Quite ironically, the burning of flag being legal says good things about America. It simply demonstrates the freedom you have, the ability to make moral or immoral, good or bad decisions.
That only came about due to a court ruling which echoes the point made in the video, the judiciary has been picking up the slack. That has been demonstrated in many other instances where the court expanded the rights of people via rulings. Their system would have come under much more strain without a willing judiciary (it wasn't always this way as there were extended periods when they were cunts).
@@randomyoutubeuser8509 since most Congressmen and Senators get reelected, the 27th Amendment doesn't make much of a difference since they will see the pay rise the moment the new session starts.
The constitution is for the national level, meaning it affects EVERY one’s rights and liberties. It should be difficult to change it since it’s at the national level. Laws change more frequently at the state level, and even more at the county/city level. The constitution was designed to allow smaller governments, such as the city, county, and states, to better respond and change to the needs of their people. So if you want to make some changes, start your local/community level.
Uh, well States are no better at responding to the people then the Federal government. States Constitution gets changed very frequently compared to the national constitution and it affects us equally no matter how hard you try to say state constitution is easier to amend for certain reasons like everybody travels to different states and lives in different places so technically it still affects everybody. Leaving your judgment invalid.
(Yes, I'm aware of how old this is). I disagree with the OP. The difficulty in amendment is intended to protect the sovereignty of the individual states. There was _considerable_ resistance to the notion of a strong national government, so a constitution that established hard limits on the power of the new national government was an easier sell to the people. And a necessary part of that was making the amendment process extremely difficult. However, this protection has far outlived its usefulness, and an amendment to change the amendment process (to a simple majority in Congress, followed by a popular vote during a presidential election year, for example) is very much necessary. Depending upon the Supreme Court to extend the Constitution is... Not a viable long term solution.
To put it simply, the founding fathers didn't want ratification to occur easily. Government has the tendency to take away freedoms rather than protecting them. We should at least make it so that it does so slowly and inefficiently.
Its easy to change as long as there is a strong consensus. Its hard to change now because of how divided the country but then again, a divided country shouldn't making huge decisions on what rights people should have.
I don't think it was about that, rather it was supposed to be about stability. Any system needs to be stable to some degree, because if you change everything every 4 years, that will be bad for everyone. BTW the German system for passing amendments is the same process for Congress PROPOSING amendments in the US: 2/3 of the lower and upper house. I don't think Congress has even proposed anywhere near as many Amendments as Germany, per year
@@marlonmoncrieffe0728 The difficulty of amending the US constitution didn't prevent the Eighteenth Amendment enacting Prohibition, which was such a mistake they reversed it within 15 years!
I think it is very difficult to pass an amendement in US Constitution also because Founding Fathers did not want it to be changed easily, so the rights of the citizens would not be dismissed easily
True but when it needed to be changed to protect the rights of citizens it caused a civil war. So far every amendment has been and addition and thus and addition to our liberties it would be nice if we could add rights more easily and make taking them away more difficult.
@@GhostEmblem but that doesn't work in a real world , in real world either everything could be changed easily or everything would be difficult to change easily
@@henrywang4845 The constitution is basically a frame work laying out the branches of federal government. It also lays out the roles and limitations of the federal government. It guarantees all citizens certain rights. But per the tenth amendment all powers not given to the federal government by the constitution nor prohibited by it are reserved to the states. This is why the constitution can be so simple. Most everything is up to each state.
Australia's constitution is similarly static. 8 amendments since 1901. All amendments need to pass Parliament and then a referendum that passes nationally and in at least 4 of the 6 states.
Luckily Australia's constitution is far more limited in scope than the US one. It is primarily to divide powers between the states, the federal government and the judiciary. This makes it almost impossible for a court to override the democratic process of the people. It can merely determine WHICH government has the power to act on a question.
@@smitajky Australian constitution is a set of rules of government which includes the codified constitution and the uncodified constitutional conventions.
@@smitajky The uncodified constitutional conventions are more important than the codified constitution in Australia. Because Australia follows the Westminster tradition.
Oooooh the ignorance is strong with you. It should be difficult and it should require most people to want it but it should not be impossible. That constitution is so obsolete it will eventually destroy the U.S. When no changes are possible then it's just matter of time until it crumbles under itself.
Not necessarily. It's partly because the judiciary picked up the slack and stepped in when it really shouldn't have if the other branches were doing their job. Had the judiciary been like the Japanese one that almost always defers to the govt and even when it rules against them never really spells out a remedy or gets ignored, that kind of system will be prone to collapse. If people cannot work within the system to effect change they will change without the system. Japan is currently trying to amend the amendment process. They have never successfully amended their constitution.
True, True. But it still goes back to the founders instituting checks an balances. The Congress is supposed to make the laws, Executive Branch is supposed to enforce the laws and Judicial Branch is supposed to interpret the laws. However, many times (in the modern era) the Judicial Branch has legislated from the bench, often times overlooking past interpretations in favor of their own political viewpoints. In most cases, this was warranted as it pertains to social issues, such as overturning Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education but in general, they are to interpret the law and its constitutionality, not overturn and write new laws based on their own political viewpoints. You are right though, if the Congress drops the ball what are they supposed to do? Take the Second Amendment, every decision since our founding has upheld the Second Amendment as a right that should not be infringed upon but say 30 years from now (as there is certainly a push by some currently) a justice hates guns, believes they should be outlawed and puts forth a decision that the wording in the Constitution is vague, for a different time, or not what the Framers meant. As a result they overturn the second amendment and outlaw guns. This would be wrong because that is the Congress’s job.
The constitution is hard to amend because doing so more often than not would do more harm. There is a reason 3/4 of the states must agree. After all each state is a member of this union and the only thing that unites the states is the constitution.
+michael barton Yeah old politicians who made rules know better than newer ones eh? The same document that needed an amendment against slavery.... Americans have such a fetish for old politicians/rules while they hate new ones. Way to be static and old fashioned.
+Phyrexious Hey! Just because we live in a different time does not make what they stated to keep our nation as one old fashion. We can change political, economical, and social matters because those are what evolves and changes over time. The constitution should remain the way it is especially if it plays along in the functions of our nation to this very day
Cupcake Foodie Society and culture changes and therefore it's rules should be able too as well. Don't treat the constitution as some kind of godly document that needs worshiping. It's just a bunch of laws written by lawmakers before the lawmakers of today. It's hard to see that though when you're being spoonfed patriotism about the founding fathers. If I would propose that the laws that the current administration (or Bush's) should also remain in effect forever and be extremely hard to change, you would think that's stupid. Now I'm all for stability and laws shouldn't be 'too' easy to change either, but you also shouldn't treat the constitution any different than other legal documents. If there's a problem or a better solution, you fix it, like the amendment against slavery.
+Phyrexious An amendment to the constitution is very drastic, and should not be taken lightly. Making it easy to amend would have some serious repercussions.
Wouldn’t it kind of defeat the point of the Constitution if it could just be altered on a whim? The point is that it needs overwhelming support since it’s such a huge change
The problem with american politics is that even if 99% of people wanted a change it probably wouldn't happen. Also majority of population asking for a change isn't "on a whim" at all.
@@oldemail2838 The constitution is more powerful than the president but can be changed by the President doesn't that mean if all goes right the president can make an amendment to make him king?
@@uldineframe8790 They wanted Washington for a king and he turned them down twice. If Washington was character in LOTR at the beginning that intally defended Sauron then LOTAR would have been over in first 30 min.
Love this video except the last part where it mentioned Jefferson suggesting to Madison that laws should expire after about 20 years, it wasn't 19. This was because Thomas was intrigued by a utopia and thought each generation was sovereign. The video left it open without including James' response which was gentle, unassuming, and very logical. James told him that as fascinating as that idea was, it was a recipe for anarchy and ran directly counter to the whole trust of his own political effort to establish a stable constitutional settlement that compelled the trust and abiding respect of present and future generations of Americans. So, let's be clear and not leave that hanging in the balance for it to be distorted and turned into a new agenda to eradicate one of the most beautiful forms of freedom ever expressed in written form, our Constitution.
Good eye! They were the first two proposed amendments: _1. After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand._ _2. No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened._ The remaining 10 were bumped up to fill their places. Freedom of Speech was proposed as the 3rd Amendment, the Right to Bare Arms was proposed as the 4th Amendment, and so on. The proposed 2nd Amendment ("No law, varying the compensation...") was later ratified verbatim in 1992 and is in effect today as the 27th Amendment. Source: www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
+David S. Actaully depending on how it is interpreted, Article I, Section II of the Constitution tells us the number of Representatives each state is allowed.
I have a question and I can't seem to find any answer online: once and amendment passes, why is it appended at the end of the main text as a separate entity instead of being included into the text itself? In my country, Italy, when we amend our Constitution the amendment either adds new sentences to the current text or modifies/deletes existing articles, so that the new Constitution actually reflects the change. Why does the US keep the original text unchanged and just adds "footnotes" to it?
Our constitution along with the first ten amendments are on display in Washington D.C. for historical purposes. We would have to remove the constitution from its place for that.
@@MrBassmann15 That's not necessary. Here in Italy we have our original Constitution from 1948 still in Rome, in the State Archives, but the text valid for legal purposes is the current version as changed by the various constitutional amendments that have passed across the years. The original paper can still be there on display for historical purposes, but the text that we refer to for constitutional matters is the updated one.
You've mentioned amendments to Constitution in countries like Germany and France which is comparatively very less with respect to India. Indian Constitution has been amended for 104 times which is a big big number for a democratic country. I feel this needed a mention in your video and was lacking.
Great video! But I'd like to point out Maine wasn't part of the original 13 colonies. The video has 14 states (then colonies) in red. Delaware wasn't divided up. Not a critique, just hope to make your video more perfect =7
It is vitally important that the Constitution be as hard to amend as it is. Amending the Constitution is a very long-term change to our government, and it is so well shown by the hatred that some demagogues have for the 2nd Amendment. They would strip us of a civil right for their convenience. When we do amend it, it is important that the change be one that we are absolutely certain of and all willing to live with. Not just a few of us should be willing, but a clear and large majority.
@@Inkyminkyzizwoz This isn't remotely true. There were repeating air rifles that were basically semi-autos and gatling guns. Private citizens were allowed to own warships, which were far more damaging than anything citizens can own today.
@candiduscorvus The Second Amendment is recognized as a human right, not a civil. A civil right is granted by the government. Human rights are inherent in all humans. All rights protected under the Bill of Rights are human rights. The Constitution merely serves to recognize them.
If anything the second amendment shows how damaging SCOTUS can be. Before Heller and Bruen the second amendment was treated as a "second class right" (to quote Clearance Thomas) by states like New York and liberal courts like the 2nd and 9th circuit. The only reason it will now get the recognition it deserves is solely because we got lucky electing Trump in 2016, Anthony Kennedy retired in 2018, and RBG dying in 2020
The US Constitution was written in 1787, ratified in 1788 (not 1789 like it says in the beginning of the video), and took effect in 1789, same year Washington took office.
