*"The moment you hear the words "Freedom" and "Democracy" - Watch out! in a truly free nation, no one has to tell you you're free.”* ~ Jacque Fresco 1916-2017
@@torstimyle1355 An oxymoron, yes. Even more Scientific is the fact that there is no such thing as freedom within a Universe Governed by Laws. Newton had to find that out the hard way! "DONK!" Ha ha!
@@calderarecords I agree... I think freedom is illusion to keep the mass in support of democracy. Freedom has limitations... How can one be free but still limited? An oxymoron!
@@calderarecords Yeah.... His Venus project looks like some dystopia from The Giver. One of the things he gave in his United Nations pitch was about bragging about how much freedom people will get from HIS community projects 🙄🙄😒
I hate the false narrative of “today’s values” or “modern rights”. Indigenous societies have always managed to provide for their people while protecting the environment, etc. since before the U.S. was conceived and imposed. Taking care of human health, the environment, etc. is not new values or new ground, it’s ground to reclaim.
Yes but not everyone had access to the same health care 100, 200, 300 etc years ago. Nowadays we are a tad more conscious and understand everyone should have access to health care.
@@raquelnunes9793 we didn’t have the technology but access to medicine at the time in some cultures was common. In Paleolithic and Neolithic societies it was virtually required to provide care for those around you if you wanted to survive.
The Presidential system of government aka the American style of democracy is not suitable for having multiparty system. Do you know why? In a Western European and British democracy democracy called Parliamentary system and Semi-Presidential system called French style of democracy or Hybrid Parliamentary -Presidential system they have political party disciplinary whereas the Presidential system aka American style of democracy doesn't have that kind of procedures every lawmakers have their own trip.
@@anthonyrobinson6590 That's how American political system works. Presidential system that use multiparty system leads to sugarcoating or flipflop in the politics the best example the Philippines. You see that multiparty system wont work in American style system of democracy aka Presidential system.
Yeah, the states have been selling its peoples rights out for generations to the federal government. In the constitution, we have the right to free travel on a public roads by automobile regardless of having a license or not, but the federal government will try to tell you otherwise. The DMV is a federal corporation, no wonder they dont want people to know.
People - Why you go at war with Iraq U.S congress - Because they have “wmds” People - Ohh “alright ” so why don’t you go ahead and do the same to Russia? U.S congress - Can’t, simply due to the fact that they actually have wmds. People - Confused pikachu face.
It all makes sense now!! This vid paired with your comment, it's clear that Henry Ford's vision in the 40's is actually America....always has been. Crap!! The realization!!
And yet there are hawks in the US government who wants to go to war with China over Taiwan -- China has WMDs and a way stronger military/economy. Not to mention that's an unresolved civil war that they have no business in.
All Govts work under the G7 table. Playing roles, conflicts, pandemics & whatever else is needed to move the masses into shape. 1 global mafia. Soon to retire letting A.I Governance manage it all
I think it's very clear, you need to stop an unstable country from getting to the level that you can no longer remove their WMDs, or you get to the point where trying to remove them would kill millions if not billions
@@djayt1215 I agree. Realize that Govts use these technology's as control or "excuse" to push the next program/agenda etc WMD's = FEAR and fear is a vital tool in Govts favor....WMD+AIDS+Covid19 etc. Also, each govt has its creditor/proprietor/owner that calls the shots. Church & State(Govt) are genius concepts/tools in itself & believe each has a boss behind the curtains. It's all a controlled show & nobody knows exactly who the true "owners" are.
The Israel lobby AIPAC tweeted : June 23, 2022. Thank you House Appropriations Subcommittee for fully funding $3.3 billion in security assistance to Israel. Another 3.3 billion for Israel while we're struggling with record inflation. 🎖️👏
Why does the U.S. continue to feed the monster that is Israel's government? Israel's government has failed for the fifth time in three years, and Netanyahu cares about power, not the people of Israel or Palestine.
We’re scheduled to give Ukraine millions a day now and apparently have been giving them billions for years now. We’re screwed. I want to leave America. The irony is that past 2030, Russia has the best geographical location regarding climate change. Definitely screwed.
Well, first of all there has been at least a *dozen* major empires in the world between the time of Rome and the U.S. In Europe alone we had the Byzantine Empire (East-Rome), the Spanish Empire (the first true world spanning empire), the French Empire and the British Empire (dominated almost the entire 1800's). Then there is the Sassanid Empire (neo-Persian), the Abbasid Califate and the Ottoman Empire - all of which contributed greatly to today's maths, medicine, metallurgy and astronomy. Empires all rise, have a prime and decline. They however all have one thing in common: They leave a lasting footprint in history and following cultures and empires carry the torch/baton. This is something mere people with their short lifespans have difficulties understanding. Most people have little to no understanding of world history so therefore it's not at all surprising they have very little understanding of where our 60 seconds and 60 minutes come from, where numbers come from, how democracy was first implemented and when and how modern science emerged. The Romans were inspired by the Greeks (who had dominated the Mediterranean prior to them). The Greeks were inspired by the Phoenicans, Persians and Egyptians. Those in turn had followed the footsteps of the early Mesopotamian cultures/empires. Sumerians, Assyrians and Babylonians. Even if the United States itself might decline in importance as a county, its culture and inventions will live on with others. That is leaving a lasting footprint.
@@paulallen8109 some important points… but in the same context, what legacy do you think the Mongols left behind? I’m not sure that lasting legacy is a relevant definition of empire. If only empires that were able to build things out of stone and hence recorded by future generations can be counted as empires, then that seems really limited and would exclude quite large portions of the world including South America, Africa and Asia. I’m dwelling this tiny point because I think it’s quite important. I’m not convinced that the Germans or the Dutch for example will be remembered as empires in 500 years.
@@paulallen8109 CANZUS (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United States), as well as the British Commonwealth, still exist. These are colonies where colonists greatly outnumber Indigenous peoples due to deliberate genocidal and racist policies. I know there has been branding to suggest they are separate, but they are ongoing parts of the British empire that allow British worldviews to dominate large portions of the world. This is modeled after the Roman empire which didn't really end, but also changed form. Roman Christianity (not only Catholicism, but the British and other denominations from that) continue to spread Roman Christian worldviews. The Bishop of Rome is coming to what some call "Canada" again this summer to apologize for the activities of a few of its citizens, but never to actually apologize for the ongoing atrocities that are committed in the name of that empire, including those specifically authorized by the position of the Bishop of Rome. Once you convert individuals to your worldviews, including through forced conversion that is one of the activities listed in the UN genocide convention, then you don't need centralized control by a specific government in order to retain effective power.
@@lekudos An excerpt from Business Insider "Why The Mongols Were The Greatest Empire In History": "They kept a diverse governance and learned from every avenue possible. A lot of world's technology growth (including the dissipation of gunpowder, paper, and the printing press to much of Europe) happened as a direct result of their conquests. In short, they helped greatly shape the world we live in." I mean, maybe Google this question next time?
There's one thing you didn't speak on and that's racism. It doesn't matter what statistics you pull from polls that show how much we all agree with each other. When "some" people see the faces of the people "they" actually agree with, "they" get cold feet to stand for what's right due to racism that's been micro dosed to "them" along with fear mongering from the "establishment" that shifts focus from progression to complacency.
Close...society believes in the power held by rich whites; know they can't achieve it so enforces the 'at least I'm not non-white ' 2 EVERYONE'S vast detriment. A woman can earn as much as a man (when women were accepted into careers at higher rates; salaries became confidential; how do u know u r getting equal treatment if u can talk about it)? Very unlikely.
Racism is thinking that all people of color are the same and are all victims of racism when some people are intelligent and law abiding while other people are trash. If we are talking about blacks and Hispanics they don't even always speak the same language and yet Americans want to pretend they are all the same witch is the very definition of racism..
I'm an attorney, so I approach this question as both a lawyer and citizen. I do worry that the Constitution is not working adequately for this country. When the gun control issue is raised, that seems patently obvious. But, in my view, much of the problem arises from some very dubious constitutional interpretation by the federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court. But there is an alternate argument that has a good deal of merit that the constitution is not functioning adequately, and cannot be amended to sufficiently keep up with the pace of human change. In any case, an intelligent discussion on this issue must be both long and intelligent. I'm pretty worried about this.
As an almost-law student too stubborn on what school I had to attend but didn't make after my LSAT''s, I totally agree with you. It's almost an outer body experience, to feel like we're in a giant time machine that's headed back in time. Turning 68 soon, and many my age may not care, but what's worse is that our young people will be affected in ways I dare not imagine, and all young folks must delve into U.S. and world history, because I believe it's of major importance to where we are now, and helped led us to an ill-functioning Constitution. It's obvious the rich, the Republicans and many Democrats have hidden their hate for democracy, waiting for the right time to fully and suddenly hurl that revelation to the masses and the world, so we now feel like the sky is falling. The Constitution's regressing to the time of its inception, as many of its tenets and core principles, later amended or not, began being violated much earlier than most Americans realize, but too many world leaders see right through that. The right to a speedy trial is only one example that's led us to become a prison nation. Not enough Americans realize the depth of shattering basic human and civil rights in an extremely conservative Supreme Court. The U.N. is virtually useless, only succeeding in what it was created to do, make Israel a nation state. The world sees our hypocrisy, and is no longer afraid to blatantly state it. They see the vast flaws of our self-proclaimed superiority, when our actions have done quite the opposite. Whee we could once point (albeit in the shadows) and boast of our Constitution, we've failed by not using it as a living document not meant to forever stand as written. Time doesn't stand still, or we'd still be living in the eighteenth century. Please forgive my long reply, and kindly correct me if I'm wrong. (I blame my passions and disappointments.)
@@GladysAlicea its not the constitution itself that is the problem, but the federal governments erosion of rights and corporated status pushing social indoctrination instead of being used as a system of checks and balances. Social issues are a matter of the states and should be decided by WE THE PEOPLE, not the corporate entity United States Inc. States decide these things by the people beliefs in each state, but most people dont recognize this as the strength of the Constitution, because federal top-down legislation is in and of itself the same a dictatoral rule. Im not trying to offend anybody by bringing up Roe vs. Wade, but the job of congress is not legislative but judicial, meaning they dont make law they just read the constitution and decide whether decision is upheld by the constitution. Since it was not explicitly recognized, the decision was handed back to WE THE PEOPLE, to decide in our individual residing states. This is why the checks and balances system works, or else you have courts making up laws and federal government control over you instead of you deciding what laws you want implemented according to where you live. Another example is our right to free travel on public roads and highways, a right eroded by the federal corporation known as the DMV, now requiring us to be licensed and denouced as a right and made a "privilege". If you have anymore to add or correct please feel free to do so
@@dasillyo2786 you wrote that the job of Congress is not legislative but judicial. Is that a typo? Did you mean to write that the supreme court's job is not legislative but judicial? Because the Congress' job is definitely not judicial because there is a judicial branch. The supreme court and the district court's at the federal level and the state court's at the state level.
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
02:26 "The Founders could never have dreamt of the vast population differences that state would have in 21st century". Well, already in 1790 there was 750,000 people in Virginia and just 60,000 people in Delaware. I think difference in more than 12 times can be considered "vast".
Forreal, these are the same guys that said black people were worth 3/5ths of a person, and they only considered them people so that rich white guys would have more power.😒
James Madison, one of the framers of the constitution, famously remarked government ought to be structured to “protect the minority of the opulent against the majority”. Yes, that is why the U.S. uniquely produces such a disparity of wealth as opposed to the more social democratic nation-states of Western and Northern Europe.
