

[@donaldmccallum8453]

Anti_Semitic troll! When you become a US Citizen you have to disavow any other citizenship. If you are a born (natural) citizen and want to become a citizen of any other country you have to relinquish your US Citizenship, with a few exceptions such as when a foreign power wants to honor you for some great service rendered.

[@shivank8368]

Please widen your views and pick up the knowledge and comparison from other parts of the world too.. I am an Indian🇮🇳 citizen, also interested in every part of the world from South America to Africa to Asia to Europe etc. I like the quality of content you provide.

[@trevorprime2274]

Can you do interviews?

[@donaldmiller8629]

What happens to the Constitution when one political party ( the Liberal Democrats ) controls all three branches of the Federal government , all of the various departments of the government , as well as many of the most populated states ?

[@ivanostry3359]

What planet are you talking about? I don’t think such place wouldn’t be so bad.

[@donaldmiller8629]

@@ivanostry3359 , That is currently the United States. Ah , I see what you did there. A double negative in one sentence. That was trickey.

[@ivanostry3359]

@@donaldmiller8629 Thank you for correcting my grammar. That was quite embarrassing. I will leave it there for all to see.

[@donaldmiller8629]

@@ivanostry3359 , I was not trying to be a teacher. I was only attempting to understand what you intended to say. Actually , I still do not know.

[@ivanostry3359]

@@donaldmiller8629 Don’t worry, I don’t mind that you brought it up to my attention. I was attempting to say that the country would be a better place if it truly were governed by Liberal Democrats.

[@gyterdoneJP7315]

Where the Constitution is silent then those issues are in the purview of the States. Justice Kennedy is wrong. Too often the Court acts as a legislative branch as occurred in the Obama care decision where Roberts erred as did Kennedy.

[@1m2rich]

Its pretty clear if you bother to read it.

[@jamesherron9969]

Funny the only amendment that says shall not be infringed on is the most regulated and permitted right there is it’s the only permitted right you must pay for that right in all states into the federal government funny how that works

[@danielpalos]

Not really. The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or unorganized. Our Second Amendment is clear because this is a State's sovereign right regarding the unorganized (civilian) militia: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Source: Illinois Constitution.)

[@danielpalos]

@@jamesherron9969 Why not join the Organized and well regulated militia so you have literal recourse to our Second Amendment?

[@WashingtonWeedReviews]

The constitution has nothing to do with feelings only law

[@donaldmccallum8453]

Why would there be any law without feelings?

[@larryclese]

RIGHT! because politics, by which the laws are made, has nothing to do with feelings. This is sarcasm.

[@fkutube933]

SCIENCE AND FACTS DECIDES HOW THE CONSTITUTION IS INTERPRETED. The Constitution was written to protect The People from a government that denied the most proveable facts that will ever exists. What defines human. What defines human is the ability to live and speak as you so believe. The ability to defend yourself from a tyrannical government and criminals and violent criminals. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.