Why not do a video on how the two party system could be fixed with one minor change in how voting is done? Seeing as how the current method of voting is logically the worst method of voting possible... Here is some basic information... Our current system is everyone picks one candidate, and whichever candidate has the most votes wins. One new method, would be to have everyone rank their votes. Say there are three candidates, A, B, and C. You vote A>B>C. When the votes are counted, then the process begins. Whoever has the least number of first votes is eliminated. If your primary vote was eliminated, your next candidate becomes your primary vote. The process continues until one person remains. This would completely prevent split-parties from being worse off, ever. Say candidates A and B are the dominant party (65%) and candidate C is the minority party (35%). In the current system, if candidate A and B split their vote (32%-33%) then the minority party wins. In this new system, candidate A is eliminated. Then we have candidate B (65%) and candidate C (35%) so candidate B wins and the dominant party wins. This would also make voting for third parties logical, whereas currently you would have to be logically ignorant to vote for a third party. Let's say you want the third party C more than the dominant parties A and B. If A and B are close, but C is not, then voting for C is a wasted vote. Instead, you should pick your favorite of A or B. In the new system, a vote for C would be more like saying you don't want A or B, but prefer, say, A, if you had to pick. If C wasn't going to win, then you still get to vote for A. If C was awesome, but everyone secretly thought they would lose, they could still all vote C, and be pleasantly surprised when C wins. There would be no reason to not vote C, if you prefer C. Unfortunately, such a system can never exist, because the proponents would need support from the dominant parties, who would lose power if such a system were implemented, since people would now be free to vote for other parties. The exception to this, is if enough people wake up to the reality that they are being cheated of a truly free vote and demand the freedom to actually elect their own representatives.
I prefer removing party label from the ballot. That should eliminate the brand name advantage the major parties have. Also, we should eliminate the whole notion of primary and general elections. Instead, it should be semifinals and finals. In the semifinal round a voter doesn’t vote for a specific candidate but rather votes yes or no for each candidate individually. The candidates who get more yes votes than no votes proceed to the finals. If no candidate achieves that they do over the semifinal round with all new candidates.
Random Ashe This method would prevent voters from having to choose between the lesser of 2 evils. Right now a candidate who is a 3 on a scale of 1 to 10 can win if he convinces the voters that the other guy is a 1 or 2. There is a concern regarding if no candidate gets more yes votes than no votes after multiple tries. They can’t keep voting forever. For a legislative seat they could have the seat remain empty for the full term, and for all votes in the legislative body the seat will be an automatic no vote. Some other resolution would be required for executive offices.
A lot of people comment that the constitutions mustn’t change but there are plenty of countries where constitution is changed more or less frequently and it actually works pretty well and most of the amendments do more good than bad. And then why everything is decided by representatives, why there is no obligatory referendum like in Switzerland? Rappresentative democracy isn’t flawless, wether it’s first-past-the-post or propositional, those less than 1000 can’t represent everyone on every matter.
That first proposed Amendment was part of the proposal now known as The Bill of Rights. The one they mention is kind of obsolete as the formula it enshrines only has any real effect when the country is small. 12 Amendments were proposed at that time. The other 11 were ratified. Numbers 3-12 became the first 10 Amendments. #2 became the 27th Amendment, ratified over 200 years later.
The Constitution is hard to amend because the founders (particularly Jefferson) would never have imagined that we'd use the exact same document for centuries. He said something like "a healthy democracy rewrites its foundation every 19 years". So we've kind of dropped the ball on that one. EDIT: I should probably watch the whole video before commenting from now on
Values and ideals changes every century. Jefferson is way ahead of its time by saying every generation which is about every 19 years Since ya know. 19 years To grow up and have kids and vote at 18
The "window tint" code for cars should be updated. Not having tinted windows hasn't really done anything... Except maybe expose people to UVA rays for longer periods of time every day. The "10 PM curfew for minors-of-all-ages" code. It was understandable during the time it was introduced (the 90's; with gangs becoming popular, Etc). But that was 2 decades ago. And these curfew laws (not counting temporary ordinances) remove the most essential constitutional right. To think that in the US it's illegal to be a certain age during a set time-frame everyday. It's understandable when it comes to younger children, but the law should be for parents (since it leans more towards a 'child endangerment' act) rather that arresting the minor. These are only from my personal opinion... Of course a true, completed list of current unnecessary laws are better left to legislatures nation-wide to debate over.
@@Glitch-Videos In the UK, the requirement for trains to have yellow fronts for visibility has recently been lifted, as headlights have got better since that rule was made
"The earth belongs to the living and not to the dead" I said this years ago to my parents. Just kind of surprising to me that I would hear it from TED. Made my day
Just curious how they end up with such conclusion. Was it like that: if earth has life then earth belongs to living? Cap i no longer like such explanations where everything is obvious and the only work you do is to say obvious things! ahhh so irritating
Princeton Kihd "The earth belongs to the living" is in term that we should not follow the rules that were made by people who already died when these rules do not suit the people who are still living.
cheuk hin Poon I'm not sure why you mention your location. Let's assume there is a law maker died 100 years ago. The laws this law maker made were for solving the problem faced by people from 100 years ago. However, such laws may become barriers to people in this generation, the livings. When people say "it is tradition, and we cannot change laws because they were written by our ancestors." And such laws, protected by their age, become the barriers of the new generations, the one that does not face problem ancestors faced, that is when I say it is time to let the old laws go and let the new laws come in. If you are curios about why I say Earth. Earth is the representation of human society, and we know better, and better behaviors about and to the earth. Then it is our responsibility to carry on the Earth rather than carry on the old laws that is harming the people who is living and harming the earth in general
cheuk hin Poon For example, the second amendment, back then theres only Muskete. American founding fathers do not know anything about what is nuclear weapon, auto-guns, Drones, etc. I'm not saying banning the second amendment, but when there are many massacres every year, and buying a machine that was design for killing is much easier than buying bread from Walmart (In case you don't know, if you buy a gun, you can ask for delivery, but if you want to buy a bread, you have to go Walmart yourself.) I say it is time make changes about the old laws rather than keeping it because they were written by the people who died 2-300 years ago in order to let laws serve we the people who actually under the influence of the law.
Why is the constitution so hard to follow? Opening congress with a prayer? The expectation of every president to be a Christian? Chaplains are paid for with our tax dollars! Not to mention that Religious Freedom Act that gave religious shop owners to refuse service to people based on their religious beliefs. I don't see enough separation between church and state up in here!
+Skye ID Senators and Representatives are allowed to stand in silence, but must provide respect to the Congressmen and women who do pray. The expectation of every president to follow Christianity is false, Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, and Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson were ambiguous in their religious beliefs. Only military chaplains are paid with tax dollars. The term is now generally used today in military organizations to describe all professionals specially trained to serve any spiritual need, regardless of religious affiliation. And the Religious Freedom Restoration Act only applies to the federal government ("to all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise") Shop owners have a right to refuse service based on their own preferences, while it is unsightly to refuse service based on sex, creed, or skin color, they still reserve that right.
+Skye ID As mentioned above there is a difference between separation of church and state and respect of religious freedoms. Jailing someone because they do not believe in God(s) is different than allowing someone to pray in the governmental hearings.
+Skye ID It's because the constitution litterally applies to the entire U.S, so just one new law can change the entire way the state lives, operates, and even behaves. That's why it's so hard to add a new law :3
Do you think if I'd ever succeed if I attempted to add an amendment stating "no judge or jury shall find a defendant not guilty off the basis of affluenza"
I had never heard of that letter from Thomas Jefferson at the end. But, what he said is a good point. "The earth belongs to the living, and not to the dead".
I am happy the founding fathers made the constitution the way it is unlike other countries where they have especially in recent years arresting people for their speech because it “offended” someone or was against someone who is a part of a “protected” class. It is ridiculous.
0:34 Alexander Hamilton... My name is Alexander Hamilton. And there's a million things I haven't done. But just you wait...just you wait... Haha kill me xD
+Varoon I agree that slavery is horrible but let me ask you this, if either of us were living in a time were slavery was the norm and we were born in "wealthy" families would we also not have kept slaves? I am not trying to say him having slaves was right I am just trying to appreciate what he said.
@@navi2710 Very good point. We can not possibly hold them to our standard because it was the norm at the time. I use the example of eating meat. Today most of us eat meat. But it could be that in a hundred years it will be considered very immoral. Then will will look back and say Reagan may have done some good things but he ate meat.
@@TheAaronChand I don't. Progress towards slavery is still progress. The constitution is a battlement against tyranny. It may be imperfect but it is irreplaceable.
Before going to the states for ratification, an amendment has to go through one of two processes. One is to be approved by both houses of Congress by two-thirds majorities. The other is to be approved by a constitutional convention like in 1787, which requires a mandate from two-thirds of the state legislatures. (This allows the state governments, in theory, to amend the Constitution without federal approval.)
@@mastergoku4321 (a. someone elected to a position of power is not elected by all people (b most people elected to office sometimes have disagreements even with the people who voted for them so therefore because of those two tenets this government isn't for the people nor by the people.
How about an amendment which states that an amount equal to that of foreign aid or military spending will be spent in the improvement of American infrastructure?
wrote this Amendment up just for the fun of it: Amendment XXVIII Article I: To safeguard the effective operation of our government, term limitations shall be instituted for Senators and Members of the House of Representatives as follows: Senators shall not serve more than two terms, and Members of the House of Representatives shall not serve more than six terms. Article II: Upon accepting the honorable office of Senator or Representative, and upon reaching the prescribed limitations of their service, individuals shall be deemed ineligible for reelection to either the Senate or the House of Representatives. Article III: Incumbent members of Congress who presently serve or have exceeded the aforementioned term limitations as set forth in Article I shall be granted the opportunity to fulfill their present term without being disqualified. However, upon the conclusion of their present term, they shall be declared ineligible to stand for re-election to either the Senate or the House of Representatives. Article IV: To uphold the integrity of term limitations and ensure the consistency of legislative service, the following provisions are hereby enacted: a. To prevent members from changing their house affiliation during their terms, it is hereby decreed that any person who has commenced their service in one house, whether it be the Senate or the House of Representatives, shall not have the privilege to abandon their current term and seek a seat in the other house before fulfilling the entirety of the term for which they were originally elected. Any attempt to switch houses mid-term shall be considered void and a violation of these term limitations. b. In accordance with Article I, the total allowable terms shall remain unaltered. Irrespective of the outcome of re-election or if a member, having previously retired, seeks re-election after a period of absence, said member shall serve only the unexpired portion of their original term to which they were initially elected. No extension of their overall term limitation shall be granted by prevailing in a subsequent election, be it after experiencing a loss during their term or after a period of retirement followed by re-election. c. In the case wherein a Member of Congress elects to resign, is removed from their office, or departs from their position by any means, any person subsequently undertaking that office shall be compelled to serve solely the remaining portion of the original Member's term in office, faithfully observing the term limitations outlined in Article I. Furthermore, it is hereby declared that such individuals shall be formally rendered ineligible to stand for election in any subsequent term, once the original Member's terms, as set forth in Article II, have been completed. d. Once an individual selects and assumes office in either the Senate or the House of Representatives, they shall remain bound to that house for the duration of their legislative career.