@@JK-gu3tl I get less than 14k €/year and because of that I pay 0% taxes, still I have access to cheap healthcare. On other if you earn a lot your tax% is very high, also don't get caught speeding because you will get fattest speeding ticket you've ever seen. Highest I have ever had to pay was two 80-90€ bills for removing all 4 wisdom teeth surgically. Greetings from Finland.
The US constitution is the most stable, freedom loving constitution ever devised. It does need changing, but not at the expense of European Americans, or at the expense of sustainable economic growth. All moral debts are to be paid by European Americans, including economic ones, which in the name of harmony, stability, equality and equity sounds fine, but in several non-economic areas the Woke DON'T want equality or equity toward those they hate, by the law, whether de facto or de jure. None of them would let European Americans participate in humorous stereotype culture even when economic equity averages are established. Current minority communities seem to think white people shouldn't be alarmed about what they basically see as a quickly approaching and half realized Stalinist dystopia where they can whisper their opinions in their closets assuming their homes, computers, and phones aren't all bugged, all in an ethnic hierarchy based on who had been wronged by their ancestors. Without reaching out to a well-meaning, free (obviously not to extreme hatefulness or real emotional damage) white community there will never be peace or win-win policies in this nation.
US constitution for how old it is, it is quite decent. There are words in there that I do love. "I hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal". I do love that phrase but even after the implementation it took 100 years to get rid of slavery. But constitution at the end of the day is just paper, India has constitution written by a Dalit that makes caste illegal but still caste is prevalent today. constitution is not a magic letter that changes society in an instant.
A good observation, but just so you know, the line about "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal" is NOT in the Constitution. That is taken from the Declaration of Independence in 1776. A document more radical and ambitious in its tone, but really not binding in any way. Less so than the very problematic Constitution.
The all men being equal only affected those classes as men, any of a race other than white where not classed as people, any that where not major land owner's where not classed as people.
The Indian Caste system was slowly leaving, until the UK stuck it everywhere they could. India would be a totally different place, had it not been colonized by a bunch of white men who thought themselves superior to every other race.
Anyone claiming the Constitution is outdated is too morally and ethically primitive to understand how principles work. The principles laid out in the Constitution will ALWAYS work, because they are fundamental rules you can apply to anything, and come out with the right answer.
"Multiracial democracy" is something the USA will never be. It will collapse first before it becomes one. Also, the "undemocratic" elements of the Constitution exist specifically to avoid the country into becoming a tyranny of the majority, which is not necessarily bad if it weren't for the fact that the USA always was a tyranny of the majority, at least in racial and religious terms.
“Tyranny of the majority” lead to tyranny of the minority in the US aka extreme wealth inequality slavery Jim Crow etc not something I would want or anyone.Minority of course here doesn’t mean the actual minorities it means the rich lol.
Actually, you just listed things - time, health care, et cetera - that would NOT be changed, if the Constitution were enforced. All of the Federal regulations regarding those things are unconstitutional, ergo illegal. Daylight saving time is unconstitutional. Federal interference in health care is unconstitutional. Any limit on gun ownership is unconstitutional.
Yes, you're right. Only a charismatic leader can make such a substantial change. Just like Augustus who changed the constitution of the Roman Republic, or Cosimo de Medici who changed the constitution of the Republic of Florence.
The US Constitution IS NOT the oldest document of this kind. The Magna Carter is, which was written in the 13th century. It is what most of British Commonwealth and former colonies base their legal systems on, including the US. If you're going to talk about documents signed by few important people that creates rule of law for an entire country, get the origin of it right. The Magna Carter was created by disgruntled barons who was dissatisfied by their King. Now that sound familiar doesn't it?
Saying it isn't anymore is an exaggeration however I do believe we aren't far away from our democracy being too weak to function. America will unlikely be nothing more than a non functioning democracy.
It'll be a functioning totalitarian state. It already is. No one even bats an eyelash when a Supreme Court Justice actually prompts Republicans to bring before the courts challenges to the right to same sex marriage and to the right to use contraception. Prohibition of same sex marriage and the use of contraception is such a sure thing that he feels totally at ease just casually tacking what is a blatant signal, instruction even, to proceed with the agenda. It's a clear call to hurry up and get the formalities out of the way so we can get these backwoods, knuckledragger, draconian prohibitions on the books and written in stone.
If the ancient Greeks were alive right now, they would consider our government an oligarchy because unlike in Athens where everyone had to vote for a law to pass which is a real democracy, in the US every state votes for the people who represent us, that is considered an oligarchy by the ancient Greeks.
While I do agree that there should be reform for things like term limits for supreme court judges, and reform if not abolishment of the electoral college, I disagree with the sentiment that the "founding fathers" wanted total control. If that were the case, we wouldn't have had the second amendment from jump. We can elect people into Congress and the presidency who can make decisions. And if the government betrays our trust and becomes truly tyrannical we can topple it and start anew. Again, I'm not saying our current system can't or shouldn't be reformed.
Second amendment didn't really all that much power to people at the time. Since it was near immediately followed.... based on the regulated militia part by enacting official government militia formation acts. With punishments, if one didn't show up to militia inspection with the needed equipment. It wasn't right to own a gun, it was duty. You literally got fined for not showing up annually to militia inspection. That is why the 2nd amendment existed. Because the new country was so broke it couldn't afford to equip a government armed militia. So instead say said... you can own arms.... oh and actually by the way demand you own arms and appear to militia inspection and follow the orders of the government run militias commanders. People often forget Militia acts of 1792 is a thing and how epxansive and demanding the rovisions were for the citizenry. Interpreting 2nd amendment jointly with said 1792 laws puts in emphasis exactly how much the government had nothing to fear of allowing gun ownership. since anyone starts brandshing weapons, just muster the militia and actually conscript the complainers also. Sorry but you cant point those guns at us. we just conscripted you and we tell you point the gus that way. otherwise our militia over there will shoot you to death.
It was for militias dimwit. Democracy was the last thing the founders( stop calling them your daddies) wanted. The biggest problem is dimwits like you who don’t know their own country’s history and incorrectly think they have anything of value to contribute 🤦🏻♀️
Yes, the United States is a democracy, since we, the people, hold the ultimate political power. We’re not a “direct democracy,” but we are a “representative democracy.” This is where our history education might add some confusion. We are commonly taught that democracy is a product of ancient Greece. It’s their word - demokratia - after all. The city-state of Athens is credited with implementing a system of government of and by the people, whereby eligible citizens would congregate to make decisions. They’d make these decisions themselves (or “directly”), not through any elected representatives. That system of government, better understood today as direct democracy, lives on in the United States in the form of ballot initiatives and referenda. Some states and localities afford their citizens the right to use these measures to directly enact, change, or repeal laws themselves. More commonly, we exercise our political power in a different way: by voting in elections to choose our representatives. That’s representative democracy. The Constitution does not use the term “democracy.” It’s true. But as Eugene Volokh notes in the Washington Post, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Justice James Wilson and Chief Justice John Marshall all used the word. These scholars understood representative democracy - the American variety - to be democracy all the same. Is the United States a republic? Yes. The United States is a republic because our elected representatives exercise political power. History also tells us that Rome was a republic, unlike Athens. When its monarchy was overthrown, Rome developed a republican system of government whereby citizens elected officials who were empowered to make decisions for the public. That’s the core of how our government works. While “democracy” and “republic” have been historically pitted against one another, the reality is that the two terms enjoy considerable overlap.
Its not suppressing the voice of more people. Its giving equal representation to all regardless of how much or little a Senators city/district is. Most people living in Los Angeles are going t vote on things that benefit and fit their own community needs and the farmers in the Midwest with little population numbers will have no say so in national elections. Most of the countries food come from these areas that are the minority of voters. You cant change the constitution of the land based on popularity alone because NYC and LA would end up deciding the election every time lol.
The 17th amendment changed all that. Their ability to restrain went away now that the people get to vote for Senate. The amendment that took us from a Republic to a Democracy.
I'm not saying that the US government isn't flawed, but the designers of the us government didn't want the majority to oppress the minority. Which is ironic because it was also a time when slavery was legal and they had no rights.
That exactly is the point! The constitution was basically written by land owners and other rich influential people to protect themself from the growing influence of the poor minorities while creating an illusion that the poor majority is in control! If the population had actual power non of the billionaires (Oligarch) in the US would even come close to power and several popular want and needs like security, health care, afordable education etc would have long been implemented. To know that a democracy failed we just need to figure out if the law passed are approved by the majority of citizens
USA is nothing even close to democracy, they have two political parties system, that is totally insane. Small countries in Europe who have 3 to 7 milion citizens, they have 10 to 12 different political parties. And that is real democracy, because nobody can have total control over so many different parties. And on top of that USA have dozens of different police agencies, the other countries have one to max two police agencies. And those police agencies are created for only one purpose, for the government' to have total control over the ordinary people. And the worst thing of all is that the American people are really believing that they have some kind of freedom and human rights.
I should have known that the world democracy index is inaccurate. It says that the USA is democratic, but considering the two party majority, electoral college, Gerrymandering and others, people in my country would say this is undemocratic.
The USA is a federal republic of 50 sovereign states, not a democracy of its collective population. It surprises me that so many people don't realize what this distinction means.
The US states are not sovereign states, unlike the European states. US states have no autonomous representation internationally, they do not set monetary, defense, immigration policies. They are equivalent to regions and provinces in other countries. Are Quebec, Sicily, Bavaria, uri canton sovereign states? No. The USA is not centralized as France. It is a federation of non sovereign states.
I propose a competition between all law schools and relevant institutions for the honor of writing the next USA Constitution and some prize money provided by the billionaires. Obviously, the country would go through the necessary process of adopting it. I envision a two-year contest; it would be very educational for the country, and we could end up fixing all the problems we have with today’s document.
Well as a Filipino, I don't really know much about the US constitution. One thing is for sure, America is really having a lot of problems, most recently, gun shooting problems which people somewhat defend.
@@blessing5173 Eh when it comes to Filipinos like us, we're willing to accept any job that offered a big salary despite the dangers since jobs here are much harder to get and only offered minimum wages.
@@juliust.gayagas4022 Which is hindi dapat kc ang centralized government ay best suited for countries with one patch of land. Ang Pilipinas ay isang archipelago na madaming kultura, lahi at language. Evident naman na Luzon Lang ang masyadong natutugunan ng Manila Kaya nga tawag ng iba eh Imperial Manila.
Besides the issues that we may have with the setup of our government/elected people.my issue is that we're still making alot of laws and rules based on religion &personal feelings Instead of science & liberty/freedom for all. Emotion and religion shouldn't be part of the equation at all when making laws and decisions. We're all human but it's a discipline we all need to learn. You can still have your personal beliefs/feelings and religion but put that to the side when you go to work. 🤷
When talking about the constitution/amendment is only two things: Guns and abortion. If guns were illegal and abortion was legal/absolute (all states) then the constitution would be fine for so many. But i bet ppl wouldn't change the 14 amendment (automatically a citizen just being born in usa soul) or politician wouldn't change the 16th amendment where all citizens are required to pay taxes.
Correct, the US is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. It even says in the Pledge of Allegiance, "for the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation..." It was never designed to be a Democracy. If we were a true Democracy, California would pretty much be the only vote/voice in the US due to its sheer population size. By having equal representation, the states that have 1 million people can have a voice against the 40 million California has. To be clear, I'm not for or against it, I'm just saying this is why it's designed this way, so that every state has a voice. Otherwise we should just change the name of the US to the United States of California.
