The Bill of Rights: Every Amendment, Why it's important, and How it limits the government

Student worksheet that accompanies this video: www.teacherspayteachers.com/P...
More Bill of Rights activities here: www.teacherspayteachers.com/S...
Check out my free resources for Civics here: www.teacherspayteachers.com/S... Thank you to my teacher homies for supporting this channel through my TPT store!
This review video covers: The Bill of Rights, All 10 amendments with explanations, Why the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, Vocabulary for Due Process, Double Jeopardy, Eminent Domain (and more!), an Explanation of how individual rights limit the power of the government.
This video is designed for middle and high school level civics/government classes. I use these to teach, review for tests, or remediate after tests. Also used at the end of the year for EOC or final exam type state assessments. They can be done with guided instruction from the teacher or assigned individually (Works well with home connect or distance learning). Thanks for watching!
Please check out my channel for more civics/government content and be sure to check out my TpT site to get access to the keynote slides presentations and accompanying worksheets as well as my other lessons and materials. I appreciate all of your support!
Don't forget to subscribe for more civics based content!

[@p.goldman1885]

Hi Civics Review! Thank you so much for the shout out----Very cool! I will definitely be sharing this video with my students. Done well---You make learning the Benchmarks for Civics fun and interesting and educational all at the same time. You ROCK!!!

[@civicsreview5697]

Thanks for the great suggestion. I appreciate your support!

[@robinsss]

@@civicsreview5697 you show Lincoln with the founders i didn't know he was there when the constitution was signed

[@civicsreview5697]

@@robinsss Andrew Jackson is in that image too. It's actually an image of three presidents looking at a "Hamilton" advertisement, but I like the way they're examining the document. Good catch!

[@starbase51shiptestingfacil97]

1:29 Amendments (The Bill of Rights) are not 'changes' to the Constitution, they are 'additions' not included in the Constitution (which details the government structure, the Legislature, Judicial and Executive). 4:44 2nd Amendment - Involves Militia (an improvised army using armed civilians), "for security of the state" meaning national defense in 1791, when the US lacked a full-fledge army. The Militia Act of 1792 was revised and repealed in 1795 (read last line and look for "repealed"). It's not a popular interpretation with gun nuts, but it can be verified. Defending the nation ("security of the state") is the job of the military. To fully enjoy the 2nd Amendment, you would need to join the National Guard or the Military to fulfill the "security of the state" text. The National Guard (part-time military), is the closest thing to a "Well Regulated Militia". 5:05 3rd Amendment - Is actually Property Rights. All you have to do is annotate it. "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house (property), without the consent of the Owner (property rights), nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." City ordinance/HOA contracts are actually unconstitutional and can not be enforced on private property. The appearance of the house is protected by the First Amendment (Freedom of Expression) and the Third Amendment (Property Rights). - This is not a widely held view, but possibly very few judges and lawyers even knew about the 3rd Amendment - Property Rights. Building Codes (are exceptions) - You can think of it as it's in everyone's interests. 5:13 The example listed is unlikely to occur, so technically it seems useless. But it's actually property rights and only useless if you don't know what it's actually about. It's come into focus as HOA and cities violate private property rights.

[@HABITZER]

To bad all of you young idiots are just begging or allowing the government to strip us of are rights. You all better wake up or it will be you that inslave yourselves for the rest of your life!

[@MatrixCoreteam]

One thing that I noticed. At least in one section you refer to the bill of rights as giving the people the right. Instead we should think of it as protecting an existing right. The government does not give rights, or only takes them away. That was the very reason for the bill of rights.

[@salty_snowboarder]

A great example of this is the 2nd amendment. It does not give the citizens the right to possess firearms, it denies the government any ability to take that right away from you.

[@HuckleBerry476]

@@salty_snowboarder this is exactly what people forget to realize this is not a document, stating what rights of people have. It’s a restriction on the Government. The dumbest argument I’ve heard as of late… The second amendment applies to the militia, which is the government. So why is it in the Bill of Rights that on multiple occasions clearly states the right of the people

[@windrider65]

You also need to remember, ANY gun law is an INFRINGEMENT ON OUR SECOND AMENDMENT!

[@JohnDrake-jd1kb]

Agreed

[@joshuafesik8270]

Precisely or to put it another way the government cannot take away your rights

[@mikemorris1760]

It’s been decades since the Bill of Rights and the Constitution has been taught in schools for no other reason than an uninformed citizen is easy to control. A well educated free thinking citizen is a threat to society. Knowledge is Power.

[@THall-vi8cp]

Not a threat to society, a threat to those in power. There was a time when the American people were well educated, understood how our government worked, and were responsible citizens. Those citizens could not be easily controlled by a government with authoritarian tendencies and were actually more likely to wipe it out. The solution is to make everyone stupid and gullible via the education system.

[@p.goldman1885]

Knowledge is Power---so true, ,so true. Peace.

[@TheLoneRanger745]

1976 7th grade social studies My teacher was a huge Guy retired NAVY officer Mr.Hanson ,he also made us do push-ups if he caught anyone running in his hallway , I did a few

[@bradhagemyer7722]

It took the govt a long time and a lot of money getting the country this sick and stupid..... period!

[@jfilippone1]

You should take a high school government class. It is always taught and part of the curriculum.

[@tcatt222]

As clear and straightforward as these are, it's sad how often today the government is getting away with violating them.