Arguably, it only allows forced labor, but not slavery, as a punishment for a crime. And in any case, enslavement would without a doubt constitute a "cruel and unusual punishment" contrary to the 8th amendment.
0:33 A mistake this video makes is that Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams were both founding fathers but neither of them were at the constitutional convention.
You're right, look at all the "progress" all the countries with single parties like the communist party, the nazi party, the Khmer Rouge,the Taliban, Hisbollah, etc. have made. Wonderful, eh?
I would argue needing a civil war to make changes has caused a great deal more hardship than any other constitution has caused. But its not set in stone you could argue the other point.
@@omgmono Thats a big one. I heard somewhere that presidential term limits were introduced when FDR was president because he was breaking up the monopolies and the powers that be wanted to stop him. If thats true then we had the opposite problem.
@@GhostEmblem Presedential term limits were introduced when Harry Truman was presendent but even then including a grandfather clause saying it didn't apply to past presidents should they run again.
I'm researching for a book I'm writing (4-30-17) Does anyone know how the state legislative votes, after an Article V Const, Amendment Convention, are forwarded to finalize the Const, Amendment results? I mean, does the majority leader in each state legislature phone federal congress to say YAY of NEY? How does that work?
Im sure this is a joke but if you are capable of reading I'd suggest reading Jefferson Vs Hamilton : The Rivalry that Forged a Nation by John Ferling. Very good read
+James McCracken Indeed, because we definitely should make it easier to target certain groups of people for bigoted reasons. If trolling is being against that, then count me in.
+Andy Wilderness Only about 130 of the 11,000 were taken seriously. So many proposals would be tragic for the country and the world. Like the time when Roosevelt wanted one so that Congress would have powers over divorce, making it illegal. And the time when they wanted to extend manifest destiny over the whole world, creating the United States of Earth. Not making this up. How about the time they tried to make millionaires illegal? Or the time they wanted to replace the office of President with a 3 person military tribunal? Amending isn't a game. Amendments get people killed and oppressed when we play fast and loose. Prohibition brought mass murders and the rise of the mob, corrupting our officials. And so on.
+dec2 why waste your time arguing with childish minds that dont really know what they want to say but have to because somebody is disagreeing with them. LOL
It is actually hard, while this video mentions that the last amendment passed in 1992 what it doesn't mention is that it took 203 years to pass. The 27th amendment was proposed in 1789 by James Madison and ratified in 1992... jacobburnslawlibrary.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/27th-amendment-ratified-may-7-1992/ The majority of amendments to the constitution were passed when America was much smaller when there was only 13 colonies, early on in the creation of America... The likelihood of actually getting 34 out of 50 states to agree to a constitutional convention, getting the necessary votes to pass an amendment(s) and then 3/4 of the states to sign-off the amendment(s) today is slim to none... The founding fathers were wise men indeed because they knew the dangers of mob rule which is why America is a constitutional republic and not a pure democracy... ...and instead of the original poster posing the question "so hard?", they should've studied history and presented actual facts relevant to today's times.
It takes you how long to make this simple and obvious are as these are supposed to principles that are not messed with lightly and that we do not lightly overrule ordinary laws.
If the Constitution was easy to change maybe we wouldn't still have the rights we have today although the supreme court seems to be doing a good job a chipping away at those rights without amending the constitution.
+Aaron Wolbach A lot of our right have been eroded although admittedly not always by the Supreme Court. www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/constitution.html
Odriew After reading that article, and several of the links it sighted, I can see where your coming from. But even by that article's own admission, it's the Supreme Court that is acting to protect your rights. None of the links posted to support that article's thesis shows the SCOTUS eroding your rights. Indeed one of those links (below) is to an interview with Justice Souter who seems to agree that we're descending to tyranny. In my opinion, it's American citizens who don't value the rights of others that is driving this erosion of their own rights. They then take positions of governmental authority (e.g. police officer, state/town legislator) and abuse other people's rights. www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/2-u-s-supreme-court-justices-and-numerous-other-top-government-officials-warn-of-dictatorship.html
I didn't read that whole article, but I can say that if the government chooses (they aren't far away from that kind of power now) to abolish the Second Amendment... we're all screwed. Free speech is already under heavy barrage, because you can get kicked out of a public school for mentioning the name of Jesus Christ (or so I've heard, I've never attended a public school personally). Not to mention the couple up in Oregon (I think it was Oregon) that got their bakery shut down, and all their money taken because they refused to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding. I have no doubt that in my lifetime, America will go full-on Socialist. Let's pray Hillary doesn't get elected.
Grey Hawk Regarding, "if the government chooses to abolish the Second Amendment..." No. That's not how it works. The ONLY way to change a constitutional amendment is the following: 1) The amendment first goes, as bill, through several committees in the House and Senate. If it gets through committee, then it's put onto the floors of the House or Senate. That's the easy part. 2) then, BOTH House AND Senate must pass the bill with a 2/3 majority. This part right here is nearly impossible already. Next, 3) the President must sign the bill (not veto it). 4) Last, it goes to the state legislatures of ALL 50 states. If 3/4 ths of those legislatures then ratify the amendment within a set time period (determined by congress but not to exceed 30 years), THEN and only THEN will the constitution be amended. If the time runs out, or if more than one-quarter of the states vote it down, then the constitution is NOT amended. There have been more than 11,000 attempts to amend the Constitution. Only 27 of them ever succeeded - and not a single one of the original 10 has ever been modified. 2A isn't going anywhere.
3/5 majority of states to ratify would be better. Also 3/5 of both houses of congress. For constitutional conventions, make it topic specific. Otherwise, state and the people will be too scared to use it for fear of a runaway convention.
Introducing new legislation is generally easier than removing old ones. Archaic state laws have a habit of staying on the books without anyone actually enforcing them. There is a municipal law in Colorado that makes it illegal to grow dandelions within city limits. The purpose of which was to target the practice of distilling them into booze. The law is no longer enforced.
I remember Nancy Polusey ,saying ( the constitution ,that old thing we don't use it anymore ) why was she not arrested for this and charged with violation of oath and treason ?
Our Australian constitution is even harder to amend, requiring a popular vote (referendum). The amendment must not only get an overall majority of votes across Australia, but a majority of voters in four of the six states. It may sound easier than the US process, but only 8 out of 45 amendments that went to a vote have been carried. We recently had a referendum in October 2023, and the proposal didn't even get close.
+Jügren van der Kaas Nope, the constitution is set up to control the power of the mob. Because when a majority of people want to take you stuff, they will.
+Jacemachine Gaming The United States is a "Constitutional Democracy" meaning that the power of the gov't is limited by what the constitution states. Getting rid of it would ultimately give the gov't power to instate whatever it wants, regardless of what the public thinks.
+Mitchell Buckley What has that got to do with the comment about WolfPAC? Getting the money of big businesses out of democracy has literally nothing to do with destroying the constitution.
Mitchell Buckley Since when was the US a Constitutional Democracy? We've been a Republic for the last 200+ years. Unlike in a democracy where citizens vote directly on laws, in the United States, elected representatives do - and, therefore, the U.S. is a republic.
Ben Wall Thx Ben! I dunno where he got that from. We need to keep the unbalanced "free speech" of cash out of the system, because under the current way things are done, our politicians do not represent the individual regions or peoples that elected those people to office. Instead those politicians spend %40 of their time on the phone begging for money and currying favors for corporations in the form of laws that hurt the People of the United States so that their large donors can have their pocket politicians do what they want. #WolfPAC , in case you are unaware or uneducated is a group that has been going to the State representatives so that they can get a constitutional amendment added removing money from politics, since it is abundantly clar that our Sponsored Politicians will not do so on the Federal level. You know, because they get rich. Why is it so offten that after our politician retire from office they go to work for the powerful corporate entities as well-paid lobbyists, sent back to Washington to continue the vicious and corrupt cycle. And it IS corrupt. Just because something is LEGAL doesn't make it RIGHT.
The Constitution is not a list of things the government CAN do, it's a list of things the government CAN'T do, effectively. That's why it's difficult to amend it.
The constitution is a list of things the government can do, and the Bill of Rights is a list of things that they can't do. It's difficult to amend because it requires a very strong majority in both chambers of congress, and 3/4ths of the states..
I honestly don't see the point of amendment anymore because the court rewrite it all the time .... The last Obamacare case made me lose all respect for our system. The question I posed was this, if the Democrat had not lost their majorities in the 2010 midterm would that case exist? The answer is a resounding no because the Admin and Congress could have passed fixes .... So Justice Robert decides to rewrite the Constitution to prevent political deadlock by changing the meaning of words!!!
+Varoon My friends wife died because of UHC. She need a heart yet she was unable to obtain one because UHC prevented her from getting one via red tape and doctors she thought where (are) incompetent.
3:50.... Every 19 years change laws or updates new laws that after they have experienced.... With working or without working.... Either ways updates the laws, every 19 years, kind of make sense.... Depending upon what laws that requires those of 19 updates.... The point here, let’s be honest here indirectly....
+Syccll-P Actually, the USA, from the outside world, is no longer defined as a Democratic Republic, since it apparently sees Democracy as a joke. The USA is now seen as an Oligarchic Republic.
We vote for the representatives and their are no requirements (apart from age) to holding office, the system has flaws that cause leanings towards oligarchy (like how do you fund a campaign) but the solution is simple make it illegal to spend more than x dollars and outlaw super pacs or even political ads all together, any one caught in violation of the rules shall be barred from office or impeached if post election.
+Paco Cotero thanks because as a good parents should keep an eye on there kid and make there home a safe place like keeping guns in a safe buy safety plunges for wall outlets keep power tool put a way but pills and and other small thing that can be eaten out of reach
+ForrestSCS yes I know how long it takes are hard working police officer to get some were and 1 out of every 5. 911 caller's can not be located to sand ad I just want to know that my mom can go somewhere and if something happens she will not be a victim. you know what I mean?
***** Do you understand that my point already said "bad parents let children do anything with guns"? Do you understand what you said is pointless? Do people feel good having arms at their homes? "Secure"? I call these people paranoic. Here in Spain we haven't these problems. Partly because there's no such right to have guns (they're completely useless) and because parents in Spain do not teach the kids how to use them or even say "guns are good bc reasons". PD: Your argument is like American Dad's one. "People kill, guns do not."