I don't know why people are expecting CANZUS (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United States) to be healthy democracies. The idea that they are is government propaganda to hide the truth. These are settler-colonial governments imposed by Britain or British citizens (when they didn't even want to obey British laws) which are founded on the notion that British and other Europeans are superior to everyone else and should impose their worldviews in a constitution and other laws. That concept can't last without proof, but these governments still exist, so they have to have well established Eurocentric systems to ensure that worldviews outside of those of European Christian worldviews can't actually ever influence the core of the legal and other systems. In other words, if they were democracies, they would no longer be able to be settler-colonial governments, and would be replaced. I believe the right thing to do is allow/encourage these governments to fade away as part of Decolonization, LandBack and CashBack, allowing the more mature domestic Indigenous governments CANZUS is oppressing to regain clear jurisdiction. Time for settlers to go gradually go through an honest immigration and naturalization process.
@@maureenjackson2041 At the time of the founding of "Canada" and "United States", Europeans (white people) were a minority and yet these Eurocentric governments were still imposed to subjugate the majority.
@Imperivm Evropa Ranked by who? The United States and Canada created a movie genre called a "Western" in order to whitewash their ongoing genocide. Many people believe this propaganda as the marketing power of these colonial occupations is massive. I live in the northern part of this continent, which the peoples around where I have lived my life call Turtle Island. I am fully aware of agencies such as the Five Eyes which is the CANZUS colonies and their parent Britain, which exists to continue to protect these occupying forces from anything resembling justice. "A small number of white men in a white minority part of the world" is not the origin story of a democracy.
I'm indigenous and I think is one of the dumbest proposals I've ever heard of. It's also very dishonest. People alive today are NOT settlers. They were born and raised here as well. They are not responsible for their ancestors crimes.
@Imperivm Evropa Your thinking is flawed. First, a democracy can exist without the people voting directly for legislation. Having representatives is still a democracy, an indirect democracy. All a democracy means is the people having the power. Second, your criticism of democracy can be used against a Republic as well. The representatives can vote to take away our rights. And in that case we are subject to the minority. So how is that any better?
Leave my guns alone....because of this right I choose to live here and employ 700 people... don't coddle, lock up for long periods those who break gun laws and don't piddle around doing it.
This is an excellent video. The slavish worship that people (largely MAGA on the right) have for the Constitution reminds me of people who use the Bible to define their worldview. (But of course, it's always a very selective interpretation of the Bible, conveniently ignoring some passages, while getting caught up on others.)
If the Left can have a slavish worship of the Communist Manifesto than others can have reverence for our Constitution that protects us from them.Same goes for the lefties who are very selective in Bible interpretation that conveniently ignores their sinful lifestyle and choices.Things work both ways
@@richlopez5896 - I've literally never read the "Communist Manifesto," and I frankly wasn't even sure it was a thing until you said it just now. Your response is unintentionally comical, and I can only assume that it comes from watching Fox News and Alex Jones all day. The only thing you left out is how Democrats have horns and drink baby blood.
This is disturbingly biased. I would be okay with that if it was presented or acknowledged as such. But this is far from objective. Just biased editorializing.
It actually says 3/5ths of all other persons. The mentioned people are those who are free or indentured for labor for a set term of years. It doesn’t say anything about the race of those who are not free.
National-Power is a representative democracy, while the Nation itself is a Federal Republic. Same goes for federal states, wich are semi-sovereign unitary republics. Municipalities wich are civil governments and the best example of what a democracy is.
Small states would not want to be in a union where they will get ruled over by the large states. That was the whole point of the system and it remains to this day.
Worst fault is when corporations are afforded 'personhood' interpretation of Fourteenth Amendment, further declared corporations can without limit, finance political causes. Money can buy political influence without limit.
@@rwarts5150 17th Amendment: if they do not see me, they might think they are a Republic still. 17th amendment took us from a Republic to a Democracy by letting the masses vote for Senate when they were appointed before.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist." -Lysander Spooner
"And the whole power of the government must be limited to the maintenance of that single principle. And that one principle is justice. There is no other principle that any man can rightfully enforce upon others, or ought to consent to have enforced against himself. Every man claims the protection of this principle for himself, whether he is willing to accord it to others, or not. Yet such is the inconsistency of human nature, that some men --- in fact, many men --- who will risk their lives for this principle, when their own liberty or property is at stake, will violate it in the most flagrant manner, if they can thereby obtain arbitrary power over the persons or property of others. We have seen this fact illustrated in this country, through its whole history --- especially during the last hundred years --- and in the case of many of the most conspicuous persons. And their example and influence have been employed to pervert the whole character of the government. It is against such men, that all others, who desire nothing but justice for themselves, and are willing to unite to secure it for all others, must combine, if we are ever to have justice established for any." - Lysander Spooner
Referring to Blue&Yellow “If you are losing sleep over this conflict and are stressed, Just imagine this happening in Africa but worse, Imagine this happening in the Middle East and Asia but much worse, Imagine Russia is the U.S and Ukraine is Palestine”. - Sergey Lavrov, Gotta respect the response and appreciate that statement for calling out the double standards.
I mean white isn’t the right term when using the founding. Plenty, most of the whites also were disregarded as well. Basically anyone from Eastern Europe, let’s not forget the denial of workers rights for the polish settlers who were some of the original colonists as well. Anyone who wasn’t a Protestant as well, had a hard time. Not as hard as peoples of colored but to also make it sound like the door was open to everyone, that’s not true. My Irish and German ancestors I’m sure had just the best time dealing with English, in the Americas, and my ancestors from Puerto Rico had their own story. It’s just not a genuine way of making this understood. Again it’s power in smaller hands.
White isn't just the color of one's skin. In that case, many Middle Eastern people would be considered white too. "White" then and now was a social construct / social class made up of many different elements, including religion. At that time, Slavs and the Irish weren't really considered "white" or deserving of white privileges, but that has obviously changed over time.
8:06 FDR wanted to implement a so-called “Second Bill of Rights”, which he proposed in 1944, that would have guaranteed most of these rights to all US citizens. Conservatives (from both major parties) were adamantly opposed to it, and with the obvious priority being the war, he wasn’t able to garner enough support for it, so it was never passed.
You hit the nail on the head. This helps to explain most of the problems that keep cropping up. Check gun laws and abortion rights for example. Wake up America.
abortion is not a right its homicide. I'm so glad america reformed roe vs wade but i agree with you on the gun reform issue. the 2nd amendment needs a huge reform or else gun violence and deaths will just keep increasing.
WOW VERY DANGEROUS I WILL NEVER GO TO USA !😠😠 THIS WHY IM SO LUCKY LIVE IN SUPER INDIA 🤗🇮🇳 THE CLEANEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD , WE NEVER DO SCAM AND WE GIVE RESPECT TO ALL WOMEN THEY CAN WALK SAFELY ALONE AT NIGHT AND WE HAVE CLEAN FOOD AND TOILET EVERYWHERE 🇮🇳🤗🚽, I KNOW MANY POOR PEOPLE JEALOUS WITH SUPER RICH INDIA 🤗🇮🇳🤗🇮🇳🤗🇮🇳🤗
I think the biggest problem with US constitution is its inability to adapt and difficulty to amendments...like from 1787 only 27 amendments have been enacted which is crazy..as opposed to my country which in only 70 years has had 107 amendments...
Actually the founders outlined democracy as a form of mobocracy and chaotic rule in the federalist papers and set up several measures to avert the republic from mob rule or democracy...Senate was intended to prevent populism in the house and ensure the voices of the several states to be heard within the federal legislature by state appointed senators which sadly isn't the case cuz the 17th amendment rendered the senator the same as house where everyone is strictly divided by partisan lines and interest groups without concerning of the good for the people, Exaggerated even further by globalists' monopoly on mass media and constantly agenda pushing, the whole legislature becomes a vehicle to advance the interest of big companies; Federal Judiciary overreach is almost universal with all the cases citing the 14th amendment to undermine the sovereignty of several states in the name of civil rights; On the executive branch, irresponsible budget, abuse of executive orders, oversized federal government driven it far away from the original intention for the same to act as a stabilizer and to act only on the interest of the nation. Should the founding fathers see this, guess they'll rather side with anti-federalist to keep the original Confederacy than let capitalists sell the country away. We are currently living under corporatocracy disguised in the coat of "democracy" for 20 years more, but people's mind are changing.
What a lot of people fail to understand is that this is the United STATES of America and not the United PEOPLES of America. The election of the president is actually a function of the states themselves and not the peoples in the states. A lot of people would be in shock to find out that a state legislature could enact a law saying that they themselves would select the presidential electors in the next presidential election instead of holding the traditional statewide vote. I think the 17th Amendment removing the state legislature from selecting the senators as a major mistake in our great nation's history. Both the President and senators were to be a function of the state itself whereas the House was to belong to the power of the people themselves.
I’ve been saying this for a while now that the constitution is an old and outdated document. Yet we’re taught to look at the constitution like it’s on par with the Bible. I took a political science class on comparative government and the teacher has us read the book “How Democratic is the American Constitution?” by Robert Dahl, which I believe everyone should read. He heavily criticized the electoral college and the senate. The truth is that the constitution doesn’t reflect how much more democratic this country has become since the constitution was written and it contradicts how diverse and multiethnic America is today. What I’ve also learned is that while we as Americans look at our constitution as a model for the rest of the world, that’s one big allusion. Practically every other country rejects our constitution as a model.
As a German, I hate that you use the word "multi-racial" sooo very much! That you choose language that suggests that human races exist, is disgusting, even though I agree with the other 99,5% of the entire video, please cease with this one foolishness. Use propper terms instead. "Pluralistic", "Multicultural", "Racialised", "racism", "ethnic" ... ALL of these are completely fine, damnit. Poisonous use of Language
This is remarkably basic. The great compromise came about because small states feared their interests would be ignored. In those days, they did not see themselves as one big nation, like many do today. It was more like a federation of states that were largely independent. In some ways it is outdated, and too difficult to amend. But the above video is very partisan and childish.
@@ashleygray1632 A republic protects the right of an individual and a democracy does not protect the right of an individual. A democracy can easily turn into mob rule and tyranny.
@@ashleygray1632 Simply put: In a Democracy, the majority rules. If the majority decided they wanted your bike, they could take it. In a Republic, your bike is your property and you do not owe it to anyone. It cannot be taken against your will, by law. *U.S.A is a Constitutional Republic*
reliable as it's tightly fit into our own personal views, anyone holding a different view would say otherwise and they'd have their own reasonings to say so
One big omission in this video... the constitution was created in the context of unifying individual states. The Senate was one of the most important carrots in keeping States in the union (and arguably still is today).
Jajaja that's what you think. It was something to negotiate, sure, superficially. But, deep down it had to do with the most basic function of creating a participatory state that was unified in its ability to exert force against enemies and unanimously with its allies. Take this example: If Texas seceeds you think the US, which remains a separate state, is going to allow Texans to have nuclear bombs, stealth fighters, etc. that were developed with federal money? Nope. They would be considered a threat, and put on a shit list. It seems most Americans aren't taught how centralized governments really work. It's all a word game that clouds the political principles at play. The Bill of Rights is the cherry on top of the cake of this deft subterfuge encased in The Federalist Papers. This was the carrot put in front of the general populace.
@@jonathanse8977Yes. And it is present in most of the multiethnic countries because it gives equal powers to all states, regardless of their population or economic size. It prevents the power imbalance by preventing the weight in favour of mighty states which might use this power to divert resources to their side. So yeah, senate is a double edged sword but kind of important for countries like USA.
I really don't think the problem is the constitution... It is the politcal parties. Every complex opinion here in the US is painted with a red brush or blue brush. President Washington said not to partake in party politics... Political parties do nothing but make gridlock. We need more strong parties, or better yet - none at all.
It's ironic to see Al Jazeera (and leftists in general) criticizing lack of majority rule in the US (when it suits them), but criticizes it when it does not, like in Europe.
Like?Give an example?You are just stating a truism that only works for those who already believe what you believe you also haven’t been able to prove how any of this is wrong in any way all of this is true the constitution is not democratic and to me that is not a good thing.