[@GiganticRooster-kn2lj]

You can thank the corrupt Supreme Court for this

[@francismarion6400]

The Marxist lawyers outnumber Conservatives 99-1.

[@TheJoshEoS]

Arms means all arms, not just firearms. We're talking swords, mace, potato guns, Chinese throwing stars you name it. Now wheres my tank?? Haha

[@GiganticRooster-kn2lj]

@TheJoshEoS the founders wanted the people to be as well armed as the military because they knew that power corrupts. They knee the government would eventually turn on the people so they wanted the people to be able to defend themselves when the time came.

[@fifthamendment1]

The 4th has been carved into swiss cheese.

[@Billstoutsellscars]

Juries DO NOT determine innocent. Under the law you are presumed innocent. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty. The jury simply votes if the prosecution has met the burden of proof by voting guilty, or not guilty. They do not determine innocence.

[@ameador01]

I see you point - but it seems logically inconsistent. If the accused is presumed innocent - and a jury does not vote that they are guilty - then by default of the first position - the accused must still be presumed innocent as is was determined by the jury that the prosecution did not convince them otherwise. It seems a matter of semantics. Or perhaps a matter of perspective. The judiciary has no business assuming the accused is anything other than innocent in that case. I suppose individuals may evaluate it differently and objectively - maybe the accused is not innocent - but by the standards and perspective of the law - they are.

[@rkba4923]

You don't have any actual experience in our so-called justice system, do you? Let's start with this: If you're presumed innocent, why do the courts demand you be referred to as "defendant" instead of the word the constitution uses, "accused"? "Defendant" infers guilt! WHAT DID YOU DO THAT YOU NOW HAVE TO DEFEND?!

[@ahayseed654]

​@@rkba4923You're defending against the accusation.

[@rkba4923]

@@ahayseed654 Then you're not presumed innocent.

[@truthmatters6831]

​@@ameador01 Some jurors or even judges can be partial towards the defendant or prosecutors . The racist South was known for that when race was involved .. the whites had that power over non whites ! The Rittenhouse case is also an example of a partial jury and Judge !

[@thomasjensen6243]

It does not limit the government when the government chooses to not abide by the constitution. The 4th Amendment is now so eroded it barely exists.

[@user-mq6yu5qu5k]

You are guilty these days until you're proven innocent the cops the FBI are totally unreal today you don't know which ones you can trust and which ones you can't there's a lot of good ones out there but the 10% a-holes are out to get you no matter what so they can get recognition for themselves I have a son that's in this same situation he was accused human trafficking what she did not do however because he was in a chat room he was picked up by the FBI and has been sitting in jail since October 17th of 2022 he's got a public defender because he is poor and so are we you know that they don't try as hard as an attorney that you're paying if there's someone out there that can help us out please reach out to me by Google or whatever and I will respond to you thank you and God bless

[@ahayseed654]

That's what the 2nd is for.

[@GeoFry3]

2A does not refer to guns. It refers to weapons and tools of war. Guns, knives, clubs, tanks, swords, etc. Not just guns.

[@donttreadonme1423]

​@realstatistician arms was defined in the 1755 Johnson dictionary to mean "weapons of offense or armor of defense." Very similarly defined in the webster dictionary post 2A ratification and in legal dictionaries of the time.

[@jorgemarmolejolu6222]

And also says "a well regulated militia"

[@donttreadonme1423]

@jorgemarmolejolu6222 except that doesnt mean what you think it means. Would you like me to break it all down?

[@jorgemarmolejolu6222]

@@donttreadonme1423 its straightfoward

[@donttreadonme1423]

@jorgemarmolejolu6222 I have read a great deal on the topic. I'm sure you would agree that language is always evolving and one must take the phrasing in context of the time correct? So let's look at the amendment first on wording and with historical context. The full text is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state*, the right of the of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The asterisk is being used here to separate the prefatort clause from the operative clause. The prefatory clause was merely establishing A, as in one of, why. The founders didn't want there to be an all powerful standing military. Why? Bc they had just fought against one and knew the history of this defensive model. The Prussian model of an all poweful centrally controlled military was horrible for liberty of the individual. They wanted instead no single entity to have the power over the masses. Meaning the power had to be with the people. So what did the wording mean? From the recorded writings of the founders during the ratification process it was quite clear that what the militia meant was merely the people. They explicitly stated this many times. The phrase well regulated simply meant "in working order" or "well prepared. " a common phrase in use at the time both before and after. A well regulated clock or a well regulated person. Nothing at all to do with laws or regulations. In fact, perhaps another discussion is the intent of laws and their origin. What we have today is not the original intent. Alas the prefatory clause does not say that there is a collective right nor does it imply limitations at all. Both of which would be at odds with the clear wording of the operative clause. The right is clearly of the people. The word arms was defined in the 1755 Johnson dictionary to mean "weapons of offense or armor for defense" and similarly defined in the webster dictionary post 2A ratification to include "for defense of the body" after the armor portion. The phrase shall not be infringed is also quite clear where infringe meant even a small encroachment. There is not a single recorded bit of history to suggest that the founders intended arms ownership to be a collective right during the time of ratification. Not a single bit of evidence to support that claim. It also wouldn't make sense given the context of the history. Nor would it make sense to interpret the ammendment such that the prefatory and operative clauses were at such odds with each other.