Good video! I would just add a little more commentary at the end about the 19-year expiration... explaining that this change would likely get young people more involved in the voting/government system and not treat it as it is looked at today, something they have little to no say in it.
I object to the idea that an easily changed government is a better system then what we have. let me ask you this. do you wish you want your parents changing our basic rights? do you think if we voted every 20 years we would still have the first amendment? after 9/11? after the Cold War? after the World War 2 and 1? if we had a government that made it easy to change it then we would have none of the rights we have now. a crisis would have happened that would have made a right no longer in the best interest of all people. we dont need a law baring quartering troops right now. we dont need guns anymore. we are not fighting Indians. due process was made in a time before terrorism we cant afford to waste time because of an old law. state appointed lawyers was made because people were not educated, but now they are by the state and we cant afford to appoint lawyers right now. the first amendment didnt account the internet or television we cant let hate speech we need to banned it till we can figure out a way to let good speech out and not bad speech. but dont worry we will bring that back... one day. do you really want politicians choosing your rights? one generation heresy is the next orthodoxy the IRS was only a temporary thing. SSN was never intended to be a way to identity you nor used to fund non-SSN programs. you all complain about about a slow hard process without realizing that its suppose to be. we cant afford a fast system when we the people are willing to give up freedom for security when something bad happens. Fear kills republics not foreign armies or a slow process. Bureaucracy would kill us all if it wasnt so slow
+Joseph Fox So what you're saying is, you don't want the right to bare objects to defend yourself with, you want the government to be able to send you to jail at any time without evidence or reasoning, you want to be unable to defend yourself properly in the court of law, and you want to be imprisoned the second you badmouth something you shouldn't.
+Joseph Fox Because expressing rights in an almost immutable format truly protects them. Remember slavery? "Yessiree bob, we are protectin' the rights of these plantation owners. Ain't nobody gonna take away their property." "But human beings really shouldn't be property, and the Constitution barely says anything about property." "But ain't nothin' illegal 'bout it; Constitution says, 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,' and I ain't see nothin' 'bout us not gettin' to keep such property as we have." You may argue that amendments were passed to deal with this issue, but a century later those same amendments were being used in ways they were not intended. "Yessiree bob, we are protectin' the rights of these color'd folk. Ain't nobody gonna have them go to school with the whites, so we built them another school. See?" "But that's degrading, unjust, and barely even equal." "But ain't nothin' illegal 'bout it; Constitution says, 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,' and I ain't see nothin' 'bout that school does so." Or a few years later... "Yessiree bob, we are protectin' the rights of these children. Ain't no woman gonna kill no innocent child in the womb. See?" "But all of these women are dying, going into poverty, and foregoing education because they get illegal abortions, can't afford the child, or cannot find time for anything but their child." "But ain't nothin' illegal 'bout it; Constitution says, 'Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," and I ain't see nothin' 'bout not lettin' her kill a kid that does so." Or more recently... "Yessiree bob, we are protectin' the rights of these married folk. Ain't no homos gonna ruin our tradition of marriage. See?" "But all of these people are being denied the benefits of marriage because of who they choose to marry." "But ain't nothin' illegal 'bout it; Constitution says, 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,' and I ain't see nothin' bout gays marryin' as a right in history." Or now... "Yessiree bob, we are protectin' the rights of these women. Ain't no perv gonna sneak in a bathroom and hurt our women. See?" "But you're forcing these people into dangerous situations when the risk you've described is hardly even there." "But ain't nothin' illegal 'bout it; Constitution says, 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,' and I ain't see nothin' 'bout makin' 'em use the right bathrrom that does so." There is a distinct legal tradition in the U.S.A. of using the unchanging nature of the Constitution to limit the rights of others, as the ninth and tenth amendments are quite literally never used in courts.
Mallet Face oh so we should have our government change at the will of the majority on the tick of a dime (or who is in power at that time)? recall prohibitionist? Picture a world where republicans get to pick your rights when they get a majority. and then a few years later the democrats change it. yeah progress is slow but it prevents politics from getting too involved in the basic rights of people. could you image if we where like Germany where in a span of 100 years we had 50 amendments? God we already have bad politicians and celebrities running for president. Picture trump or clintion pushing for a constitutional amendment. regardless of who you vote for thats a scary idea. and frankly I think its a good thing we have to argue for month and years before we change something that effects all of us.
38 of the 50 state legislatures must approve for an amendment to be ratified. That is extremely difficult, and is why that only seventeen have been ratified since the adoption of the Bill of Rights (the first Ten Amendments) . Plus, the 21st repeals the 18th, so in effect, only fifteen. It should not be easy to amend the Constitution.
Indeed, especially towards the end, when they were talking about lowering the standards for amendments... TED, please don't give the Socialists any ideas...
States don’t need to “request” to have their own convention to propose amendments, they can do it all on their own, without congress. It’s intended to be one more check on the federal government from the states.
+Stanley Parable It's very easy to change things since they no longer follow the rules. For example where is the amendment prohibiting drugs like they did with alcohol?
If, after watching this, you think the current U.S. Constitution is difficult to amend, take a look at its predecessor, the Articles of Confederation. Any amendment to this document required the ratification of all the states, without exception. It only took one state to kill any attempt at an amendment, and this happened frequently during the Articles' brief tenure.
That last part on Thomas Jefferson, finishing with 'the earth belongs to the living, not the dead' was great. Nice work.
However, that would've allowed the South to legally leave the US and create the CSA.
@@jamespalmer6278yea but if we apply it in today circumstances that's actually a great quote
It's literal ominous interpretation is one step behind "the guy is dead, the property is ours." Its very criminal, if you involve homicide.
Quite ironically, the burning of flag being legal says good things about America. It simply demonstrates the freedom you have, the ability to make moral or immoral, good or bad decisions.
That only came about due to a court ruling which echoes the point made in the video, the judiciary has been picking up the slack. That has been demonstrated in many other instances where the court expanded the rights of people via rulings. Their system would have come under much more strain without a willing judiciary (it wasn't always this way as there were extended periods when they were cunts).
Aren't flags retired by burning?
Amazed Alloy Not usually. To my knowledge they’re either donated for other uses or even taken apart so the fabric can be used again elsewhere
When I was a boy scout we would have a bunch of veterans come together and retire the flag by burning it
@@amazedalloy there is a certain ceremony when they retire a flag via burning.
The 27th Amendment was proposed in 1789 and was finally ratified in 1992.
Good lord
ngl the 27th amendment was genius, no wonder it also took almost a century to take effect
That was over two centuries.
@@randomyoutubeuser8509 since most Congressmen and Senators get reelected, the 27th Amendment doesn't make much of a difference since they will see the pay rise the moment the new session starts.
3:33 Even women in the Supreme Court have beards?
Devasheesh Dubey Lmao
Yea I can tell youre not american
yes.
...
yes 🙄🙄🙄
The constitution is for the national level, meaning it affects EVERY one’s rights and liberties. It should be difficult to change it since it’s at the national level. Laws change more frequently at the state level, and even more at the county/city level. The constitution was designed to allow smaller governments, such as the city, county, and states, to better respond and change to the needs of their people. So if you want to make some changes, start your local/community level.
Finally someone gets it.
But I want a heavily centralized federal government, that's a social democracy..
Uh, well States are no better at responding to the people then the Federal government.
States Constitution gets changed very frequently compared to the national constitution and it affects us equally no matter how hard you try to say state constitution is easier to amend for certain reasons like everybody travels to different states and lives in different places so technically it still affects everybody. Leaving your judgment invalid.
(Yes, I'm aware of how old this is). I disagree with the OP. The difficulty in amendment is intended to protect the sovereignty of the individual states. There was _considerable_ resistance to the notion of a strong national government, so a constitution that established hard limits on the power of the new national government was an easier sell to the people. And a necessary part of that was making the amendment process extremely difficult.
However, this protection has far outlived its usefulness, and an amendment to change the amendment process (to a simple majority in Congress, followed by a popular vote during a presidential election year, for example) is very much necessary. Depending upon the Supreme Court to extend the Constitution is... Not a viable long term solution.
To put it simply, the founding fathers didn't want ratification to occur easily. Government has the tendency to take away freedoms rather than protecting them. We should at least make it so that it does so slowly and inefficiently.
We know why it is so hard to amend the constitution. The question is: is amending the constitution TOO hard or is it just hard enough?
Its easy to change as long as there is a strong consensus. Its hard to change now because of how divided the country but then again, a divided country shouldn't making huge decisions on what rights people should have.
I don't think it was about that, rather it was supposed to be about stability. Any system needs to be stable to some degree, because if you change everything every 4 years, that will be bad for everyone.
BTW the German system for passing amendments is the same process for Congress PROPOSING amendments in the US: 2/3 of the lower and upper house. I don't think Congress has even proposed anywhere near as many Amendments as Germany, per year
@@marlonmoncrieffe0728 The difficulty of amending the US constitution didn't prevent the Eighteenth Amendment enacting Prohibition, which was such a mistake they reversed it within 15 years!
Arguably, the difficulty of changing the Constitution has become much harder over the years, due to the addition of new states.
I think it is very difficult to pass an amendement in US Constitution also because Founding Fathers did not want it to be changed easily, so the rights of the citizens would not be dismissed easily
True but when it needed to be changed to protect the rights of citizens it caused a civil war. So far every amendment has been and addition and thus and addition to our liberties it would be nice if we could add rights more easily and make taking them away more difficult.
However, some laws are outdated, so those laws cannot be repealed easily. I think the US should get rid of outdated laws.
@@GhostEmblem but that doesn't work in a real world , in real world either everything could be changed easily or everything would be difficult to change easily
@@GhostEmblem Which amendment or proposed amendment caused the civil war?
@@henrywang4845 The constitution is basically a frame work laying out the branches of federal government. It also lays out the roles and limitations of the federal government.
It guarantees all citizens certain rights. But per the tenth amendment all powers not given to the federal government by the constitution nor prohibited by it are reserved to the states.
This is why the constitution can be so simple. Most everything is up to each state.
So you have to make an amendment to lower the standards for passing an amendment to pass and amendment to lower the standards for passing amendments?
+TheOneChief And the people we elect oh wait the rulers think they can do it with laws
They are actually trying to do this in Japan.
Australia's constitution is similarly static. 8 amendments since 1901.
All amendments need to pass Parliament and then a referendum that passes nationally and in at least 4 of the 6 states.
Luckily Australia's constitution is far more limited in scope than the US one. It is primarily to divide powers between the states, the federal government and the judiciary. This makes it almost impossible for a court to override the democratic process of the people. It can merely determine WHICH government has the power to act on a question.
@@smitajky Australian constitution is a set of rules of government which includes the codified constitution and the uncodified constitutional conventions.