It could definitely use some updates but I have to disagree with how much it has been demonised here. For example the all states get get two senators each because Senotors represent States not people. That's brilliant. Representation of the people is at the House level. This separation protects smaller states from the power of bigger states. Again, brilliant
As the video put it. You have smaller states who are then able to dictate policies for larger states. At the end of the day, States are made of individuals and it’s about the voice of the individual being snuffed. We must vote by ppl. Not by states
@@blairclarkjr.4791Individuals are adequately represented in many ways: at the local level, in the state senate and in the house at the federal level. The purpose of the senate is to represent individuals as a collective, a state. Whatever ideal, policies, values and wishes individuals (the state majority) express at the local and state levels are presented, represented and/or protected at the federal level through the senate. No matter how small the population, if the union is to survive, no state and its values must be valued over another.
@@unclescar5616 if the states were roughly the same size then it's not that bad but today it promotes minority rule - which is fundamentally anti democratic (i.e. all votes count the same). Why should citizens of small states have more power and be able to consistently veto the will of the majority? Also why should the house not have a say in picking judges when the house comes closer to representing the majority view?
It was brilliant for the politicians bringing the 13 colonies into a union sure but as citizens of the US you are not citizen of a state,why should states be treated as sovereign countries when they don’t even represent ethnic or national groups instead just boundaries on a map?Seems stupid to keep as a modern nation,no other nation state does this only the US because of its old constitution that was writen for a union of 13 sovereign nations coming together which have lost all sovereignty over time as civic and corporate power has grown to replace state power.Today people also migrate from state to state so why keep this archaic system?
@@mauricio9564 You would have to de-federalise then. But states still represent different "conditions". Although people migrate from state to state, there are still some significant economic, social, and even environmental and geographical differences between states. The USA is huge. Compare the agricultural Midwest states like Nebraska to California. Because of the different geographical conditions they have inspired different economic activities and given rise to different social values and cultures. Sure there are some overlaps which is why it is possible to unite them but there still remains some significant differences. For instance, labour laws, environmental laws and taxation in industrial California has to be different from agricultural Nebraska. Similarly federal water management policies cannot be applied equally in arid Nevada and swampy Florida. To maintain and protect its own economic and social environment, each region needs a level of automy from the federal government. It's called decentralisation
You guys can scream it at the top of your lungs, it doesnt matter! If you dont like it MOVE to Canada! The constitution will never be changed or touched, those that try will swing with the breeze or be exiled to Canada.
lawyers and experts who were trained or educated abroad have been saying this for decades...the myth of the US constitution has been propagandized so much falsehoods are accepted as norms. I mean compared to modern constitutions, the writing style of the USC almost seems like gibberish for example with its outlandish starting statements
The constitution is 233 years old, so the lingo is a tad bit outdated but still pretty easily interpreted. Experts use Blacks Law Dictionary as the gold standard so if anything doesnt make sense im sure you can find its interpretation and meaning in there
No it's not, a revolution would be very likely to lead to something worse. Our initial revolution was to throw off colonial rule, but revolutions to overthrow governments often don't work well. If the conditions of the population are miserable then it makes sense, but even then the new government might be even worse than the previous one.
6:21 Jews only got to write one important line. No religious test or requirement may be a condition of taking federal office. Even this one line costed modern millions of dollars for Jews to attach this line
I appreciate this video & this channel, but as a lawyer, a former child refugee from the Middle East, and a proud American, I have a unique perspective: 1.) The Constitution in itself is not anti-democratic, I actually think it’s quite the opposite. At its core, it is a memorialization of an agreement, a social contract, a radical attempt at self-governance by a bunch of people almost 250 years ago. In the right hands, our Constitution has helped us achieve some of the greatest milestones in world history, even with our relatively young age as a country. With that being said, in the hands of bad actors: the results can be, and often have been catastrophic to the world and to ourselves. 2.) As a lifelong Californian, a state with 40 million residents, the fifth largest economy in the world that pays more every year in taxes than it receives from the federal government, it used to annoy me that I had the same amount of Senators as someone from South Dakota - but I’ve grown to love and appreciate that the allocation of our United States Senators has given us champions of freedom and democracy like Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, from tiny Rhode Island. Kinda think that people from all over should have a say too, ya know? And often the staggered, six-year terms for Senators tended to make them more moderate, more bigger-picture, more invested in what happens with the people of their States and of the country over longer periods of time, as opposed to every time the wind changes, as can happen in the House sometimes (see: the GOP Insurrection Caucus). And generally, that has been the case for much of our history post-Watergate. That’s why it’s been the most surreal watching Senators like Rubio and Graham and Cruz turning into literal jackboot-licking fascists in 2022, when 6 years ago they were honest about telling us how bad Trump was for the country and for the GOP - and we can still see those videos, so It’s even more awkward and insincere when they act like he’s their golden calf or their Orange Putin. 3.) Abolish the filibuster, and also the Electoral College needs to go. That’s just bad math, man. 4.) The Supreme Court has done some of the most heinous things under the banner of our Constitution - and yet that same institution has also delivered some the most beautiful of triumphs and victories in our nation’s history. BUT: the Republicans have soiled SCOTUS so much so that serious reforms must be enacted: set term limits (no more lifetime petty tyrants, like Thomas), expand the Court to 13 to pair up with the 13 Circuit Courts we already have, and make the Supreme Court explicitly subject to the same rules, ethics, and codes of conduct of all Article III judges. This very long comment is just to say that America, like most democracies, is a work-in-progress. Unfortunately, it feels like we are descending into a fascist dystopian and I can’t do anything to stop it. I love my country, I love democracy, and I pray we all survive this time in history together, as Americans. God bless y’all 🇺🇸
all the things you think are revolutionary victories for humankind were things other places had done before or were doing better already whenever we achieved them lol. there is nothing really substantially good for the species thats come from that crusty old "give everything to the rich people" document
"a radical attempt at self-governance by a bunch of people almost 250 years ago. " You've been duped by government propaganda. A small number of White Men in a white minority part of the world decided to impose a new Eurocentric (IE: White) government in order to not obey British law which was seeking to protect more rights than it had in the past (Indigenous rights, rights of French settlers, Religious rights of Catholics from oppression by Protestants, etc). I'm not saying this as a British loyalist or something, and I also find the Canadian constitution offensive even though that government granted me citizenship at birth. I'm suggesting that neither of these unilateral impositions of foreign governing worldviews were examples of "self-governance", but are what is blocking self-governance of domestic nations that predate these occupations.
You’re right it’s a Corporotacracy of land owners, merchants and bankers FYI Republic = non-monarchist form of government, and American republicanism was defined as representative democracy. In fact they differed on the level of democracy. Thomas Paine and populist Jefferson (Ward Republics) were so democratic they were viewed as too radical by other Founders. And of course Benjamin Franklin was among these democrats. Democratic-Republicans vs National Federalists
*"The moment you hear the words "Freedom" and "Democracy" - Watch out! in a truly free nation, no one has to tell you you're free.”* ~ Jacque Fresco 1916-2017
It's like safety and freedom... they can't belong in the same statement
@@torstimyle1355 An oxymoron, yes.
Even more Scientific is the fact that there is no such thing as freedom within a Universe Governed by Laws.
Newton had to find that out the hard way! "DONK!" Ha ha!
We have more freedom then we're this channel is from India.
@@calderarecords I agree... I think freedom is illusion to keep the mass in support of democracy. Freedom has limitations... How can one be free but still limited? An oxymoron!
@@calderarecords Yeah.... His Venus project looks like some dystopia from The Giver. One of the things he gave in his United Nations pitch was about bragging about how much freedom people will get from HIS community projects 🙄🙄😒
I hate the false narrative of “today’s values” or “modern rights”. Indigenous societies have always managed to provide for their people while protecting the environment, etc. since before the U.S. was conceived and imposed. Taking care of human health, the environment, etc. is not new values or new ground, it’s ground to reclaim.
Yes but not everyone had access to the same health care 100, 200, 300 etc years ago. Nowadays we are a tad more conscious and understand everyone should have access to health care.
2500 years ago Buddha said health care was a right.
@@wriptag3 huh? really? what was the context?
@@raquelnunes9793 we didn’t have the technology but access to medicine at the time in some cultures was common. In Paleolithic and Neolithic societies it was virtually required to provide care for those around you if you wanted to survive.
"muh noble savage"
The Two Party system is the worst thing about the U. S political system.
Ur funny
The Presidential system of government aka the American style of democracy is not suitable for having multiparty system. Do you know why? In a Western European and British democracy democracy called Parliamentary system and Semi-Presidential system called French style of democracy or Hybrid Parliamentary -Presidential system they have political party disciplinary whereas the Presidential system aka American style of democracy doesn't have that kind of procedures every lawmakers have their own trip.
Its also weird that only two parties get voted since independence
@@2557carla could you simplify that for me?😁 You sound like you know what you're talking about.
@@anthonyrobinson6590 That's how American political system works. Presidential system that use multiparty system leads to sugarcoating or flipflop in the politics the best example the Philippines. You see that multiparty system wont work in American style system of democracy aka Presidential system.
The Corporate States of America that's what the US is
Yeah, the states have been selling its peoples rights out for generations to the federal government. In the constitution, we have the right to free travel on a public roads by automobile regardless of having a license or not, but the federal government will try to tell you otherwise. The DMV is a federal corporation, no wonder they dont want people to know.
Corporate greed and corrupt power-grabs will destroy us all!
100% no freedom and liberty in USA anymore. It's the least progressive 1st world country I can think of.
yet you ARE it bc you keep buying shit you don't need
People - Why you go at war with Iraq
U.S congress - Because they have “wmds”
People - Ohh “alright ” so why don’t you go ahead and do the same to Russia?
U.S congress - Can’t, simply due to the fact that they actually have wmds.
People - Confused pikachu face.
It all makes sense now!! This vid paired with your comment, it's clear that Henry Ford's vision in the 40's is actually America....always has been. Crap!! The realization!!
And yet there are hawks in the US government who wants to go to war with China over Taiwan -- China has WMDs and a way stronger military/economy. Not to mention that's an unresolved civil war that they have no business in.
All Govts work under the G7 table. Playing roles, conflicts, pandemics & whatever else is needed to move the masses into shape. 1 global mafia. Soon to retire letting A.I Governance manage it all
I think it's very clear, you need to stop an unstable country from getting to the level that you can no longer remove their WMDs, or you get to the point where trying to remove them would kill millions if not billions
@@djayt1215
I agree. Realize that Govts use these technology's as control or "excuse" to push the next program/agenda etc
WMD's = FEAR and fear is a vital tool in Govts favor....WMD+AIDS+Covid19 etc. Also, each govt has its creditor/proprietor/owner that calls the shots. Church & State(Govt) are genius concepts/tools in itself & believe each has a boss behind the curtains. It's all a controlled show & nobody knows exactly who the true "owners" are.
The Israel lobby AIPAC tweeted :
June 23, 2022.
Thank you House Appropriations Subcommittee for fully funding $3.3 billion in security assistance to Israel.
Another 3.3 billion for Israel while we're struggling with record inflation. 🎖️👏
Oh Vey!!
Why does the U.S. continue to feed the monster that is Israel's government? Israel's government has failed for the fifth time in three years, and Netanyahu cares about power, not the people of Israel or Palestine.
We’re scheduled to give Ukraine millions a day now and apparently have been giving them billions for years now. We’re screwed. I want to leave America. The irony is that past 2030, Russia has the best geographical location regarding climate change. Definitely screwed.
Well said an country run by Lobbyist and sending envelopes across the Board
We just gave 50 billion to Ukraine and still giving them more and more every other day.