[@CWhite228]

The 2nd ammendment isnt about guns. Its purpose is to mention that the government can not tell you what weapons you can posess or use in any way at all. That is why it uses the word arms rather than specifically saying rifle or musket.

[@firestarter105G]

Arms is anything that can be used in warfare; something the people can and should own.

[@jameswhite9300]

THANK YOU for actually explaining the real meaning behind the 2A (the most important). And by the way, these rights ARE UNLIMITED. “Shall not be infringed” literally means “cannot be limited”

[@garyhall5397]

And....... yet they are.

[@adrienebailey9010]

This administration is trying their best to take away freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.

[@artfimbres576]

Unless they Profile you a Prohibited Possessor, such as an ex convicted felon, a combat veteran, mentally ill person or SMI... Then your Equal Rights and Protection all go out the window.. ..

[@jameswhite9300]

@@artfimbres576 exactly, which is unconstitutional

[@georgelewis9127]

It is actually the right of the individual to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS of our own on our own property and elsewhere, not just to BEAR arms. Some argue that we have a right to BEAR arms only as a member of the militia, which might have the arms locked up in an armory.. That is not the meaning.

[@samuelharris2533]

It's clear we've lost the Fourth Amendment; Law enforcement routinely search homes without warrants, and have no consequences for doing so.

[@Billstoutsellscars]

Please give me an example. Generally a warrantless search is by either exigent circumstance, or by consent

[@CWhite228]

There are examples all over the internet including here on KZbin.

[@travistucker7317]

@Billstoutsellscars "cop came in without a warrant and ricky Bobby was ready" search that on yt

[@travistucker7317]

@@Billstoutsellscars posted yesterday

[@davidvaldes3456]

Depends what judge you ask lol

[@WolfdogsRescue]

You mentioned a “fair & speedy trial”. All I could think about was the J6 political prisoners… And when it says a “right to a fair & impartial jury”. They should find a way to make sure cases involving politics have equally different voting parties. So in NY, DC & Cali all republicans wouldn’t be guaranteed to be guilty regardless of the Lack of evidence.

[@janetbaker7848]

The first part of your statement I agree with but will you please quit trying to cause division with this Left Right Republican Democrat crap!

[@wumps-gaming]

@@janetbaker7848 would be easier if the LEFT quit saying everyone that doesn't agree with them is a fascist, nazi, terrorist etc, etc, etc.

[@whyyeseyec]

@@janetbaker7848 Someone needs a hugggggggggggg...

[@geckogirl_1173]

AGREED!

[@geckogirl_1173]

🤗

[@katiewilliams8528]

This was excellent! My 5th graders will love it. Thank you for being funny, yet appropriate, and for putting this tough stuff on a 10 year olds level!

[@chasthanhburns123]

3:07 The press does not refer to media. "The press" refers to an actual printing press. The printing press was the newest technology of the time and the founders were guaranteeing the people the right to own a press and discriminate the written word. Nowhere in history before the mid 1800's was media, news papers, or journalists ever referred to as press. The first time press was used in writing was in some british dude personal letter to some other guy. From the late 1400" until mid 1800" the press was used in writings was always in reference to a printing press or a press for pressing food for wine. The lack of knowledge in this world even after the entire history is placed into our hands with palm sized internet devices is astounding to me. You people are all so easily brainwashed into believing completely ignorant things it no surprise you all can not even define a woman.

[@frankdux8254]

Good video the only thing I believe you missed was on the 10th amendment it says, or to the people which means the people have the right to disagree over whatever the state say. They hate when you know this everyone will try to tell you you’re wrong any amendment you try to invoke you will get bullied and be told a lie saying you actually don’t have that right

[@dalehill559]

Are you the original, or just useing the name 🤨🌎🇺🇸⚖️🦅😉😎✊, Ayuh

[@egillis214]

Miranda Rights are not part of the Fifth amendment but are also called the Miranda warning and they stem from a 1966 Supreme Court case: Miranda v. Arizona. In the original case, the defendant, Ernesto Miranda, was a 24-year-old high school drop-out with a police record when he was accused in 1963 of kidnapping, raping and robbing an 18-year-old woman. During a two-hour interrogation, Miranda confessed to the crimes. Lawyers would contend that Miranda had not been clearly informed of his rights to have a lawyer and against self-incrimination. Their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court forever changed U.S. criminal procedure.

[@civicsreview5697]

This is a great distinction to make! The original amendment pertains to Due Process and the rights of the accused but does not include 'Miranda Rights'. The basis of the Miranda v. Arizona case did use the 5th amendment to claim Ernesto's rights were violated during the police questioning. Thanks for pointing that out!