@@smitajky The United States Constitution is totally codified!
@@smitajky The uncodified constitutional conventions are more important than the codified constitution in Australia. Because Australia follows the Westminster tradition.
The system of checks and balances slows down things so that the proposals being made may be clearly thought out and weighed. It is a brilliant system.
Oooooh the ignorance is strong with you.
It should be difficult and it should require most people to want it but it should not be impossible. That constitution is so obsolete it will eventually destroy the U.S.
When no changes are possible then it's just matter of time until it crumbles under itself.
This is the reason why it has stood for so long and will stand for many years. The founders were smart.
Not necessarily. It's partly because the judiciary picked up the slack and stepped in when it really shouldn't have if the other branches were doing their job. Had the judiciary been like the Japanese one that almost always defers to the govt and even when it rules against them never really spells out a remedy or gets ignored, that kind of system will be prone to collapse.
If people cannot work within the system to effect change they will change without the system.
Japan is currently trying to amend the amendment process. They have never successfully amended their constitution.
True, True. But it still goes back to the founders instituting checks an balances. The Congress is supposed to make the laws, Executive Branch is supposed to enforce the laws and Judicial Branch is supposed to interpret the laws. However, many times (in the modern era) the Judicial Branch has legislated from the bench, often times overlooking past interpretations in favor of their own political viewpoints. In most cases, this was warranted as it pertains to social issues, such as overturning Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education but in general, they are to interpret the law and its constitutionality, not overturn and write new laws based on their own political viewpoints. You are right though, if the Congress drops the ball what are they supposed to do?
Take the Second Amendment, every decision since our founding has upheld the Second Amendment as a right that should not be infringed upon but say 30 years from now (as there is certainly a push by some currently) a justice hates guns, believes they should be outlawed and puts forth a decision that the wording in the Constitution is vague, for a different time, or not what the Framers meant. As a result they overturn the second amendment and outlaw guns. This would be wrong because that is the Congress’s job.
Ignoring the other democracies that pass them all the time are we?
I mean isn't one of the younger constitutions? even if its not it hasn't been long enough to use the longevity argument.
The constitution is hard to amend because doing so more often than not would do more harm. There is a reason 3/4 of the states must agree. After all each state is a member of this union and the only thing that unites the states is the constitution.
Amendments should be hard to pass.
+michael barton Yeah old politicians who made rules know better than newer ones eh? The same document that needed an amendment against slavery....
Americans have such a fetish for old politicians/rules while they hate new ones. Way to be static and old fashioned.
+Phyrexious Hey! Just because we live in a different time does not make what they stated to keep our nation as one old fashion. We can change political, economical, and social matters because those are what evolves and changes over time. The constitution should remain the way it is especially if it plays along in the functions of our nation to this very day
Cupcake Foodie Society and culture changes and therefore it's rules should be able too as well. Don't treat the constitution as some kind of godly document that needs worshiping. It's just a bunch of laws written by lawmakers before the lawmakers of today.
It's hard to see that though when you're being spoonfed patriotism about the founding fathers.
If I would propose that the laws that the current administration (or Bush's) should also remain in effect forever and be extremely hard to change, you would think that's stupid.
Now I'm all for stability and laws shouldn't be 'too' easy to change either, but you also shouldn't treat the constitution any different than other legal documents. If there's a problem or a better solution, you fix it, like the amendment against slavery.
***** Yes but anything that messes with the foundation or anyone's liberty it should not be changed
+Phyrexious An amendment to the constitution is very drastic, and should not be taken lightly. Making it easy to amend would have some serious repercussions.
Wouldn’t it kind of defeat the point of the Constitution if it could just be altered on a whim? The point is that it needs overwhelming support since it’s such a huge change
The problem with american politics is that even if 99% of people wanted a change it probably wouldn't happen. Also majority of population asking for a change isn't "on a whim" at all.
I like that it's difficult to amend the constitution. There are a lot of people who want to get their way using nefarious means.
Ikr!!! I agree to this hopefully it remains like that
+The Saturnian We should also limit the Supreme Court and limit the Office of the Presidency. People in power always want more power.
@@oldemail2838 The constitution is more powerful than the president but can be changed by the President doesn't that mean if all goes right the president can make an amendment to make him king?
Russia, China, and North Korea
@@uldineframe8790 They wanted Washington for a king and he turned them down twice.
If Washington was character in LOTR at the beginning that intally defended Sauron then LOTAR would have been over in first 30 min.
THEY KNEW MAN. . .
**inhale** they knew. . .
Love this video except the last part where it mentioned Jefferson suggesting to Madison that laws should expire after about 20 years, it wasn't 19. This was because Thomas was intrigued by a utopia and thought each generation was sovereign. The video left it open without including James' response which was gentle, unassuming, and very logical. James told him that as fascinating as that idea was, it was a recipe for anarchy and ran directly counter to the whole trust of his own political effort to establish a stable constitutional settlement that compelled the trust and abiding respect of present and future generations of Americans. So, let's be clear and not leave that hanging in the balance for it to be distorted and turned into a new agenda to eradicate one of the most beautiful forms of freedom ever expressed in written form, our Constitution.
Thank you. I felt encouraged by your comment.
+Mr.Stargazer You are welcome!!!! :)
“The earth belongs to the living, not the dead”
*stops on mother-in-law’s grave*
YOU HEAR THAT!? YOU HAG!!!
😂
Hahha lol
I wish I can do that to my father that left me when I was a kid but he is not dead yet.
@@ohnoyoucantrustme5364 make your dreams come true
LOL🤣🤣
The photo copies of the Bill of Rights show 12 amendments, but only 10 passed. What were the other two?
Good eye! They were the first two proposed amendments:
_1. After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand._
_2. No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened._
The remaining 10 were bumped up to fill their places. Freedom of Speech was proposed as the 3rd Amendment, the Right to Bare Arms was proposed as the 4th Amendment, and so on. The proposed 2nd Amendment ("No law, varying the compensation...") was later ratified verbatim in 1992 and is in effect today as the 27th Amendment.
Source: www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
+David S. Thanks. I've wondered about that for quite a while.
+David S. Actaully depending on how it is interpreted, Article I, Section II of the Constitution tells us the number of Representatives each state is allowed.
+Lorie Franceschi sorry misspelled "Actually"
@@-.._.-_...-_.._-..__..._.-.-.- I don't think there's anything in the Constitution about wearing short sleeves!
Great lesson as always!
I have a question and I can't seem to find any answer online: once and amendment passes, why is it appended at the end of the main text as a separate entity instead of being included into the text itself? In my country, Italy, when we amend our Constitution the amendment either adds new sentences to the current text or modifies/deletes existing articles, so that the new Constitution actually reflects the change. Why does the US keep the original text unchanged and just adds "footnotes" to it?
Our constitution along with the first ten amendments are on display in Washington D.C. for historical purposes. We would have to remove the constitution from its place for that.
@@MrBassmann15 That's not necessary. Here in Italy we have our original Constitution from 1948 still in Rome, in the State Archives, but the text valid for legal purposes is the current version as changed by the various constitutional amendments that have passed across the years. The original paper can still be there on display for historical purposes, but the text that we refer to for constitutional matters is the updated one.
@@Merione We are just lazy.
It’s out of respect for the original constitution.
@@claudiusaugustus4526 I agree plus it helps with the historical context.
You've mentioned amendments to Constitution in countries like Germany and France which is comparatively very less with respect to India. Indian Constitution has been amended for 104 times which is a big big number for a democratic country. I feel this needed a mention in your video and was lacking.
"'Who's your client?'
'The new U.S. Constitution?'"
No.
NO WAY
@@lilianamartinez9870 A series of essays, anonymously published, defending the document to the public :-)
@@lydia4017 No one will read it.
@@GhostEmblem I disagree
@@tomandrews125 the constitution a mess.
This is a great lesson, Peter! Kudos. It has certainly sparked some varied opinions.
Great video! But I'd like to point out Maine wasn't part of the original 13 colonies. The video has 14 states (then colonies) in red. Delaware wasn't divided up.
Not a critique, just hope to make your video more perfect =7
It is vitally important that the Constitution be as hard to amend as it is. Amending the Constitution is a very long-term change to our government, and it is so well shown by the hatred that some demagogues have for the 2nd Amendment. They would strip us of a civil right for their convenience. When we do amend it, it is important that the change be one that we are absolutely certain of and all willing to live with. Not just a few of us should be willing, but a clear and large majority.
Weapons were a lot more basic when that amendment was written - another example of how laws can become outdated!
@@Inkyminkyzizwoz This isn't remotely true. There were repeating air rifles that were basically semi-autos and gatling guns. Private citizens were allowed to own warships, which were far more damaging than anything citizens can own today.
@candiduscorvus The Second Amendment is recognized as a human right, not a civil. A civil right is granted by the government. Human rights are inherent in all humans. All rights protected under the Bill of Rights are human rights. The Constitution merely serves to recognize them.
If anything the second amendment shows how damaging SCOTUS can be. Before Heller and Bruen the second amendment was treated as a "second class right" (to quote Clearance Thomas) by states like New York and liberal courts like the 2nd and 9th circuit. The only reason it will now get the recognition it deserves is solely because we got lucky electing Trump in 2016, Anthony Kennedy retired in 2018, and RBG dying in 2020
The US Constitution was written in 1787, ratified in 1788 (not 1789 like it says in the beginning of the video), and took effect in 1789, same year Washington took office.
Even the female justices grew beards too! :P
Why not do a video on how the two party system could be fixed with one minor change in how voting is done? Seeing as how the current method of voting is logically the worst method of voting possible... Here is some basic information...
Our current system is everyone picks one candidate, and whichever candidate has the most votes wins.
One new method, would be to have everyone rank their votes. Say there are three candidates, A, B, and C. You vote A>B>C. When the votes are counted, then the process begins. Whoever has the least number of first votes is eliminated. If your primary vote was eliminated, your next candidate becomes your primary vote. The process continues until one person remains.
This would completely prevent split-parties from being worse off, ever. Say candidates A and B are the dominant party (65%) and candidate C is the minority party (35%). In the current system, if candidate A and B split their vote (32%-33%) then the minority party wins. In this new system, candidate A is eliminated. Then we have candidate B (65%) and candidate C (35%) so candidate B wins and the dominant party wins.
This would also make voting for third parties logical, whereas currently you would have to be logically ignorant to vote for a third party. Let's say you want the third party C more than the dominant parties A and B. If A and B are close, but C is not, then voting for C is a wasted vote. Instead, you should pick your favorite of A or B. In the new system, a vote for C would be more like saying you don't want A or B, but prefer, say, A, if you had to pick. If C wasn't going to win, then you still get to vote for A. If C was awesome, but everyone secretly thought they would lose, they could still all vote C, and be pleasantly surprised when C wins. There would be no reason to not vote C, if you prefer C.