A corporatocracy it is
The US is a kleptocratic pornocracy with fascist (corporatist) overtones
Sadly, the world is becoming a corporatocracy.
“The U.S has overtly pursued double standards.” - Lijian Zhao
@@lorenzoblum868 and this is just the beginning…
@@amlxr99912 I thought the US is a plutocracy. How wrong I was! th-cam.com/video/guQw3nSkXMY/w-d-xo.html
Never was a democracy.
@@lorenzoblum868 Coca Cola democracy
Capitalist Democracy
Neve was, nor will it be
True it was a republic then to democracy to corporatocracy I would not be surprise if it becomes facism next.
@@edwardggarcia7705 That's a contradiction in terms, ofc, but then it occurs to me that revealing such was the point of your comment here, no?
Just like the Roman empire the US empire is in decline. History is always bound to repeat itself
Well, first of all there has been at least a *dozen* major empires in the world between the time of Rome and the U.S. In Europe alone we had the Byzantine Empire (East-Rome), the Spanish Empire (the first true world spanning empire), the French Empire and the British Empire (dominated almost the entire 1800's). Then there is the Sassanid Empire (neo-Persian), the Abbasid Califate and the Ottoman Empire - all of which contributed greatly to today's maths, medicine, metallurgy and astronomy.
Empires all rise, have a prime and decline. They however all have one thing in common: They leave a lasting footprint in history and following cultures and empires carry the torch/baton. This is something mere people with their short lifespans have difficulties understanding. Most people have little to no understanding of world history so therefore it's not at all surprising they have very little understanding of where our 60 seconds and 60 minutes come from, where numbers come from, how democracy was first implemented and when and how modern science emerged.
The Romans were inspired by the Greeks (who had dominated the Mediterranean prior to them). The Greeks were inspired by the Phoenicans, Persians and Egyptians. Those in turn had followed the footsteps of the early Mesopotamian cultures/empires. Sumerians, Assyrians and Babylonians.
Even if the United States itself might decline in importance as a county, its culture and inventions will live on with others. That is leaving a lasting footprint.
Sound like I did when I was 12
@@paulallen8109 some important points… but in the same context, what legacy do you think the Mongols left behind?
I’m not sure that lasting legacy is a relevant definition of empire.
If only empires that were able to build things out of stone and hence recorded by future generations can be counted as empires, then that seems really limited and would exclude quite large portions of the world including South America, Africa and Asia.
I’m dwelling this tiny point because I think it’s quite important. I’m not convinced that the Germans or the Dutch for example will be remembered as empires in 500 years.
@@paulallen8109 CANZUS (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United States), as well as the British Commonwealth, still exist. These are colonies where colonists greatly outnumber Indigenous peoples due to deliberate genocidal and racist policies. I know there has been branding to suggest they are separate, but they are ongoing parts of the British empire that allow British worldviews to dominate large portions of the world.
This is modeled after the Roman empire which didn't really end, but also changed form. Roman Christianity (not only Catholicism, but the British and other denominations from that) continue to spread Roman Christian worldviews.
The Bishop of Rome is coming to what some call "Canada" again this summer to apologize for the activities of a few of its citizens, but never to actually apologize for the ongoing atrocities that are committed in the name of that empire, including those specifically authorized by the position of the Bishop of Rome.
Once you convert individuals to your worldviews, including through forced conversion that is one of the activities listed in the UN genocide convention, then you don't need centralized control by a specific government in order to retain effective power.
@@lekudos An excerpt from Business Insider "Why The Mongols Were The Greatest Empire In History":
"They kept a diverse governance and learned from every avenue possible. A lot of world's technology growth (including the dissipation of gunpowder, paper, and the printing press to much of Europe) happened as a direct result of their conquests. In short, they helped greatly shape the world we live in."
I mean, maybe Google this question next time?
There's one thing you didn't speak on and that's racism. It doesn't matter what statistics you pull from polls that show how much we all agree with each other. When "some" people see the faces of the people "they" actually agree with, "they" get cold feet to stand for what's right due to racism that's been micro dosed to "them" along with fear mongering from the "establishment" that shifts focus from progression to complacency.
Good thing the demographics change that Fox news fears is happening so.
Apply that standard to non white countries in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa
Close...society believes in the power held by rich whites; know they can't achieve it so enforces the 'at least I'm not non-white ' 2 EVERYONE'S vast detriment. A woman can earn as much as a man (when women were accepted into careers at higher rates; salaries became confidential; how do u know u r getting equal treatment if u can talk about it)? Very unlikely.
@@dudeguy818 explain more
Racism is thinking that all people of color are the same and are all victims of racism when some people are intelligent and law abiding while other people are trash. If we are talking about blacks and Hispanics they don't even always speak the same language and yet Americans want to pretend they are all the same witch is the very definition of racism..
I'm an attorney, so I approach this question as both a lawyer and citizen. I do worry that the Constitution is not working adequately for this country. When the gun control issue is raised, that seems patently obvious. But, in my view, much of the problem arises from some very dubious constitutional interpretation by the federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court. But there is an alternate argument that has a good deal of merit that the constitution is not functioning adequately, and cannot be amended to sufficiently keep up with the pace of human change. In any case, an intelligent discussion on this issue must be both long and intelligent. I'm pretty worried about this.
As an almost-law student too stubborn on what school I had to attend but didn't make after my LSAT''s, I totally agree with you. It's almost an outer body experience, to feel like we're in a giant time machine that's headed back in time. Turning 68 soon, and many my age may not care, but what's worse is that our young people will be affected in ways I dare not imagine, and all young folks must delve into U.S. and world history, because I believe it's of major importance to where we are now, and helped led us to an ill-functioning Constitution.
It's obvious the rich, the Republicans and many Democrats have hidden their hate for democracy, waiting for the right time to fully and suddenly hurl that revelation to the masses and the world, so we now feel like the sky is falling. The Constitution's regressing to the time of its inception, as many of its tenets and core principles, later amended or not, began being violated much earlier than most Americans realize, but too many world leaders see right through that. The right to a speedy trial is only one example that's led us to become a prison nation. Not enough Americans realize the depth of shattering basic human and civil rights in an extremely conservative Supreme Court.
The U.N. is virtually useless, only succeeding in what it was created to do, make Israel a nation state. The world sees our hypocrisy, and is no longer afraid to blatantly state it. They see the vast flaws of our self-proclaimed superiority, when our actions have done quite the opposite. Whee we could once point (albeit in the shadows) and boast of our Constitution, we've failed by not using it as a living document not meant to forever stand as written. Time doesn't stand still, or we'd still be living in the eighteenth century. Please forgive my long reply, and kindly correct me if I'm wrong. (I blame my passions and disappointments.)
I’m thankful I do not have children.
@@GladysAlicea its not the constitution itself that is the problem, but the federal governments erosion of rights and corporated status pushing social indoctrination instead of being used as a system of checks and balances. Social issues are a matter of the states and should be decided by WE THE PEOPLE, not the corporate entity United States Inc. States decide these things by the people beliefs in each state, but most people dont recognize this as the strength of the Constitution, because federal top-down legislation is in and of itself the same a dictatoral rule. Im not trying to offend anybody by bringing up Roe vs. Wade, but the job of congress is not legislative but judicial, meaning they dont make law they just read the constitution and decide whether decision is upheld by the constitution. Since it was not explicitly recognized, the decision was handed back to WE THE PEOPLE, to decide in our individual residing states. This is why the checks and balances system works, or else you have courts making up laws and federal government control over you instead of you deciding what laws you want implemented according to where you live. Another example is our right to free travel on public roads and highways, a right eroded by the federal corporation known as the DMV, now requiring us to be licensed and denouced as a right and made a "privilege". If you have anymore to add or correct please feel free to do so
@@dasillyo2786 you wrote that the job of Congress is not legislative but judicial. Is that a typo? Did you mean to write that the supreme court's job is not legislative but judicial? Because the Congress' job is definitely not judicial because there is a judicial branch. The supreme court and the district court's at the federal level and the state court's at the state level.
@@dasillyo2786 Also, the Deparment of Motor Vehicles is not federal. It also is not a corporation.
The constitution is not a list of your rights or what you can do. It' a list of what the govement can't do to you.
Not at all! It is the supreme law of a state ... it actually defines what the country is and on which basis it should be ruled
Use to be. If they do not follow it, they the Constitution is irrelevant.
We're a Republic not a democracy.... This video is neo marxist propaganda
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
“ THE U.S isn’t a democracy “ -Muslim world
Yep, and anyone with their eyes even remotely open.
Tell me you're a troll without telling me you are a troll 🧌
@6:27 "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
02:26 "The Founders could never have dreamt of the vast population differences that state would have in 21st century". Well, already in 1790 there was 750,000 people in Virginia and just 60,000 people in Delaware. I think difference in more than 12 times can be considered "vast".
The difference between California and Wyoming is over 50 times
@@uhohhotdog the sole reason for the senate existing is equal representation from all states
@@JojoChinchillaBurger but should I there be equal representation?
@@JojoChinchillaBurger and? This isn’t 1790 anymore.
Forreal, these are the same guys that said black people were worth 3/5ths of a person, and they only considered them people so that rich white guys would have more power.😒
James Madison, one of the framers of the constitution, famously remarked government ought to be structured to “protect the minority of the opulent against the majority”. Yes, that is why the U.S. uniquely produces such a disparity of wealth as opposed to the more social democratic nation-states of Western and Northern Europe.
So America's poor is worse off than Europe's poor?
@@JK-gu3tl yes! bingo you hit the jackpot
@@chowcalvin59 not accurate
Let's not even talk about how gun owners have more rights in US than 10 years old kid in school.
@@JK-gu3tl I get less than 14k €/year and because of that I pay 0% taxes, still I have access to cheap healthcare.
On other if you earn a lot your tax% is very high, also don't get caught speeding because you will get fattest speeding ticket you've ever seen.
Highest I have ever had to pay was two 80-90€ bills for removing all 4 wisdom teeth surgically.
Greetings from Finland.
It’s a plutocracy
The US is a kleptocratic pornocracy with fascist overtones
PlutoCRAZY lol
Yep.
The US constitution is the most stable, freedom loving constitution ever devised. It does need changing, but not at the expense of European Americans, or at the expense of sustainable economic growth. All moral debts are to be paid by European Americans, including economic ones, which in the name of harmony, stability, equality and equity sounds fine, but in several non-economic areas the Woke DON'T want equality or equity toward those they hate, by the law, whether de facto or de jure.
None of them would let European Americans participate in humorous stereotype culture even when economic equity averages are established. Current minority communities seem to think white people shouldn't be alarmed about what they basically see as a quickly approaching and half realized Stalinist dystopia where they can whisper their opinions in their closets assuming their homes, computers, and phones aren't all bugged, all in an ethnic hierarchy based on who had been wronged by their ancestors. Without reaching out to a well-meaning, free (obviously not to extreme hatefulness or real emotional damage) white community there will never be peace or win-win policies in this nation.
US constitution for how old it is, it is quite decent. There are words in there that I do love. "I hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal". I do love that phrase but even after the implementation it took 100 years to get rid of slavery. But constitution at the end of the day is just paper, India has constitution written by a Dalit that makes caste illegal but still caste is prevalent today. constitution is not a magic letter that changes society in an instant.
We’ll said👍🏿
A good observation, but just so you know, the line about "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal" is NOT in the Constitution. That is taken from the Declaration of Independence in 1776. A document more radical and ambitious in its tone, but really not binding in any way. Less so than the very problematic Constitution.
The all men being equal only affected those classes as men, any of a race other than white where not classed as people, any that where not major land owner's where not classed as people.
The constitution only works so long as the people believe in it
The Indian Caste system was slowly leaving, until the UK stuck it everywhere they could. India would be a totally different place, had it not been colonized by a bunch of white men who thought themselves superior to every other race.