[@Useruper2uo]

Needed this refresh of my Rights History is Coool!!! Thanks for the Video🙏🏽🙏🏽

[@jimwatson7404]

Well done! Thanks for going through the entire Bill of Rights

[@seanhenman1078]

What Does the Word “Arms” Mean in the 2nd Amendment? By: TJ Martinell|Published on: Jun 30, 2016|Categories: 2nd Amendment, Constitution 101 Previously I’ve examined what the phrase “bear arms” meant in the Second Amendment. The evidence makes it obviously clear it referenced both military and civilian use of weapons. But what did the word “arms” mean at the time? Today the word “arms” refers collectively to offensive or defensive weapons. The word’s meaning has changed little since it was first used seven hundred years ago. It’s definition has never restricted civilian use of military weapons, including when the Second Amendment was approved. “Arms” comes from Middle English and originated from the Old French word “armes,” which meant “weapons of a warrior.” This word dates back to 1300. “Arms” also originates from the Latin word for “weapons,”arma.” This word was also first used in the 14th Century. (On a side-note, the word “firearms” popped up around 1640 to describe weapons that used gunpowder compared to other arms like bows and arrows) It’s clear the meaning allowed for a very broad definition of what constituted “arms.” The Bill of Rights of 1689 states that the “subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” The last part of the sentence is very telling. It’s a conditional phrase meant to limit the type of “arms’ allowed by Protestant subjects. The limitation imposed meant that the word “arms” had a definition permitting a very wide range of weapons including those the document’s authors decided could be restricted by law. From this we can conclude that the word “arms” referred to weapons found among contemporary military arsenals. In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” Again, the meaning does not exude military weapons. Since the word “arms” means the same thing today as it did centuries ago it’s only logical the authors of the Second Amendment meant the same thing. And unlike the English Bill of Rights, there are no limitations placed on the right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution. Not that it would matter, since it is a natural right not a privilege granted to us by the government. But it removes this one final argument a gun control advocate might make to justify restrictions. But most importantly, the same people who advocated for the Second Amendment preferred an armed populace over a standing army. During the Virginia Ratifying Convention anti-federalist George Mason said the following (bold emphasis added): No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,-yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,-what chance is there for preserving freedom? If you don’t believe your country should have a standing army, it would make sense to advocate a populace have military weapons capable of warding off invasion or mobilizing for war rather than disarming the people and hoping the army doesn’t become a threat to freedom. It’s also why Mason referred to “militia” as the ‘whole of the people, except for a few public officials.” We do not need to explain why we should be allowed to keep weapons used by the military. Those who believe we should have a permanent military with exclusive access to certain types of firearms need to explain how such an arrangement will ensure liberty in contradiction of both common sense and the warnings of founders like Mason. It’s common to hear gun control advocates argue that the founders wouldn’t have included modern firearms under their definition of “arms.” At best this is amusing speculation at best and at worst an argument made in bad faith. It could also be used to justify Internet censorship under the claim the founders were only referring to an 18th Century printing press in the First Amendment. It’s obvious to the intellectually honest that in using the word “arms” the Second Amendment’s writers acknowledged the right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear the same weapons used by soldiers in the military. Our rights are not and should not be be based on the technology at the time those rights were acknowledged.

[@crazysquirrel9425]

Those few public officials have morphed into several MILLION. Cops are not ordinary citizens either.

[@spartansix2323]

Excellent explanation.

[@casperkay8972]

Channel deserves much more subscribers... Still long way to go.. Keep it up Bro!

[@agelissilva9049]

Thanks for this video bro. It gave me a much more clear vision of the bill of rights

[@margaretspurling8162]

Thank you for the basic education on the Bill of Rights.

[@shelteredsparrow2736]

Thank you for making this video The Bill of Rights is something I know I need to know but have not taken the time to do so

[@pkmcd]

Your videos have helped my class so much! Keep up the good work!

[@civicsreview5697]

Thanks for the comments! It means a lot!

[@gregoryk.9815]

One of the things you feel to touch on the fifth amendment domain is they cannot take your property for non-public use which means if they're going to build a new school in your properties there yes they can take it if they're going to build a highway yes they can take it however they cannot take your land and then sell it to McDonald's or Burger King or a gas station or a manufacturing plant or any other thing it has to be public use this cost the state of Connecticut over 150 million a few years back because the landowner sued they were going to build a highway going through his land when that highway project fell through because they had to move it 20 miles away due to some swamp lands that they would have ran into they took the turnaround and sold that land to developers who put McDonald's Burger King Wendy's and a couple of other stores and restaurants and a few gas stations there the man turn around and sued them and won.

[@gregoryk.9815]

Also the punishment has to be cruel and unusual so if public shaming is the way the judge sentences people a lot then it's not cruel and unusual it is just cruel there was a judge not too long ago who was taking people that were getting convicted of speeding in a construction zone and he made them stand along the highway with signs that said please go slow construction workers ahead and they were giving 5 to 10 days of doing that out there it became unusual but it wasn't cruel it actually started to become unusual because more judges started to get on that bandwagon was it cruel and unusual no you can have something unusual like I'm going to make you repaint the building that you graffitied is it cruel and unusual no it's just unusual however you cannot give somebody a cruel punishment such as we're going to draw on quarter you because that would cause physical harm putting somebody in The stockade was used all the way up into the 1940s in the United States it was declared common not cruel or unusual public shaming has a way of fixing a lot of bad behavior up until the 1970s parents could sit on the front porch of their house and spank their children for petty things it's cruel because yeah you're embarrassing the heck out of them but it wasn't unusual up until the 1980s almost 85 I think the principal and teachers of a school could spank a child neither falls under the cruel or unusual and they could do it at an assembly in front of the whole student body

[@peterk8909]

Clear and concise. Since you asked, how about the Federalist Papers?

[@stripmin41]

On the forth not only search and seizure but the government is limited to search only where the warrent alows and only for what is in the warrant. Can't just have a open warrant.