Unfortunately, such a system can never exist, because the proponents would need support from the dominant parties, who would lose power if such a system were implemented, since people would now be free to vote for other parties. The exception to this, is if enough people wake up to the reality that they are being cheated of a truly free vote and demand the freedom to actually elect their own representatives.
This was suggested in the UK, but we rejected it in a referendum.
Random Ashe because politicians who was voted with the old system wanted that same system -.-
I prefer removing party label from the ballot. That should eliminate the brand name advantage the major parties have.
Also, we should eliminate the whole notion of primary and general elections. Instead, it should be semifinals and finals. In the semifinal round a voter doesn’t vote for a specific candidate but rather votes yes or no for each candidate individually. The candidates who get more yes votes than no votes proceed to the finals. If no candidate achieves that they do over the semifinal round with all new candidates.
@@nrkgalt That sounds terrible and easy to abuse.
Random Ashe This method would prevent voters from having to choose between the lesser of 2 evils. Right now a candidate who is a 3 on a scale of 1 to 10 can win if he convinces the voters that the other guy is a 1 or 2.
There is a concern regarding if no candidate gets more yes votes than no votes after multiple tries. They can’t keep voting forever. For a legislative seat they could have the seat remain empty for the full term, and for all votes in the legislative body the seat will be an automatic no vote. Some other resolution would be required for executive offices.
The founders were geniuses!
A lot of people comment that the constitutions mustn’t change but there are plenty of countries where constitution is changed more or less frequently and it actually works pretty well and most of the amendments do more good than bad. And then why everything is decided by representatives, why there is no obligatory referendum like in Switzerland? Rappresentative democracy isn’t flawless, wether it’s first-past-the-post or propositional, those less than 1000 can’t represent everyone on every matter.
So if Christian’s gained enough support and got the majority, nationwide mandatory church every Sunday is an amendment you would be okay with?
First..... Amendment
woah... an original "first" comment I didn't know they existed
That first proposed Amendment was part of the proposal now known as The Bill of Rights. The one they mention is kind of obsolete as the formula it enshrines only has any real effect when the country is small. 12 Amendments were proposed at that time. The other 11 were ratified. Numbers 3-12 became the first 10 Amendments. #2 became the 27th Amendment, ratified over 200 years later.
The Constitution is hard to amend because the founders (particularly Jefferson) would never have imagined that we'd use the exact same document for centuries. He said something like "a healthy democracy rewrites its foundation every 19 years". So we've kind of dropped the ball on that one.
EDIT: I should probably watch the whole video before commenting from now on
That would be wise :P
Values and ideals changes every century.
Jefferson is way ahead of its time by saying every generation which is about every 19 years
Since ya know. 19 years To grow up and have kids and vote at 18
That last point was fantastic.
It was taken out of context.
because its not supposed to be changed easily
Very well done video, super helpful for my history classes. Thank you!
I've always had the idea of laws expiring. But their limits set when they are proposed.
What laws do you feel are expired?
The "window tint" code for cars should be updated. Not having tinted windows hasn't really done anything... Except maybe expose people to UVA rays for longer periods of time every day.
The "10 PM curfew for minors-of-all-ages" code. It was understandable during the time it was introduced (the 90's; with gangs becoming popular, Etc). But that was 2 decades ago. And these curfew laws (not counting temporary ordinances) remove the most essential constitutional right. To think that in the US it's illegal to be a certain age during a set time-frame everyday. It's understandable when it comes to younger children, but the law should be for parents (since it leans more towards a 'child endangerment' act) rather that arresting the minor.
These are only from my personal opinion... Of course a true, completed list of current unnecessary laws are better left to legislatures nation-wide to debate over.
@@Glitch-Videos In the UK, the requirement for trains to have yellow fronts for visibility has recently been lifted, as headlights have got better since that rule was made
"The earth belongs to the living and not to the dead" I said this years ago to my parents. Just kind of surprising to me that I would hear it from TED. Made my day
Just curious how they end up with such conclusion. Was it like that: if earth has life then earth belongs to living? Cap i no longer like such explanations where everything is obvious and the only work you do is to say obvious things! ahhh so irritating
Princeton Kihd "The earth belongs to the living" is in term that we should not follow the rules that were made by people who already died when these rules do not suit the people who are still living.
I come from HongKong but I am curious for your conclusion.Why do you think the earth belong to the living. It is difficult for me to understand.
cheuk hin Poon I'm not sure why you mention your location. Let's assume there is a law maker died 100 years ago. The laws this law maker made were for solving the problem faced by people from 100 years ago. However, such laws may become barriers to people in this generation, the livings. When people say "it is tradition, and we cannot change laws because they were written by our ancestors." And such laws, protected by their age, become the barriers of the new generations, the one that does not face problem ancestors faced, that is when I say it is time to let the old laws go and let the new laws come in. If you are curios about why I say Earth. Earth is the representation of human society, and we know better, and better behaviors about and to the earth. Then it is our responsibility to carry on the Earth rather than carry on the old laws that is harming the people who is living and harming the earth in general
cheuk hin Poon For example, the second amendment, back then theres only Muskete. American founding fathers do not know anything about what is nuclear weapon, auto-guns, Drones, etc. I'm not saying banning the second amendment, but when there are many massacres every year, and buying a machine that was design for killing is much easier than buying bread from Walmart (In case you don't know, if you buy a gun, you can ask for delivery, but if you want to buy a bread, you have to go Walmart yourself.) I say it is time make changes about the old laws rather than keeping it because they were written by the people who died 2-300 years ago in order to let laws serve we the people who actually under the influence of the law.
Why is the constitution so hard to follow? Opening congress with a prayer? The expectation of every president to be a Christian? Chaplains are paid for with our tax dollars! Not to mention that Religious Freedom Act that gave religious shop owners to refuse service to people based on their religious beliefs. I don't see enough separation between church and state up in here!
ok
+Skye ID
Senators and Representatives are allowed to stand in silence, but must provide respect to the Congressmen and women who do pray.
The expectation of every president to follow Christianity is false, Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, and Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson were ambiguous in their religious beliefs.
Only military chaplains are paid with tax dollars. The term is now generally used today in military organizations to describe all professionals specially trained to serve any spiritual need, regardless of religious affiliation.
And the Religious Freedom Restoration Act only applies to the federal government ("to all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise") Shop owners have a right to refuse service based on their own preferences, while it is unsightly to refuse service based on sex, creed, or skin color, they still reserve that right.
+Skye ID As mentioned above there is a difference between separation of church and state and respect of religious freedoms. Jailing someone because they do not believe in God(s) is different than allowing someone to pray in the governmental hearings.
+Skye ID What about the 2nd amendment? Whats so hard for you liberals to follow about that?
+Skye ID It's because the constitution litterally applies to the entire U.S, so just one new law can change the entire way the state lives, operates, and even behaves. That's why it's so hard to add a new law :3
Do you think if I'd ever succeed if I attempted to add an amendment stating "no judge or jury shall find a defendant not guilty off the basis of affluenza"
...Who has ever gotten off based on affluence?
Carrying me for the AP Gov Exam on 5/11!
And how did that go
I think 1:27 should read 24 "since" 1958 for France, not "as of". The 1958 constitution was indeed modified 24 times, the last one in 2008.
+phme - Definition of as of
: on, at, from -used to indicate a time or date at which something begins or ends
+Happy Garden Of Life And I always thought it was used in the sense of "at the time of". I stand corrected, thanks. I learned two things today!
I had never heard of that letter from Thomas Jefferson at the end. But, what he said is a good point. "The earth belongs to the living, and not to the dead".
I am happy the founding fathers made the constitution the way it is unlike other countries where they have especially in recent years arresting people for their speech because it “offended” someone or was against someone who is a part of a “protected” class. It is ridiculous.
Cats would make the world a whole lot less complicated
*****
- _- Close your mouth
And a whole lot weirder
0:34
Alexander Hamilton... My name is Alexander Hamilton. And there's a million things I haven't done. But just you wait...just you wait...
Haha kill me xD
"The Earth belongs to the living and not to the dead"
We'll likely never meet another like Thomas Jefferson :'(
+Varoon I agree that slavery is horrible but let me ask you this, if either of us were living in a time were slavery was the norm and we were born in "wealthy" families would we also not have kept slaves?
I am not trying to say him having slaves was right I am just trying to appreciate what he said.
I do agree
@@navi2710 Very good point. We can not possibly hold them to our standard because it was the norm at the time.
I use the example of eating meat. Today most of us eat meat. But it could be that in a hundred years it will be considered very immoral. Then will will look back and say Reagan may have done some good things but he ate meat.
@@bobbywise2313 I completely agree. Our society will definitely change and what's normal and ordinary now may no longer be in the future.
Thank you - really informative.
Being generous, these rules don't promote progression, which is a huge shame.
Progress is not always good.
@@benjaminr8961 why do you want to stay in the past
@@TheAaronChand I don't. Progress towards slavery is still progress. The constitution is a battlement against tyranny. It may be imperfect but it is irreplaceable.
@@benjaminr8961 please stop being such a baby
@@TheAaronChand Please stop being such a moron.
No Matter who tells what, US Constitution is way ahead than other rule of law given the fact that it was made 250 years ago
Before going to the states for ratification, an amendment has to go through one of two processes. One is to be approved by both houses of Congress by two-thirds majorities. The other is to be approved by a constitutional convention like in 1787, which requires a mandate from two-thirds of the state legislatures. (This allows the state governments, in theory, to amend the Constitution without federal approval.)
Really as it should be.
20 seconds in, "government by the people'' - immediately shows two examples of 'but not those people'
They are elected by the people
@@mastergoku4321 (a. someone elected to a position of power is not elected by all people (b most people elected to office sometimes have disagreements even with the people who voted for them so therefore because of those two tenets this government isn't for the people nor by the people.
How about an amendment which states that an amount equal to that of foreign aid or military spending will be spent in the improvement of American infrastructure?
Hamilton has given me background information for every government situation
wrote this Amendment up just for the fun of it:
Amendment XXVIII
Article I: To safeguard the effective operation of our government, term limitations shall be instituted for Senators and Members of the House of Representatives as follows: Senators shall not serve more than two terms, and Members of the House of Representatives shall not serve more than six terms.
Article II: Upon accepting the honorable office of Senator or Representative, and upon reaching the prescribed limitations of their service, individuals shall be deemed ineligible for reelection to either the Senate or the House of Representatives.
Article III: Incumbent members of Congress who presently serve or have exceeded the aforementioned term limitations as set forth in Article I shall be granted the opportunity to fulfill their present term without being disqualified. However, upon the conclusion of their present term, they shall be declared ineligible to stand for re-election to either the Senate or the House of Representatives.