Anyone claiming the Constitution is outdated is too morally and ethically primitive to understand how principles work.
The principles laid out in the Constitution will ALWAYS work, because they are fundamental rules you can apply to anything, and come out with the right answer.
The Constitution needs to repeal the 17th amendment, then you would be close to being spot on.
The 17th took us from a Republic to a Democracy.
"Multiracial democracy" is something the USA will never be. It will collapse first before it becomes one. Also, the "undemocratic" elements of the Constitution exist specifically to avoid the country into becoming a tyranny of the majority, which is not necessarily bad if it weren't for the fact that the USA always was a tyranny of the majority, at least in racial and religious terms.
“Tyranny of the majority” lead to tyranny of the minority in the US aka extreme wealth inequality slavery Jim Crow etc not something I would want or anyone.Minority of course here doesn’t mean the actual minorities it means the rich lol.
When democracy collapses, all we have left is a dictatorship!
Tyranny of the majority? The alternative is a tyranny of the minority; a much darker fate.
Actually, you just listed things - time, health care, et cetera - that would NOT be changed, if the Constitution were enforced.
All of the Federal regulations regarding those things are unconstitutional, ergo illegal.
Daylight saving time is unconstitutional.
Federal interference in health care is unconstitutional.
Any limit on gun ownership is unconstitutional.
Yes, you're right.
Only a charismatic leader can make such a substantial change.
Just like Augustus who changed the constitution of the Roman Republic, or Cosimo de Medici who changed the constitution of the Republic of Florence.
Too bad they elect old halfwits most of the time
You think America should become an autocracy?
@@bernardoohigginsvevo2974 it will become an autocracy
@@hanismh6300 Probably so, it doesn't mean it will be a good thing though.
It's just unbelievable he said something like that in the video. It's like he was asking for a coup!!
The US Constitution IS NOT the oldest document of this kind. The Magna Carter is, which was written in the 13th century. It is what most of British Commonwealth and former colonies base their legal systems on, including the US. If you're going to talk about documents signed by few important people that creates rule of law for an entire country, get the origin of it right. The Magna Carter was created by disgruntled barons who was dissatisfied by their King. Now that sound familiar doesn't it?
Saying it isn't anymore is an exaggeration however I do believe we aren't far away from our democracy being too weak to function. America will unlikely be nothing more than a non functioning democracy.
It'll be a functioning totalitarian state. It already is. No one even bats an eyelash when a Supreme Court Justice actually prompts Republicans to bring before the courts challenges to the right to same sex marriage and to the right to use contraception. Prohibition of same sex marriage and the use of contraception is such a sure thing that he feels totally at ease just casually tacking what is a blatant signal, instruction even, to proceed with the agenda. It's a clear call to hurry up and get the formalities out of the way so we can get these backwoods, knuckledragger, draconian prohibitions on the books and written in stone.
I think just a few years ago the US was downgraded from a pure to a flawed democracy and it's only going to get worse.
If the ancient Greeks were alive right now, they would consider our government an oligarchy because unlike in Athens where everyone had to vote for a law to pass which is a real democracy, in the US every state votes for the people who represent us, that is considered an oligarchy by the ancient Greeks.
A corporate kleptocracy it is
literally
And facturely
Kleptocracy, Plutocracy, Corporatecracy , a business party with two branches
America isn't a country it's a Corporation country.
While I do agree that there should be reform for things like term limits for supreme court judges, and reform if not abolishment of the electoral college, I disagree with the sentiment that the "founding fathers" wanted total control. If that were the case, we wouldn't have had the second amendment from jump. We can elect people into Congress and the presidency who can make decisions. And if the government betrays our trust and becomes truly tyrannical we can topple it and start anew. Again, I'm not saying our current system can't or shouldn't be reformed.
Second amendment didn't really all that much power to people at the time. Since it was near immediately followed.... based on the regulated militia part by enacting official government militia formation acts. With punishments, if one didn't show up to militia inspection with the needed equipment.
It wasn't right to own a gun, it was duty. You literally got fined for not showing up annually to militia inspection.
That is why the 2nd amendment existed. Because the new country was so broke it couldn't afford to equip a government armed militia. So instead say said... you can own arms.... oh and actually by the way demand you own arms and appear to militia inspection and follow the orders of the government run militias commanders.
People often forget Militia acts of 1792 is a thing and how epxansive and demanding the rovisions were for the citizenry. Interpreting 2nd amendment jointly with said 1792 laws puts in emphasis exactly how much the government had nothing to fear of allowing gun ownership. since anyone starts brandshing weapons, just muster the militia and actually conscript the complainers also. Sorry but you cant point those guns at us. we just conscripted you and we tell you point the gus that way. otherwise our militia over there will shoot you to death.
It was for militias dimwit. Democracy was the last thing the founders( stop calling them your daddies) wanted. The biggest problem is dimwits like you who don’t know their own country’s history and incorrectly think they have anything of value to contribute 🤦🏻♀️
@BYLC31 An honor? 🤣 It’s just not okay to be this shamelessly stupid 🤦🏻♀️
Yes, the United States is a democracy, since we, the people, hold the ultimate political power. We’re not a “direct democracy,” but we are a “representative democracy.”
This is where our history education might add some confusion. We are commonly taught that democracy is a product of ancient Greece. It’s their word - demokratia - after all. The city-state of Athens is credited with implementing a system of government of and by the people, whereby eligible citizens would congregate to make decisions. They’d make these decisions themselves (or “directly”), not through any elected representatives.
That system of government, better understood today as direct democracy, lives on in the United States in the form of ballot initiatives and referenda. Some states and localities afford their citizens the right to use these measures to directly enact, change, or repeal laws themselves.
More commonly, we exercise our political power in a different way: by voting in elections to choose our representatives. That’s representative democracy.
The Constitution does not use the term “democracy.” It’s true. But as Eugene Volokh notes in the Washington Post, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Justice James Wilson and Chief Justice John Marshall all used the word. These scholars understood representative democracy - the American variety - to be democracy all the same.
Is the United States a republic?
Yes. The United States is a republic because our elected representatives exercise political power.
History also tells us that Rome was a republic, unlike Athens. When its monarchy was overthrown, Rome developed a republican system of government whereby citizens elected officials who were empowered to make decisions for the public. That’s the core of how our government works. While “democracy” and “republic” have been historically pitted against one another, the reality is that the two terms enjoy considerable overlap.
Its not suppressing the voice of more people. Its giving equal representation to all regardless of how much or little a Senators city/district is. Most people living in Los Angeles are going t vote on things that benefit and fit their own community needs and the farmers in the Midwest with little population numbers will have no say so in national elections. Most of the countries food come from these areas that are the minority of voters. You cant change the constitution of the land based on popularity alone because NYC and LA would end up deciding the election every time lol.
The purpose of the Senate is "keeping up the balance, & to restrain, if possible, the fury of democracy." - Edmund Randolph, 1st US Attorney-General
The 17th amendment changed all that. Their ability to restrain went away now that the people get to vote for Senate.
The amendment that took us from a Republic to a Democracy.
I am amused how this video dismisses which party is in control of the House of Representative, the Senate, and White House? 😂
the hypocrisy
The bias in this reporting was so noticeable, you didn't even bother trying to hide it. 🙄
I'm not saying that the US government isn't flawed, but the designers of the us government didn't want the majority to oppress the minority. Which is ironic because it was also a time when slavery was legal and they had no rights.
That exactly is the point! The constitution was basically written by land owners and other rich influential people to protect themself from the growing influence of the poor minorities while creating an illusion that the poor majority is in control!
If the population had actual power non of the billionaires (Oligarch) in the US would even come close to power and several popular want and needs like security, health care, afordable education etc would have long been implemented.
To know that a democracy failed we just need to figure out if the law passed are approved by the majority of citizens
USA is nothing even close to democracy, they have two political parties system, that is totally insane. Small countries in Europe who have 3 to 7 milion citizens, they have 10 to 12 different political parties. And that is real democracy, because nobody can have total control over so many different parties. And on top of that USA have dozens of different police agencies, the other countries have one to max two police agencies. And those police agencies are created for only one purpose, for the government' to have total control over the ordinary people. And the worst thing of all is that the American people are really believing that they have some kind of freedom and human rights.
China is a 1 party Republic, usa is a 2 party Republic. Not much of a difference. The constitution was the 2nd attempt, maybe 3rd time is the charm
😂 you’re not delusional
"The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them." - Julius Nyerere
Beat that with a stick.
I should have known that the world democracy index is inaccurate. It says that the USA is democratic, but considering the two party majority, electoral college, Gerrymandering and others, people in my country would say this is undemocratic.
It worked out better for us than wherever ur from
@@mof5490 lol you moron, we rank near the bottom of every statistic of economics and democracy compared to other advanced countries
The USA is a federal republic of 50 sovereign states, not a democracy of its collective population. It surprises me that so many people don't realize what this distinction means.
The US states are not sovereign states, unlike the European states. US states have no autonomous representation internationally, they do not set monetary, defense, immigration policies.
They are equivalent to regions and provinces in other countries. Are Quebec, Sicily, Bavaria, uri canton sovereign states? No. The USA is not centralized as France. It is a federation of non sovereign states.
No your states aren't sovereign.
That's still a democracy. If the people have the power in some way then that's a democracy.
@@austinhernandez2716 no, that's not how it works
@@bruhbutwhytho actually it kinda is. He is right. A republic is a type of democracy. Its just not direct.
I propose a competition between all law schools and relevant institutions for the honor of writing the next USA Constitution and some prize money provided by the billionaires. Obviously, the country would go through the necessary process of adopting it. I envision a two-year contest; it would be very educational for the country, and we could end up fixing all the problems we have with today’s document.
“...prize money provided by the billionaires..“: And there..!
You get entangled in the [perceived ]paradox.
You’re a special kind of m0ron 🤦🏻♀️😆
Well as a Filipino, I don't really know much about the US constitution. One thing is for sure, America is really having a lot of problems, most recently, gun shooting problems which people somewhat defend.
Very true, although those problems don't seem to deter Filipinos from immigrating to the US.
Pareho tayong pilipino pero mas alam ko ang constitution nila kaysa sa atin, after all ang constitution natin ay heavily based din sa kanila.
@@blessing5173 Philippines was once part of the United States back in the days.
@@blessing5173 Eh when it comes to Filipinos like us, we're willing to accept any job that offered a big salary despite the dangers since jobs here are much harder to get and only offered minimum wages.
@@juliust.gayagas4022 Which is hindi dapat kc ang centralized government ay best suited for countries with one patch of land. Ang Pilipinas ay isang archipelago na madaming kultura, lahi at language. Evident naman na Luzon Lang ang masyadong natutugunan ng Manila Kaya nga tawag ng iba eh Imperial Manila.
Besides the issues that we may have with the setup of our government/elected people.my issue is that we're still making alot of laws and rules based on religion &personal feelings Instead of science & liberty/freedom for all. Emotion and religion shouldn't be part of the equation at all when making laws and decisions. We're all human but it's a discipline we all need to learn. You can still have your personal beliefs/feelings and religion but put that to the side when you go to work. 🤷
To be fair some stuff requires a level empathy. Besides science can definitely be bastardized and turned into pseudo-science to push an agenda.
When talking about the constitution/amendment is only two things: Guns and abortion.
If guns were illegal and abortion was legal/absolute (all states) then the constitution would be fine for so many.
But i bet ppl wouldn't change the 14 amendment (automatically a citizen just being born in usa soul) or politician wouldn't change the 16th amendment where all citizens are required to pay taxes.