[@blinderb853]

Excellent video! Brief but thorough

[@Harry1s]

I think a good fact to add is that our rights listed and explained within the Bill of Rights were not given to us. They are preexisting as an American citizen. I think all law enforcement officers should be required to pass an extensive test on the Bill of Rights. Based on the hundreds of videos I watch I would say 50% of them could not pass a test on the first 4.

[@55Quirll]

Correct

[@knowledgetalk1024]

wonderful, brief, comprehensive and delivered beautifully

[@isaccastillo8933]

Such a great video. Thanks man.

[@irritatingtruth9121]

Always support 2nd! As soon as you don’t have it, guarantee you’ll wish you did.

[@schtinerbock4570]

The 2nd protects all the other amendments. The 2nd wouldn't be such a hot topic today if the OPPOSITE of "cruel and unusual punishment" didn't happen so much.

[@Timonator3]

Since you mentioned that education was not mentioned in the Constitution, why are some of my taxes going to fund the federal Department of Education? And a bunch of other stuff?

[@THomasJPeel]

EXCELLENT video!

[@jasonbuffington5304]

God Bless and Much Love to all of our American Patriots World Wide who defend our American Rights and liberties every single day in every court in the land . Thank you . We appreciate the work and the sacrifices you make for the average person!

[@Bill-cb4bh]

They make the government more powerful.

[@ahayseed654]

​@@Bill-cb4bh Might be talking about Defence Attorneys, "every court in the land". Not all Patriots wear a uniform.

[@williamhegele2151]

No patriot has a costume on only actors or employees of the corporation.

[@nathanreichwein2031]

The best way the 9th was explained to me is it's the legal clause "Side effects include, but are not limited to, ..." but for rights.

[@TomBarbashev]

"This is not by any means an exhaustive list of all of our rights."

[@flamethrower82]

Dude this is an awesome presentation!! One thing I think that should be noted is that the "well-regulated" part of the 2A didn't mean then what the Supreme Court reinterpreted it as. George Washington saw that many of the farmers were untrained and unskilled in the use of firearms when fighting the British, so he wanted it to be mandatory for people who choose to use a firearm to learn *how* to use a firearm - thus "well-regulated". It didn't imply that the government could choose who can and can't own a gun - that was a modern (possibly intentional?) misinterpretation. As for Eminent Domain, that's where the federalists went wrong. They gave the government way too much power, and introduced a contradiction to the right to own property.

[@civicsreview5697]

I've had a couple of comments on eminent domain and it's misuse. It does seem like an overreach on the governments part. Thanks for the comment!

[@Patrick-qed]

I also think this is a great introduction to the Bill of Rights. On the 2nd Amendment, though, it's only been in the last 15 years that the Supreme Court discovered a personal right to own a gun unconnected with militia service. That would be in the Heller and McDonald cases, and they overruled more than a century of precedent. Before that, for example, Chief Justice Burger had called the idea of a personal right a "fraud" invented by the gun lobby. On the comment rather than the video, well-regulated in the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean well-trained. Training is dealt with separately in the Constitution, and the word regulate (or cognates) is used many times and never to mean train. (And under Heller and McDonald, well-regulated basically means nothing at all.) Training is dealt with in the powers of Congress set out in Art. I, Sec. 8: “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of *training* the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” As for cognates of the word “regulate,” they always mean the same thing: to govern by rules (“reg” being Latin for “rule”). Examples: Art. I, Sec. 4: “The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such *regulations*, except as to the places of choosing Senators.” Art. I, Sec. 8: “To *regulate* commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; *** To coin money, *regulate* the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;” *** To make rules for the government and *regulation* of the land and naval forces;” Art. I, Sec. 9: “No preference shall be given by any *regulation* of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another:” Art. III, Sec. 2: “In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such *regulations* as the Congress shall make.” Art. IV, Sec. 3: “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and *regulations* respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States;”

[@gridtac2911]

​@@Patrick-qed you can't form a militia without THE PEOPLE. Hence "the right of the people to keep and bare arms, shall NOT be infringed". What is it you tyrants don't understand? English? Or the fact in the declaration of independence they specifically say it's our duty, THE PEOPLE, throw off such government and secure new guards for our future. All which would not be possible without.... Drum roll... ARMS. As a Marine vet it disturbs me that people like you exist to further government propaganda and lies. One day, and it will eventually come, we will need those arms to remake the government. Who knows, maybe even you'll understand at that point. It usually takes people a seriously scary event to wake up to what human beings are capable of. I hope you wake up sooner rather than later.

[@matthughey9578]

Great video. Short and interesting. Kept their attention.

[@MatthewBashore-ij1yv]

Excellent!

[@alhanserd2067]

Our National emergency is the people can’t read! But this helps.

[@civicsreview5697]

As a public school teacher, I can confirm this is a national emergency

[@battalion151R]

You should delve into the US Code. As a gun owner that is seeing the constant assault on the Second Amendment by Democrat run cities and states, I refer to Title 18 Section 242. That specifically speaks about anyone who deprives anyone of their rights under color of law, as violating these statutes. Punishment can be as severe as death. We all know that many of the Democrat run states violate this code by infringing on the Second Amendment. The problem is WHO can enforce the US Code, when we've seen New York and New Jersey do everything they can to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling on Bruen.

[@mickturner957]

Title 18 Section 201 prohibits bribing a public official (Congress, President, Cabinet, Military etc)...SO why does Congress leadership get away with bribing their counterparts to get votes on certain legislation...It is ILLEGAL but it occurs with great regularity.