Article IV: To uphold the integrity of term limitations and ensure the consistency of legislative service, the following provisions are hereby enacted:
a. To prevent members from changing their house affiliation during their terms, it is hereby decreed that any person who has commenced their service in one house, whether it be the Senate or the House of Representatives, shall not have the privilege to abandon their current term and seek a seat in the other house before fulfilling the entirety of the term for which they were originally elected. Any attempt to switch houses mid-term shall be considered void and a violation of these term limitations.
b. In accordance with Article I, the total allowable terms shall remain unaltered. Irrespective of the outcome of re-election or if a member, having previously retired, seeks re-election after a period of absence, said member shall serve only the unexpired portion of their original term to which they were initially elected. No extension of their overall term limitation shall be granted by prevailing in a subsequent election, be it after experiencing a loss during their term or after a period of retirement followed by re-election.
c. In the case wherein a Member of Congress elects to resign, is removed from their office, or departs from their position by any means, any person subsequently undertaking that office shall be compelled to serve solely the remaining portion of the original Member's term in office, faithfully observing the term limitations outlined in Article I. Furthermore, it is hereby declared that such individuals shall be formally rendered ineligible to stand for election in any subsequent term, once the original Member's terms, as set forth in Article II, have been completed.
d. Once an individual selects and assumes office in either the Senate or the House of Representatives, they shall remain bound to that house for the duration of their legislative career.
1:56 actually, the 13th admendment still allows slavery as a punishment for a crime.
Arguably, it only allows forced labor, but not slavery, as a punishment for a crime. And in any case, enslavement would without a doubt constitute a "cruel and unusual punishment" contrary to the 8th amendment.
Please the video caption in english 🙏. There are people with so vile english-listening but I understand some english-writting 😔. So good videos!
I know that feel bro :'(
not everybody can be happy, the world doesnt revolve around you
He teaches, we learn.
0:33 A mistake this video makes is that Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams were both founding fathers but neither of them were at the constitutional convention.
In short, our two-party system holds us back from real progress.
+Iseebichan The two-party system harnesses the power of the mob. They go hand in hand. That is what political parties exist to do.
You're right, look at all the "progress" all the countries with single parties like the communist party, the nazi party, the Khmer Rouge,the Taliban, Hisbollah, etc. have made. Wonderful, eh?
+Damian Grouse Single party is miraculously even worse than two party. It's true.
Are you arguing we shouldn`t aim to improve because things aren`t worse?
I'm arguing that the way to improve things is to abandon political parties altogether.
Fascinating, thanks as always TED Ed.!!!
Be happy it’s very difficult to change amend the constitution. Countries that can easily change their constitution have seen very hard eras.
I would argue needing a civil war to make changes has caused a great deal more hardship than any other constitution has caused. But its not set in stone you could argue the other point.
@@GhostEmblem for me prime examples are Russia and Venezuela. Presidents amend the constitution to allow limitless terms.
@@omgmono Thats a big one. I heard somewhere that presidential term limits were introduced when FDR was president because he was breaking up the monopolies and the powers that be wanted to stop him. If thats true then we had the opposite problem.
@@GhostEmblem Presedential term limits were introduced when Harry Truman was presendent but even then including a grandfather clause saying it didn't apply to past presidents should they run again.
As if America doesn't have a handful of them.
I'm researching for a book I'm writing (4-30-17) Does anyone know how
the state legislative votes, after an Article V Const, Amendment Convention,
are forwarded to finalize the Const, Amendment results? I mean, does
the majority leader in each state legislature phone federal congress to
say YAY of NEY? How does that work?
Go read article V of the constitution
That is when the military gets involved whether it be naturally or unnaturally
Could you make a video about collorblindness? Pls...
Just doing some background research after hearing Hamilton the musical 😂
Same😂😂
same, i'm not even from the us
One of the best plays
I am here for the same thing
Im sure this is a joke but if you are capable of reading I'd suggest reading Jefferson Vs Hamilton : The Rivalry that Forged a Nation by John Ferling. Very good read
That was very helpful! Thank you so much!
So hard? It's been amended 27 times, and we even got one that prohibited DRINKING! I think the question is, why is it so dangerously easy?
+James McCracken Indeed, because we definitely should make it easier to target certain groups of people for bigoted reasons. If trolling is being against that, then count me in.
+James McCracken he has a solid point which you completely missed genius.
+Andy Wilderness Only about 130 of the 11,000 were taken seriously. So many proposals would be tragic for the country and the world. Like the time when Roosevelt wanted one so that Congress would have powers over divorce, making it illegal. And the time when they wanted to extend manifest destiny over the whole world, creating the United States of Earth. Not making this up. How about the time they tried to make millionaires illegal? Or the time they wanted to replace the office of President with a 3 person military tribunal? Amending isn't a game. Amendments get people killed and oppressed when we play fast and loose. Prohibition brought mass murders and the rise of the mob, corrupting our officials. And so on.
+dec2 why waste your time arguing with childish minds that dont really know what they want to say but have to because somebody is disagreeing with them. LOL
It is actually hard, while this video mentions that the last amendment passed in 1992 what it doesn't mention is that it took 203 years to pass. The 27th amendment was proposed in 1789 by James Madison and ratified in 1992...
jacobburnslawlibrary.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/27th-amendment-ratified-may-7-1992/
The majority of amendments to the constitution were passed when America was much smaller when there was only 13 colonies, early on in the creation of America...
The likelihood of actually getting 34 out of 50 states to agree to a constitutional convention, getting the necessary votes to pass an amendment(s) and then 3/4 of the states to sign-off the amendment(s) today is slim to none...
The founding fathers were wise men indeed because they knew the dangers of mob rule which is why America is a constitutional republic and not a pure democracy...
...and instead of the original poster posing the question "so hard?", they should've studied history and presented actual facts relevant to today's times.
In EU you can't burn flag
Not because it's illegal but because it's piece of fabric and according to safety standards it can't be easily burnt
in my country the constitution is Quran, that's hard to amend lol
+JocaIdrone Thank modern people that we don't live under a system like that in the US!
+gmc9753 Yeah. And Stop Bombing Us Too
+erickchocho2012 I don't bomb people i'm nice 😂
+JocaIdrone Muhammad Wasn't Nice.
+JocaIdrone True, but theologians change interpretation every few hundred years or so~
It takes you how long to make this simple and obvious are as these are supposed to principles that are not messed with lightly and that we do not lightly overrule ordinary laws.
If the Constitution was easy to change maybe we wouldn't still have the rights we have today although the supreme court seems to be doing a good job a chipping away at those rights without amending the constitution.
+Odriew Which rights have the Supreme Court chipped away at specifically? If anything, it's given you (and big corporations) more rights.
+Aaron Wolbach
A lot of our right have been eroded although admittedly not always by the Supreme Court.
www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/constitution.html
Odriew After reading that article, and several of the links it sighted, I can see where your coming from. But even by that article's own admission, it's the Supreme Court that is acting to protect your rights. None of the links posted to support that article's thesis shows the SCOTUS eroding your rights. Indeed one of those links (below) is to an interview with Justice Souter who seems to agree that we're descending to tyranny.
In my opinion, it's American citizens who don't value the rights of others that is driving this erosion of their own rights. They then take positions of governmental authority (e.g. police officer, state/town legislator) and abuse other people's rights.
www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/2-u-s-supreme-court-justices-and-numerous-other-top-government-officials-warn-of-dictatorship.html
I didn't read that whole article, but I can say that if the government chooses (they aren't far away from that kind of power now) to abolish the Second Amendment... we're all screwed. Free speech is already under heavy barrage, because you can get kicked out of a public school for mentioning the name of Jesus Christ (or so I've heard, I've never attended a public school personally). Not to mention the couple up in Oregon (I think it was Oregon) that got their bakery shut down, and all their money taken because they refused to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding. I have no doubt that in my lifetime, America will go full-on Socialist. Let's pray Hillary doesn't get elected.
Grey Hawk Regarding, "if the government chooses to abolish the Second Amendment..."
No. That's not how it works. The ONLY way to change a constitutional amendment is the following:
1) The amendment first goes, as bill, through several committees in the House and Senate. If it gets through committee, then it's put onto the floors of the House or Senate. That's the easy part.
2) then, BOTH House AND Senate must pass the bill with a 2/3 majority. This part right here is nearly impossible already. Next,
3) the President must sign the bill (not veto it).
4) Last, it goes to the state legislatures of ALL 50 states. If 3/4 ths of those legislatures then ratify the amendment within a set time period (determined by congress but not to exceed 30 years), THEN and only THEN will the constitution be amended. If the time runs out, or if more than one-quarter of the states vote it down, then the constitution is NOT amended.
There have been more than 11,000 attempts to amend the Constitution. Only 27 of them ever succeeded - and not a single one of the original 10 has ever been modified. 2A isn't going anywhere.
those silly little legs on the amendment had me dying
"Greatest Democracy on Earth" (most US politicians). Haha, what a joke.
+2nd3rd1st It is ...for the politicians
+2nd3rd1st hey its still alive after being handled by US politicians. name a republic that could other than ours.
+2nd3rd1st you should be thanking the constitution for limiting their power
+Mitchell Buckley Why? Politicians on both sides of the aisle ignore it anyway
+2nd3rd1st it is the best designed democracy on earth, that's a fact. You should read a little.
The very last sentence hit the nail on the head.
Thomas Jefferson for president !!!
Hamilton for president
3/5 majority of states to ratify would be better. Also 3/5 of both houses of congress.
For constitutional conventions, make it topic specific. Otherwise, state and the people will be too scared to use it for fear of a runaway convention.
there are a ton of laws that should be gone by now.
+Deconverted Man example?
***** www.legalzoom.com/articles/top-craziest-laws-still-on-the-books
+Deconverted Man These are state laws.
David S. still...
Introducing new legislation is generally easier than removing old ones. Archaic state laws have a habit of staying on the books without anyone actually enforcing them. There is a municipal law in Colorado that makes it illegal to grow dandelions within city limits. The purpose of which was to target the practice of distilling them into booze. The law is no longer enforced.
I remember Nancy Polusey ,saying ( the constitution ,that old thing we don't use it anymore ) why was she not arrested for this and charged with violation of oath and treason ?
*Pelosi
That’s not what treason is, nor is it a criminal offense.
@@killergoose7643 US Code 5 3331 3332 3333 , really
Meanwhile, in the UK:
To amend the Constitution, you need...
A simple majority in the House of Commons and that's pretty much it.
Our Australian constitution is even harder to amend, requiring a popular vote (referendum). The amendment must not only get an overall majority of votes across Australia, but a majority of voters in four of the six states. It may sound easier than the US process, but only 8 out of 45 amendments that went to a vote have been carried. We recently had a referendum in October 2023, and the proposal didn't even get close.
There's no need to change the US Constitution. It is the best Constitution ever written.
Well mostly agree but it seem like it really need some change to it.