Correct, the US is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. It even says in the Pledge of Allegiance, "for the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation..." It was never designed to be a Democracy. If we were a true Democracy, California would pretty much be the only vote/voice in the US due to its sheer population size. By having equal representation, the states that have 1 million people can have a voice against the 40 million California has. To be clear, I'm not for or against it, I'm just saying this is why it's designed this way, so that every state has a voice. Otherwise we should just change the name of the US to the United States of California.
I don't know why people are expecting CANZUS (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United States) to be healthy democracies. The idea that they are is government propaganda to hide the truth.
These are settler-colonial governments imposed by Britain or British citizens (when they didn't even want to obey British laws) which are founded on the notion that British and other Europeans are superior to everyone else and should impose their worldviews in a constitution and other laws. That concept can't last without proof, but these governments still exist, so they have to have well established Eurocentric systems to ensure that worldviews outside of those of European Christian worldviews can't actually ever influence the core of the legal and other systems.
In other words, if they were democracies, they would no longer be able to be settler-colonial governments, and would be replaced.
I believe the right thing to do is allow/encourage these governments to fade away as part of Decolonization, LandBack and CashBack, allowing the more mature domestic Indigenous governments CANZUS is oppressing to regain clear jurisdiction.
Time for settlers to go gradually go through an honest immigration and naturalization process.
The US have never been a democracy, especially where minorities are concerned.
@@maureenjackson2041 At the time of the founding of "Canada" and "United States", Europeans (white people) were a minority and yet these Eurocentric governments were still imposed to subjugate the majority.
@Imperivm Evropa Ranked by who?
The United States and Canada created a movie genre called a "Western" in order to whitewash their ongoing genocide. Many people believe this propaganda as the marketing power of these colonial occupations is massive.
I live in the northern part of this continent, which the peoples around where I have lived my life call Turtle Island. I am fully aware of agencies such as the Five Eyes which is the CANZUS colonies and their parent Britain, which exists to continue to protect these occupying forces from anything resembling justice.
"A small number of white men in a white minority part of the world" is not the origin story of a democracy.
I'm indigenous and I think is one of the dumbest proposals I've ever heard of. It's also very dishonest. People alive today are NOT settlers. They were born and raised here as well. They are not responsible for their ancestors crimes.
@Imperivm Evropa Your thinking is flawed. First, a democracy can exist without the people voting directly for legislation. Having representatives is still a democracy, an indirect democracy. All a democracy means is the people having the power. Second, your criticism of democracy can be used against a Republic as well. The representatives can vote to take away our rights. And in that case we are subject to the minority. So how is that any better?
Leave my guns alone....because of this right I choose to live here and employ 700 people... don't coddle, lock up for long periods those who break gun laws and don't piddle around doing it.
This is an excellent video. The slavish worship that people (largely MAGA on the right) have for the Constitution reminds me of people who use the Bible to define their worldview. (But of course, it's always a very selective interpretation of the Bible, conveniently ignoring some passages, while getting caught up on others.)
If the Left can have a slavish worship of the Communist Manifesto than others can have reverence for our Constitution that protects us from them.Same goes for the lefties who are very selective in Bible interpretation that conveniently ignores their sinful lifestyle and choices.Things work both ways
Politics, religion, the zen of double standards.
@@richlopez5896 - I've literally never read the "Communist Manifesto," and I frankly wasn't even sure it was a thing until you said it just now.
Your response is unintentionally comical, and I can only assume that it comes from watching Fox News and Alex Jones all day. The only thing you left out is how Democrats have horns and drink baby blood.
True
Proud Slav here and I agree
This is disturbingly biased. I would be okay with that if it was presented or acknowledged as such. But this is far from objective. Just biased editorializing.
Doesn't it STILL say that black people are 2/3rds human?? Yeah, it's a problem. Needs some revisions...or a complete overhaul
It actually says 3/5ths of all other persons. The mentioned people are those who are free or indentured for labor for a set term of years. It doesn’t say anything about the race of those who are not free.
European direct democracies are failing, and the most stable countries have always been republics.
National-Power is a representative democracy, while the Nation itself is a Federal Republic.
Same goes for federal states, wich are semi-sovereign unitary republics.
Municipalities wich are civil governments and the best example of what a democracy is.
What went through your brain when you decided to put that loud music on the video? Why???
“The U.S has overtly pursued double standards.” - Lijian Zhao
You're quoting a guy who defends a genocide, you moron.
Yes, excellent quote from a high ranking member of the CCP.
Small states would not want to be in a union where they will get ruled over by the large states. That was the whole point of the system and it remains to this day.
"it"s a republic hurr durr"
We're a representative democracy a Republic means we don't recognize a monarch or dictator as the head of state.
Worst fault is when corporations are afforded 'personhood' interpretation of Fourteenth Amendment, further declared corporations can without limit, finance political causes. Money can buy political influence without limit.
This is because the majority is not always right or just
SAY IT LOUDER!!!
@@Abby_Doodle nobody ever replies to one of my best comments and that is "Democracy is an existential threat to our Constitutional Republic" ; ) 👍
@@rwarts5150 17th Amendment: if they do not see me, they might think they are a Republic still.
17th amendment took us from a Republic to a Democracy by letting the masses vote for Senate when they were appointed before.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist." -Lysander Spooner
"And the whole power of the government must be limited to the maintenance of that single principle. And that one principle is justice. There is no other principle that any man can rightfully enforce upon others, or ought to consent to have enforced against himself. Every man claims the protection of this principle for himself, whether he is willing to accord it to others, or not. Yet such is the inconsistency of human nature, that some men --- in fact, many men --- who will risk their lives for this principle, when their own liberty or property is at stake, will violate it in the most flagrant manner, if they can thereby obtain arbitrary power over the persons or property of others. We have seen this fact illustrated in this country, through its whole history --- especially during the last hundred years --- and in the case of many of the most conspicuous persons. And their example and influence have been employed to pervert the whole character of the government. It is against such men, that all others, who desire nothing but justice for themselves, and are willing to unite to secure it for all others, must combine, if we are ever to have justice established for any." - Lysander Spooner
Epic. He was a very smart man. Funny they don't ever teach you about him in school.
Referring to Blue&Yellow “If you are losing sleep over this conflict and are stressed, Just imagine this happening in Africa but worse, Imagine this happening in the Middle East and Asia but much worse, Imagine Russia is the U.S and Ukraine is Palestine”. - Sergey Lavrov, Gotta respect the response and appreciate that statement for calling out the double standards.
“The U.S has overtly pursued double standards.” - Lijian Zhao
This needed to be said so much!!
America is a Republic... This video is neo marxist propaganda
I mean white isn’t the right term when using the founding. Plenty, most of the whites also were disregarded as well. Basically anyone from Eastern Europe, let’s not forget the denial of workers rights for the polish settlers who were some of the original colonists as well. Anyone who wasn’t a Protestant as well, had a hard time. Not as hard as peoples of colored but to also make it sound like the door was open to everyone, that’s not true. My Irish and German ancestors I’m sure had just the best time dealing with English, in the Americas, and my ancestors from Puerto Rico had their own story. It’s just not a genuine way of making this understood. Again it’s power in smaller hands.
White isn't just the color of one's skin. In that case, many Middle Eastern people would be considered white too. "White" then and now was a social construct / social class made up of many different elements, including religion. At that time, Slavs and the Irish weren't really considered "white" or deserving of white privileges, but that has obviously changed over time.
8:06 FDR wanted to implement a so-called “Second Bill of Rights”, which he proposed in 1944, that would have guaranteed most of these rights to all US citizens. Conservatives (from both major parties) were adamantly opposed to it, and with the obvious priority being the war, he wasn’t able to garner enough support for it, so it was never passed.
You hit the nail on the head. This helps to explain most of the problems that keep cropping up. Check gun laws and abortion rights for example. Wake up America.
abortion is not a right its homicide. I'm so glad america reformed roe vs wade but i agree with you on the gun reform issue. the 2nd amendment needs a huge reform or else gun violence and deaths will just keep increasing.
@@wacirreza3573 statistically you’re wrong about the gun issue
@@wacirreza3573 How is removing a dead fetus from a woman is homocide?
WOW VERY DANGEROUS I WILL NEVER GO TO USA !😠😠 THIS WHY IM SO LUCKY LIVE IN SUPER INDIA 🤗🇮🇳 THE CLEANEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD , WE NEVER DO SCAM AND WE GIVE RESPECT TO ALL WOMEN THEY CAN WALK SAFELY ALONE AT NIGHT AND WE HAVE CLEAN FOOD AND TOILET EVERYWHERE 🇮🇳🤗🚽, I KNOW MANY POOR PEOPLE JEALOUS WITH SUPER RICH INDIA 🤗🇮🇳🤗🇮🇳🤗🇮🇳🤗
@@wacirreza3573 If you don't have total control of what happens to your body, you have zero freedom.
We should breakup the country, then everyone can be happy.
I think the biggest problem with US constitution is its inability to adapt and difficulty to amendments...like from 1787 only 27 amendments have been enacted which is crazy..as opposed to my country which in only 70 years has had 107 amendments...
Thats why your country has isn't a superpower and NOT globally influential
There are people who have "We The People" tattooed, a constitutional convention is closest thing to impossible to achieve
Actually the founders outlined democracy as a form of mobocracy and chaotic rule in the federalist papers and set up several measures to avert the republic from mob rule or democracy...Senate was intended to prevent populism in the house and ensure the voices of the several states to be heard within the federal legislature by state appointed senators which sadly isn't the case cuz the 17th amendment rendered the senator the same as house where everyone is strictly divided by partisan lines and interest groups without concerning of the good for the people, Exaggerated even further by globalists' monopoly on mass media and constantly agenda pushing, the whole legislature becomes a vehicle to advance the interest of big companies; Federal Judiciary overreach is almost universal with all the cases citing the 14th amendment to undermine the sovereignty of several states in the name of civil rights; On the executive branch, irresponsible budget, abuse of executive orders, oversized federal government driven it far away from the original intention for the same to act as a stabilizer and to act only on the interest of the nation. Should the founding fathers see this, guess they'll rather side with anti-federalist to keep the original Confederacy than let capitalists sell the country away. We are currently living under corporatocracy disguised in the coat of "democracy" for 20 years more, but people's mind are changing.
I'd agree with much of your post, But AJ has an agenda, thus half-truths. And, agendas do not resolve problems, just makes more.
Your comments are very TRUTHFUL. RASPECT TO THAT.
What a lot of people fail to understand is that this is the United STATES of America and not the United PEOPLES of America. The election of the president is actually a function of the states themselves and not the peoples in the states. A lot of people would be in shock to find out that a state legislature could enact a law saying that they themselves would select the presidential electors in the next presidential election instead of holding the traditional statewide vote. I think the 17th Amendment removing the state legislature from selecting the senators as a major mistake in our great nation's history. Both the President and senators were to be a function of the state itself whereas the House was to belong to the power of the people themselves.
And who the hell in their right mind would want a democracy.
I'd say quite a lot of people enjoy democracy. Namely the Western world like The North America and Europe.
I’ve been saying this for a while now that the constitution is an old and outdated document. Yet we’re taught to look at the constitution like it’s on par with the Bible. I took a political science class on comparative government and the teacher has us read the book “How Democratic is the American Constitution?” by Robert Dahl, which I believe everyone should read. He heavily criticized the electoral college and the senate. The truth is that the constitution doesn’t reflect how much more democratic this country has become since the constitution was written and it contradicts how diverse and multiethnic America is today. What I’ve also learned is that while we as Americans look at our constitution as a model for the rest of the world, that’s one big allusion. Practically every other country rejects our constitution as a model.
Those problems will be iron out with voting technology. Its the best document out there.
The constitution was a contract. That contract was with the aboriginal people of the land.