[@jonshannon9624]

How about a video about Constitutional Convention? We need to have one.

[@co44256]

We cannot trust the current regime or crop of politicians with then opening of our constitution. Way too much corruption and propaganda to low that to happen.

[@55Quirll]

Unfortunately, the Constitutional Convention was illegal since it was to Amend the Articles of Confederation not create a new form of Government.

[@lecleland1]

Very well done.

[@Ramonaew]

such a good video thanks

[@alitlweird]

Not just “FIRE” arms… *_ANY_* ARMS. **UP TO AND INCLUDING AR-15s** also included: Sticks -ANY SIZE Stones -ANY SIZE Bricks Shards of glass Knives, Swords, cutlasses, sabers, spears, bows and arrows… etc… ANY AND ALL FIREARMS INCLUDING MACHINE GUNS. And any sort of future laser weapons or any such weapon that has yet to be developed that currently only exists in concept or video game. Period.

[@dmnemaine]

Don't forget the opening phrase of the 2nd Amendment.

[@codyharney2997]

​@@dmnemaine are you speaking of a group made up of every able bodied citizen over the age of 17 to the age of 45 that are not currently serving in state or federal military?? That part, that includes all of us? Maybe it's that part

[@dmnemaine]

@@codyharney2997 No. A militia is a state run and regulated organization. Hence the words "well-regulated" in the 2nd Amendment.

[@MatrixCoreteam]

This is why we need to look at the original meaning of the wording when the second ammendment was written. Well regulated did not mean controlled by the government, it meant well a well operating or functioning militia. Not that it matters as this clause is explanatory in nature. It does not give the states a right to raise a militia. If the founders intended that they would have said so. It protects the people's right to keep and bear arms. The wording itself is clear on that point. If you read the other writings by the framers of the constitution, it is quite clear that they were protecting an individuals right.

[@gridtac2911]

​​@@dmnemaine incorrect. A well regulated militia in the language back then meant well equipped and well functioning... Not the same regulation you're referring to today. It's funny how communists and Marxists' first goal in conquering a country is to control its language isn't it? Funny how that works. If you knew basic English language composition you would understand the militia is made up of the people and for that to be possible they need to have arms. Hence "shall not be infringed". That clause alone refers to regulation in your meaning and how it is unconstitutional to do so. Please read more and get educated, not just indoctrinate with propaganda. However it's understandable why a government that can be overthrown by its citizens would want to remove our RIGHT to keep and bear arms. All you need to do is look at the first two paragraphs of the declaration of independence to see this. It is our duty to throw off such government and secure new guards for our future. How would this be possible if not for the right to keep and bare arms? It wouldn't be now would it? Again try using context and history to form your conclusions, not state run propaganda aimed at securing their place forever in power.

[@nobody6546]

👍🏽🏆👍🏽 and Very Informative & Entertaining, Kudos!

[@Michael-nf1ej]

Excellent! Civics are important! Thanx.

[@mike3000usa1]

I think you should do one on the real jurisdiction of the United States Government and the reality of the superiority clause and the real meaning of the commerce clause.

[@davejohnson6913]

Important , thank you

[@karenkalweit6018]

In 1982 you could not graduate from high school without passing US government class. It was very thorough. I hope it’s still is.

[@sfcmathews32]

Great video that more people should watch.

[@ThanomsriSangho]

I'm very enjoying you video thank you for this is very cool love it thumbs 👍

[@Billstoutsellscars]

There is no such thing as "Miranda Rights." Miranda was a case where the Supreme court decided that a person being accused of a crime, must be advised of his rights prior to questioning by law enforcement.

[@mikebilello6848]

yea, named after a rapist that the government set free... what a joke

[@justinredman4389]

I am so very glad you included that Dave Chappelle skit on the 5th Amendment because that was exactly what I was thinking of what to come after the 4th Amendment.....

[@dont.ripfuller6587]

Top Secret: WTP have the power to nullify. You'll never hear it from the bench, and probably better off not discussing it while you're involved with jury duty etc. But every American needs to have some idea of it. 🦅

[@josephtucciarone6878]

Thank you for being so concise, yet thorough enough to explain our God given rights and how they are limited by the states & federal gov.

[@Warren-fi3gh]

Used this for Section 2.4 with my students. We all absolutely loved it. Excellent job as always! Keep up the great work!!!

[@civicsreview5697]

This comment made my day! Thanks for the awesome comment! =)

[@harryhays113]

He got it wrong! OMFG!

[@DigitalAndInnovation]

The way you explained Grand Jury is probably the reason people so often get confused with jury, grand jury, federal jury, and federal grand jury. Grand jury indites- jury convicts... I don't get why people are still not clearly explaining this... and by clearly I mean just quoting what is written and explaining it in a way that basically is not really the nature of a grand jury and is going to convolute things... may be what they meant in the constitution... but it confse people.

[@raymondfrye5017]

For a criminal case, we have a jury of equals (12 )to the accused. For a civil case we have a judge alone,but a jury can be required in a civil case. In both cases, there are 12 jurors to vote guilty or not guilty. The judge's vote is number 13. The grand jury is a special jury of 23 jurors. They hear evidence presented by the prosecutor alone to determine if there was a crime. If there was a crime, then the accused goes to trial. Same thing happens at a federal level. Of course,of the little bit I know about the legal system, that is about it,and there are exceptions and special circumstances.