Is that why your country is not able to solve literally any problem?
Can an amendment to the US constitution be done by say, a petition or a referendum held by the people?
+Jügren van der Kaas Nope, the constitution is set up to control the power of the mob. Because when a majority of people want to take you stuff, they will.
No. We're an INDIRECT democracy and federal laws and new amendments are created by our elected REPRESENTATIVES only.
#WolfPAC! Amend the Constitution! Get money out of Politics!
+Jacemachine Gaming The United States is a "Constitutional Democracy" meaning that the power of the gov't is limited by what the constitution states. Getting rid of it would ultimately give the gov't power to instate whatever it wants, regardless of what the public thinks.
+Mitchell Buckley What has that got to do with the comment about WolfPAC? Getting the money of big businesses out of democracy has literally nothing to do with destroying the constitution.
Mitchell Buckley Since when was the US a Constitutional Democracy? We've been a Republic for the last 200+ years.
Unlike in a democracy where citizens vote directly on laws, in the United States, elected representatives do - and, therefore, the U.S. is a republic.
Ben Wall Thx Ben! I dunno where he got that from. We need to keep the unbalanced "free speech" of cash out of the system, because under the current way things are done, our politicians do not represent the individual regions or peoples that elected those people to office. Instead those politicians spend %40 of their time on the phone begging for money and currying favors for corporations in the form of laws that hurt the People of the United States so that their large donors can have their pocket politicians do what they want.
#WolfPAC , in case you are unaware or uneducated is a group that has been going to the State representatives so that they can get a constitutional amendment added removing money from politics, since it is abundantly clar that our Sponsored Politicians will not do so on the Federal level. You know, because they get rich.
Why is it so offten that after our politician retire from office they go to work for the powerful corporate entities as well-paid lobbyists, sent back to Washington to continue the vicious and corrupt cycle.
And it IS corrupt. Just because something is LEGAL doesn't make it RIGHT.
Mitchell Buckley Also... who said anything about getting rid of the Constitution? I said amend it. AMEND!
Great video, didn't particularly care for the kind of opinion push at the end, but it was done in a way of telling history at least.
The Constitution is not a list of things the government CAN do, it's a list of things the government CAN'T do, effectively. That's why it's difficult to amend it.
The constitution is a list of things the government can do, and the Bill of Rights is a list of things that they can't do.
It's difficult to amend because it requires a very strong majority in both chambers of congress, and 3/4ths of the states..
Great illustrations!
I honestly don't see the point of amendment anymore because the court rewrite it all the time .... The last Obamacare case made me lose all respect for our system. The question I posed was this, if the Democrat had not lost their majorities in the 2010 midterm would that case exist? The answer is a resounding no because the Admin and Congress could have passed fixes .... So Justice Robert decides to rewrite the Constitution to prevent political deadlock by changing the meaning of words!!!
+Varoon I agree
+Varoon My friends wife died because of UHC. She need a heart yet she was unable to obtain one because UHC prevented her from getting one via red tape and doctors she thought where (are) incompetent.
3:50.... Every 19 years change laws or updates new laws that after they have experienced.... With working or without working.... Either ways updates the laws, every 19 years, kind of make sense.... Depending upon what laws that requires those of 19 updates.... The point here, let’s be honest here indirectly....
we are a republic
Actually a socialist democracy
+The Goat-Cat at least that's what Bernie wants
+The Goat-Cat You don't know what either of those words mean.
+Syccll-P Actually, the USA, from the outside world, is no longer defined as a Democratic Republic, since it apparently sees Democracy as a joke. The USA is now seen as an Oligarchic Republic.
We vote for the representatives and their are no requirements (apart from age) to holding office, the system has flaws that cause leanings towards oligarchy (like how do you fund a campaign) but the solution is simple make it illegal to spend more than x dollars and outlaw super pacs or even political ads all together, any one caught in violation of the rules shall be barred from office or impeached if post election.
This is what keeps us free. Passing laws by definition puts more restrictions on citizens and shall be hard to hard to do so.
well a lot of amendments actually restrict laws and keep us free. constitutional amendments are not the same as your everyday law
I hope we don't lose the second amendment
We won't, don't worry.
Yes. Keep guns at home, children won't take them when angry and shoot people bc dad likes second amendment.
C-C-Congratulations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
+Paco Cotero thanks because as a good parents should keep an eye on there kid and make there home a safe place like keeping guns in a safe buy safety plunges for wall outlets keep power tool put a way but pills and and other small thing that can be eaten out of reach
+ForrestSCS yes I know how long it takes are hard working police officer to get some were and 1 out of every 5. 911 caller's can not be located to sand ad I just want to know that my mom can go somewhere and if something happens she will not be a victim. you know what I mean?
***** Do you understand that my point already said "bad parents let children do anything with guns"?
Do you understand what you said is pointless?
Do people feel good having arms at their homes? "Secure"?
I call these people paranoic. Here in Spain we haven't these problems. Partly because there's no such right to have guns (they're completely useless) and because parents in Spain do not teach the kids how to use them or even say "guns are good bc reasons".
PD: Your argument is like American Dad's one. "People kill, guns do not."
Good video! I would just add a little more commentary at the end about the 19-year expiration... explaining that this change would likely get young people more involved in the voting/government system and not treat it as it is looked at today, something they have little to no say in it.
I object to the idea that an easily changed government is a better system then what we have. let me ask you this. do you wish you want your parents changing our basic rights? do you think if we voted every 20 years we would still have the first amendment? after 9/11? after the Cold War? after the World War 2 and 1? if we had a government that made it easy to change it then we would have none of the rights we have now. a crisis would have happened that would have made a right no longer in the best interest of all people. we dont need a law baring quartering troops right now. we dont need guns anymore. we are not fighting Indians. due process was made in a time before terrorism we cant afford to waste time because of an old law. state appointed lawyers was made because people were not educated, but now they are by the state and we cant afford to appoint lawyers right now. the first amendment didnt account the internet or television we cant let hate speech we need to banned it till we can figure out a way to let good speech out and not bad speech. but dont worry we will bring that back... one day.
do you really want politicians choosing your rights? one generation heresy is the next orthodoxy the IRS was only a temporary thing. SSN was never intended to be a way to identity you nor used to fund non-SSN programs. you all complain about about a slow hard process without realizing that its suppose to be. we cant afford a fast system when we the people are willing to give up freedom for security when something bad happens.
Fear kills republics not foreign armies or a slow process. Bureaucracy would kill us all if it wasnt so slow
OMG theirs another man who gets it ty good sir
+Joseph Fox So what you're saying is, you don't want the right to bare objects to defend yourself with, you want the government to be able to send you to jail at any time without evidence or reasoning, you want to be unable to defend yourself properly in the court of law, and you want to be imprisoned the second you badmouth something you shouldn't.
cooldude56g
no I was using those as examples of why we shouldn't have an easily changed government
+Joseph Fox
Because expressing rights in an almost immutable format truly protects them.
Remember slavery?
"Yessiree bob, we are protectin' the rights of these plantation owners. Ain't nobody gonna take away their property."
"But human beings really shouldn't be property, and the Constitution barely says anything about property."
"But ain't nothin' illegal 'bout it; Constitution says, 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,' and I ain't see nothin' 'bout us not gettin' to keep such property as we have."
You may argue that amendments were passed to deal with this issue, but a century later those same amendments were being used in ways they were not intended.
"Yessiree bob, we are protectin' the rights of these color'd folk. Ain't nobody gonna have them go to school with the whites, so we built them another school. See?"
"But that's degrading, unjust, and barely even equal."
"But ain't nothin' illegal 'bout it; Constitution says, 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,' and I ain't see nothin' 'bout that school does so."
Or a few years later...
"Yessiree bob, we are protectin' the rights of these children. Ain't no woman gonna kill no innocent child in the womb. See?"
"But all of these women are dying, going into poverty, and foregoing education because they get illegal abortions, can't afford the child, or cannot find time for anything but their child."
"But ain't nothin' illegal 'bout it; Constitution says, 'Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," and I ain't see nothin' 'bout not lettin' her kill a kid that does so."
Or more recently...
"Yessiree bob, we are protectin' the rights of these married folk. Ain't no homos gonna ruin our tradition of marriage. See?"
"But all of these people are being denied the benefits of marriage because of who they choose to marry."
"But ain't nothin' illegal 'bout it; Constitution says, 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,' and I ain't see nothin' bout gays marryin' as a right in history."
Or now...
"Yessiree bob, we are protectin' the rights of these women. Ain't no perv gonna sneak in a bathroom and hurt our women. See?"
"But you're forcing these people into dangerous situations when the risk you've described is hardly even there."
"But ain't nothin' illegal 'bout it; Constitution says, 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,' and I ain't see nothin' 'bout makin' 'em use the right bathrrom that does so."
There is a distinct legal tradition in the U.S.A. of using the unchanging nature of the Constitution to limit the rights of others, as the ninth and tenth amendments are quite literally never used in courts.
Mallet Face oh so we should have our government change at the will of the majority on the tick of a dime (or who is in power at that time)? recall prohibitionist? Picture a world where republicans get to pick your rights when they get a majority. and then a few years later the democrats change it. yeah progress is slow but it prevents politics from getting too involved in the basic rights of people. could you image if we where like Germany where in a span of 100 years we had 50 amendments? God we already have bad politicians and celebrities running for president. Picture trump or clintion pushing for a constitutional amendment. regardless of who you vote for thats a scary idea. and frankly I think its a good thing we have to argue for month and years before we change something that effects all of us.
38 of the 50 state legislatures must approve for an amendment to be ratified. That is extremely difficult, and is why that only seventeen have been ratified since the adoption of the Bill of Rights (the first Ten Amendments) . Plus, the 21st repeals the 18th, so in effect, only fifteen. It should not be easy to amend the Constitution.
It wasn't hard to spot the liberal bias...
Indeed, especially towards the end, when they were talking about lowering the standards for amendments... TED, please don't give the Socialists any ideas...
There is literally no bias in this video
Like, he just explains why its hard to change things. Is that liberal?
It's actually conservatives that promote lowering the amendment threshold
There was no liberal bias. Conservatives can be so paranoid.
I loved the simple dropping of the phrase "historical progress," the hell does that even mean?
States don’t need to “request” to have their own convention to propose amendments, they can do it all on their own, without congress. It’s intended to be one more check on the federal government from the states.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
The only thing missing is it being Followed.....
and Trump thinks he will change things
+Stanley Parable
It's very easy to change things since they no longer follow the rules.
For example where is the amendment prohibiting drugs like they did with alcohol?
If, after watching this, you think the current U.S. Constitution is difficult to amend, take a look at its predecessor, the Articles of Confederation. Any amendment to this document required the ratification of all the states, without exception. It only took one state to kill any attempt at an amendment, and this happened frequently during the Articles' brief tenure.