As a German, I hate that you use the word "multi-racial" sooo very much! That you choose language that suggests that human races exist, is disgusting, even though I agree with the other 99,5% of the entire video, please cease with this one foolishness. Use propper terms instead. "Pluralistic", "Multicultural", "Racialised", "racism", "ethnic" ... ALL of these are completely fine, damnit.
Poisonous use of Language
Did you know if you have more than a 1000+$ cash and a police stops you, they will rob you off that money.
Outstanding, brilliant analysis. Thanks for posting!
This is remarkably basic. The great compromise came about because small states feared their interests would be ignored. In those days, they did not see themselves as one big nation, like many do today. It was more like a federation of states that were largely independent. In some ways it is outdated, and too difficult to amend. But the above video is very partisan and childish.
We aren’t a democracy, we never have been. We were always a Republic
They're literally the same thing. It's like calling a Granny smith Apple just an Apple.
@@ashleygray1632 A republic protects the right of an individual and a democracy does not protect the right of an individual. A democracy can easily turn into mob rule and tyranny.
@@ashleygray1632 Simply put: In a Democracy, the majority rules. If the majority decided they wanted your bike, they could take it.
In a Republic, your bike is your property and you do not owe it to anyone. It cannot be taken against your will, by law.
*U.S.A is a Constitutional Republic*
Great work!
It's only a framework. The current framework! Yet, I see a renewed digital version coming up ahead. Wouldn't be surprised
Your constitution needs change.
Things in other countries and it U.S get better by the power of “freedom” which translates to free doom and “democracy” doomofcrapy.
Very informative, Bravo!!!
Its litteral propaganda that doesnt demostrate the other sides arguments at all. Not informative, just more brainwashing material
“Part of the check engine light club” omg
ya'll are the most reliable source of news there is, stg.
Facts
You’re right and you should say it.
reliable as it's tightly fit into our own personal views, anyone holding a different view would say otherwise and they'd have their own reasonings to say so
This isn’t news?
😂😂😂😂
It seems vague when a Network from an absolute gulf monarchy discusses the American constitution
Great video 👍
One big omission in this video... the constitution was created in the context of unifying individual states. The Senate was one of the most important carrots in keeping States in the union (and arguably still is today).
So one of the most undemocratic parts is what keeps all the states together?
I'm asking as a curious & baffled Canadian.
Jajaja that's what you think. It was something to negotiate, sure, superficially. But, deep down it had to do with the most basic function of creating a participatory state that was unified in its ability to exert force against enemies and unanimously with its allies. Take this example: If Texas seceeds you think the US, which remains a separate state, is going to allow Texans to have nuclear bombs, stealth fighters, etc. that were developed with federal money? Nope. They would be considered a threat, and put on a shit list. It seems most Americans aren't taught how centralized governments really work. It's all a word game that clouds the political principles at play. The Bill of Rights is the cherry on top of the cake of this deft subterfuge encased in The Federalist Papers. This was the carrot put in front of the general populace.
@@jonathanse8977Yes. And it is present in most of the multiethnic countries because it gives equal powers to all states, regardless of their population or economic size. It prevents the power imbalance by preventing the weight in favour of mighty states which might use this power to divert resources to their side. So yeah, senate is a double edged sword but kind of important for countries like USA.
@@dsa513 US citizens must know by now watching the police forces get militarized that they are the next "enemy ".
@@jonathanse8977 Yes. It was a slavocracy negotiating among it's various self centered colonialist pieces.
I really don't think the problem is the constitution... It is the politcal parties. Every complex opinion here in the US is painted with a red brush or blue brush. President Washington said not to partake in party politics... Political parties do nothing but make gridlock. We need more strong parties, or better yet - none at all.
its both
It's ironic to see Al Jazeera (and leftists in general) criticizing lack of majority rule in the US (when it suits them), but criticizes it when it does not, like in Europe.
Like?Give an example?You are just stating a truism that only works for those who already believe what you believe you also haven’t been able to prove how any of this is wrong in any way all of this is true the constitution is not democratic and to me that is not a good thing.
Also European countries have much more majority representation,look at Switzerland for example.
They do?
I’d argue the United States is a democracy by definition, just not a really good one
This country is nowhere near a democracy!
@@brianatippens3010 we are democratic, just no where near perfect, we are a flawed democracy but also a plutocracy and a corporatocracy
Upgrades are ready to install.
Would you like to restart your government now?
Finally someone admits we are not a democracy
We certainly have some work to do to be more democratic, but we're far closer to being a democracy than the opposite.
usa is a democracy
It could definitely use some updates but I have to disagree with how much it has been demonised here.
For example the all states get get two senators each because Senotors represent States not people. That's brilliant. Representation of the people is at the House level. This separation protects smaller states from the power of bigger states. Again, brilliant
As the video put it. You have smaller states who are then able to dictate policies for larger states. At the end of the day, States are made of individuals and it’s about the voice of the individual being snuffed. We must vote by ppl. Not by states
@@blairclarkjr.4791Individuals are adequately represented in many ways: at the local level, in the state senate and in the house at the federal level. The purpose of the senate is to represent individuals as a collective, a state. Whatever ideal, policies, values and wishes individuals (the state majority) express at the local and state levels are presented, represented and/or protected at the federal level through the senate. No matter how small the population, if the union is to survive, no state and its values must be valued over another.
@@unclescar5616 if the states were roughly the same size then it's not that bad but today it promotes minority rule - which is fundamentally anti democratic (i.e. all votes count the same). Why should citizens of small states have more power and be able to consistently veto the will of the majority? Also why should the house not have a say in picking judges when the house comes closer to representing the majority view?
It was brilliant for the politicians bringing the 13 colonies into a union sure but as citizens of the US you are not citizen of a state,why should states be treated as sovereign countries when they don’t even represent ethnic or national groups instead just boundaries on a map?Seems stupid to keep as a modern nation,no other nation state does this only the US because of its old constitution that was writen for a union of 13 sovereign nations coming together which have lost all sovereignty over time as civic and corporate power has grown to replace state power.Today people also migrate from state to state so why keep this archaic system?
@@mauricio9564 You would have to de-federalise then. But states still represent different "conditions". Although people migrate from state to state, there are still some significant economic, social, and even environmental and geographical differences between states. The USA is huge. Compare the agricultural Midwest states like Nebraska to California. Because of the different geographical conditions they have inspired different economic activities and given rise to different social values and cultures. Sure there are some overlaps which is why it is possible to unite them but there still remains some significant differences.
For instance, labour laws, environmental laws and taxation in industrial California has to be different from agricultural Nebraska. Similarly federal water management policies cannot be applied equally in arid Nevada and swampy Florida.
To maintain and protect its own economic and social environment, each region needs a level of automy from the federal government. It's called decentralisation
I'll tell you what. I, for one, will celebrate the fall of the US empire
It's about time this is said!! Thank-you!!!
You guys can scream it at the top of your lungs, it doesnt matter! If you dont like it MOVE to Canada! The constitution will never be changed or touched, those that try will swing with the breeze or be exiled to Canada.
It can be changed for the worse by Republikkkans.
lawyers and experts who were trained or educated abroad have been saying this for decades...the myth of the US constitution has been propagandized so much falsehoods are accepted as norms. I mean compared to modern constitutions, the writing style of the USC almost seems like gibberish for example with its outlandish starting statements
The constitution is 233 years old, so the lingo is a tad bit outdated but still pretty easily interpreted. Experts use Blacks Law Dictionary as the gold standard so if anything doesnt make sense im sure you can find its interpretation and meaning in there
That what make America AMERICA 🇺🇸
Embarrassing.
@@lesbethtacioni1733 we love it to even voted in a joke
i think US has reached a point where they need a revolution…like legit a revolution 💀
Oh yeah there will be a 2nd Capital Riot if the US government give an amnesty or citizenship towards illegal immigrants.
No it's not, a revolution would be very likely to lead to something worse. Our initial revolution was to throw off colonial rule, but revolutions to overthrow governments often don't work well. If the conditions of the population are miserable then it makes sense, but even then the new government might be even worse than the previous one.
6:21 Jews only got to write one important line. No religious test or requirement may be a condition of taking federal office. Even this one line costed modern millions of dollars for Jews to attach this line
I appreciate this video & this channel, but as a lawyer, a former child refugee from the Middle East, and a proud American, I have a unique perspective:
1.) The Constitution in itself is not anti-democratic, I actually think it’s quite the opposite. At its core, it is a memorialization of an agreement, a social contract, a radical attempt at self-governance by a bunch of people almost 250 years ago. In the right hands, our Constitution has helped us achieve some of the greatest milestones in world history, even with our relatively young age as a country. With that being said, in the hands of bad actors: the results can be, and often have been catastrophic to the world and to ourselves.
2.) As a lifelong Californian, a state with 40 million residents, the fifth largest economy in the world that pays more every year in taxes than it receives from the federal government, it used to annoy me that I had the same amount of Senators as someone from South Dakota - but I’ve grown to love and appreciate that the allocation of our United States Senators has given us champions of freedom and democracy like Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, from tiny Rhode Island. Kinda think that people from all over should have a say too, ya know? And often the staggered, six-year terms for Senators tended to make them more moderate, more bigger-picture, more invested in what happens with the people of their States and of the country over longer periods of time, as opposed to every time the wind changes, as can happen in the House sometimes (see: the GOP Insurrection Caucus). And generally, that has been the case for much of our history post-Watergate. That’s why it’s been the most surreal watching Senators like Rubio and Graham and Cruz turning into literal jackboot-licking fascists in 2022, when 6 years ago they were honest about telling us how bad Trump was for the country and for the GOP - and we can still see those videos, so It’s even more awkward and insincere when they act like he’s their golden calf or their Orange Putin.
3.) Abolish the filibuster, and also the Electoral College needs to go. That’s just bad math, man.
4.) The Supreme Court has done some of the most heinous things under the banner of our Constitution - and yet that same institution has also delivered some the most beautiful of triumphs and victories in our nation’s history. BUT: the Republicans have soiled SCOTUS so much so that serious reforms must be enacted: set term limits (no more lifetime petty tyrants, like Thomas), expand the Court to 13 to pair up with the 13 Circuit Courts we already have, and make the Supreme Court explicitly subject to the same rules, ethics, and codes of conduct of all Article III judges.
This very long comment is just to say that America, like most democracies, is a work-in-progress. Unfortunately, it feels like we are descending into a fascist dystopian and I can’t do anything to stop it. I love my country, I love democracy, and I pray we all survive this time in history together, as Americans. God bless y’all 🇺🇸
nice job
all the things you think are revolutionary victories for humankind were things other places had done before or were doing better already whenever we achieved them lol. there is nothing really substantially good for the species thats come from that crusty old "give everything to the rich people" document
"a radical attempt at self-governance by a bunch of people almost 250 years ago. "
You've been duped by government propaganda.
A small number of White Men in a white minority part of the world decided to impose a new Eurocentric (IE: White) government in order to not obey British law which was seeking to protect more rights than it had in the past (Indigenous rights, rights of French settlers, Religious rights of Catholics from oppression by Protestants, etc).
I'm not saying this as a British loyalist or something, and I also find the Canadian constitution offensive even though that government granted me citizenship at birth. I'm suggesting that neither of these unilateral impositions of foreign governing worldviews were examples of "self-governance", but are what is blocking self-governance of domestic nations that predate these occupations.
You’re right it’s a Corporotacracy of land owners, merchants and bankers
FYI Republic = non-monarchist form of government, and American republicanism was defined as representative democracy. In fact they differed on the level of democracy. Thomas Paine and populist Jefferson (Ward Republics) were so democratic they were viewed as too radical by other Founders. And of course Benjamin Franklin was among these democrats. Democratic-Republicans vs National Federalists