[@SJ-lm7xz]

Anyone can bring evidence to a grand jury when they are in session, not just the prosecutor.

[@josephnoll2754]

Great video, wish it existed when learned about civics and government - geek moment; impartial jury of your "peers" who have the same knowledge, training , etc. to assess reasonableness of the defendents actions and behavior... good luck finding those during jury de-selection process used to remove the knowledge experience requisit and impartial mindset in jury pool cattle call.

[@crazysquirrel9425]

Hard to find jurors that have all those items. Especially the knowledge part lol Most jurors are dumber than a box of rocks.

[@kjhuncho4631]

Before I became a citizen (Canadian) I couldn’t wait to say “I know my rights” glad to say I finally did

[@JWPeace_4MyBoys]

Thank you!!!!

[@stanleydepriest9144]

Well done.

[@coryhenry1291]

This is great

[@half-a-man8182]

This was a good video. It used simple English and it was easy to understand; and it was presented in almost a comic strip format. I think that will resonate with, shall we say, the less educated of our citizens.

[@alastermyst]

Unfortunately, our rights are basically meaningless now. Some places in the US have outlaws guns (Chicago for example if memory serves), 3a voilated during covid, 1st 2nd and 4th regularly violated by cops, etc. all without the gov employees responsible being held criminally liable. Which means the bill of rights has been mitigated to the bill of legal defenses.

[@williamhegele2151]

The government is a corporation that has no rights.

[@bmxrider8188]

Excellent video, Thanks for the refresher course.

[@joshualieberman138]

I'm new to the channel, but if you could do a review of how the Supreme Court works that would be super. Come to think of it a review of the Judiciary in general would help. Too many people don't understand how the courts work and as a result view them as just an extension of the various parties and the Supreme Court is NOT that.

[@wallabing]

Learning about the bill of rights (US civics in general) is hard, because every teacher or instructor has personal political bias and tells you stuff in their own way that might be wrong.

[@ahayseed654]

Yes. I experienced this in Jr college in the 70's. I was in my mid 20's, so I was more grounded than the rest who were 18 and 19. Political Science instructor was definitely a leftist. Barely got through that class. I was a democrat back then (Mom & Dad were, soo,) but I knew something was up. I challenged him and he didn't like it.

[@cluelessinky]

2:41 How about using PAPRS?

[@blackgold3800]

Love your video, I’m studying ahead for the police academy. Taking notes 💪🏾💪🏾👩🏽‍✈️

[@artfimbres576]

If you get accepted, don't follow their teachings and what other officers do cuz you'll be Violating Americans Rights.

[@Jimi_Lee]

The cops don't recognize the Bill of Rights. They don't like cops who do, either.

[@johndsmith-gv8zh]

Amazing 🎉

[@jimmybutler1379]

THE CITIZENS THAT STAND UP FOR THEIR RIGHTS NO GOVERNMENT OR COURT WILL NEVER LET OUR RIGHTS BE TAKEN AWAY BY ANY ONE ; EVEN IF IT COME TO BATTLE TO KEEP OUR RIGHTS ! TO MANY DIED TO KEEP OUR RIGHTS OF SELF DEFENSE AND PRIVITE PROPERTY RIGHTS!...

[@DarthDarklorD]

In Loper Bright v Raimondo the 3rd is (and should be) cited to include government.🎉

[@merkules2001]

There are a lot of police officers that need to watch this, and understand it.

[@trustedliving8131]

The very first Right is found in the Declaration of Independence . The Right of the people to alter or abolish their government.

[@duckthepolicemctx]

What happens to case law that was developed according to amendments that have since been repealed

[@georgiabandit1321]

Nice video 👍

[@howitstartsmm]

great info, one question. When the government (our elected public servants) violate the Rights of WE THE PEOPLE, who and how holds the government accountable? For instance if the President denies Rights to citizens or weaponizes government agencies against citizens, specifically, reality, who and how is this corrected?

[@civicsreview5697]

The hope is for checks and balances to kick in and have the other two branches do their job. This is the theory. It doesn't always work in practice. The Anti-Federalists feared this as well when drafting the Constitution. The other failsafe is time itself. The 22nd amendment limits the terms of a president. Should the president deny rights or weaponize the government and go unopposed for four years, the people would then stand up and cast their votes for a new executive leader (running on the platform of putting things back in their place). This is the HOPE. There's nothing saying that it won't all come crashing down either...

[@howitstartsmm]

@@civicsreview5697 Exactly my point that WE THE PEOPLE elected citizens to be the voice of WE THE PEOPLE. If elected public servants do nothing to correct injustices and relying on election cycles, WHY DO WE HAVE THEM? They are supposed to protect the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the rule of law, not tribal political veiw points. Personal agendas by our public servants following mob rule is destroying this Constitutional Republic. This Nation is an experiment started by our founder's who realized it wouldn't work around the world. The Roman Empire was destroyed in the same manner as what is happening here. And I just heard this morning that China and Russia are having joint military training. People wake up!

[@gridtac2911]

In today's climate the only box remaining is the cartridge box. It's just a matter of time. The soap box, ballot box, and jury box has already been all but exhausted. The last remaining attempt is a convention of states. After that.... That's why we have the second amendment.

[@edwardrivera1191]

You Got your Right 1 2 4 And 5 Bill about Your Right

[@larrystandridge]

So if these were the Bills of Rights why did the 16th amendment pass that violates these rights and also violates the 13th amendment. Then the supreme court has multiple times upheld the right of the government lay tax on income which is a seizure of property even though we have not been duly convicted of a crime and violate due process as with the IRS you are guilty until proven innocent. I just do not understand how they can right Congress has the power to lay tax on income and ratify it without respect for the Bill of Rights that the language of the 16th amendment violates and additionally makes every single person in the United States a involuntary servant of the federal and state governments in violation of the 13th? The 13th also specifically mentions any jurisdiction where the US government operates therefore making state income taxes illegal. Taxing income is taxing labor per the federalist papers and was considered a form of slavery which is why the 13th amendment that ended slavery specifically mentions involuntary servitude along with making slavery illegal. It is clear that the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights for a reason and the tyrants in the last 120 years have ignored them and have paid off legislatures and courts to keep that power they have taking illegally.

[@user-hn9sp9dq7q]

The 4th Amendment also pertains the seizure of your person. Meaning you cannot be detained without Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of committing a crime. The 6th Amendment also pertains to your right to have an attorney present during any questioning by law enforcement.

[@DoggosAndJiuJitsu]

As important as the Amendments is not misusing them to wage lawfare against political opposition. 9-0, baby! Sorry, Colorado, Illinois, Maine.

[@skydivingcomrade1648]

Where do rights come from? Who was the first to acknowledge rights? What are the distinct differences between natural rights, God given Rights, and civil rights?

[@jamessveinsson6006]

Have you done the Magna Carta yet ? That’s kind of the British version of the bill of rights!

[@madysonmarquette7]

do a vid in State National

[@madeintexas4620]

Is the existence of the IRS constitutional?

[@clayedwards987]

Would have been nice to have discussed the two that did not make the cut, especially since one came back later.

[@user-mr8ei6kf9z]

Thanks to you now i have to do hw

[@wraithTAS]

I think the third amendment should be modified to include economic migrants, or illegal immigrants. Because there have been many examples of the federal government getting close to forcing people to house others regardless of the homeowners wishes. The federal government has already forced certain hotels to do that, and is only one step away from forcing private citizens to do that with their homes as well. It wouldn’t be nearly as useless an amendment.

[@joseluispcastillo]

1:03 It was no simple pinky promise, but maybe a pinky promise would have sufficed. In any event, it was an iron-clad contractual *agreement* in writing, enforcable in any open court of Law between the representatives of the People and the Government. The government made an offer to govern the People and the People agreed to be governed by the government under the terms of the Constitution.

[@aashi1539]

best best best !❤❤❤

[@kenshutes6032]

I'm wondering how civil asset forfeiture is legal.

[@stewarta5993]

time to amend the 2nd.

[@MasterPhilip616]

Salad Fingers at the window earned you a thumbs up before I even finished the video. 😂👍🏻

[@civicsreview5697]

Ha! First person to mention that reference. You get +25 points!

[@CourtofRecord]

*THATS NOT THE 9TH!!! Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.*

[@ImNotHereToArgueFacts]

6th Amendment Nature & cause is not only who and what. A "judge" will ask if you understand the charges, but they never inform you of the nature (jurisdiction) as they are required. Is it an Article 1, 2, or 3 court?

[@billyramirezhealthybydesig5188]

Good explanation of jan 6

[@manuellandavazo973]

It would be interesting for you to review all the rights that the Jan 6 defendants are being denied

[@firestarter105G]

They are political prisoners being held to make an example of those who dare question democrats and their fraudulent elections.

[@geckogirl_1173]

💯 %!!!

[@tava7886]

I hope they rot in jail, inbreeds! Trump’s going to prison 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@chrissauter7501]

There is an exception to the double jeopardy. It affects only active duty military and retired military as the military courts are seen as a separate court system. I was one time a bailiff on a courts martial. The person had already been found guilty in regular courts and served his prison time upon release from regular prison. He was re-arrested by CID with a writ of return to active duty, given a courts-martial, found guilty (other conviction used as evidence too) and remanded to Ft Leavenworth Disciplinary Barracks for 8 years ALL FOR THE SAME EXACT CRIME.

[@solcloudchaser4988]

The drivers license issue falls under the uniform commercial code. Any incorporated state must also require a citizen of the United States to obtain a drivers license. The state basically only chooses the age limit.

[@Just_An_Idea_For_Consideration]

Intent of Apportioned Representative Districts IDEA FOR DISCUSSION: “APPORTIONED REPRESENTATION” What was the INTENT, Reasoning and Purpose for the APPORTIONMENT clause, in the U.S. Constitution? If the Apportionment Clause was Intended to create Apportioned Districts, the Purpose of which was to Elect a Representative, to actually REPRESENT the views of the citizen constituents that reside within that Representative District, then wouldn’t ANY INFLUENCE from citizens (or non citizens) which Reside OUTSIDE of that defined Representative District, be an INFRINGEMENT, upon the Constitutional RIGHTS, of the Citizens which are Constituents of that Representative District? This might be a great topic for discussion! Just an Idea for Consideration! Thanks

[@richardmadonna5886]

You also failed to mention In the 2nd amendment that extends to not just guns but knives and tasers ect. And in the 4th amendment they cannot search your house you're persons in this also extends to your cars