Basically the Big Bang is a energy that’s released from fire power and it shocks people mind which violates your constitution and 8th Amendment . Cruel and usual punishment
38:52 and the Haudenosaunee confederacy of _democratic_ nations: "Five Nations" (before 1722), and later as the "Six Nations," comprising the Mohawk, Onondaga, Oneida, Cayuga, Seneca, and Tuscarora peoples
@17:21 "From the perspective of today you say 'Professor, what about women and there was slavery in New York" and yes but you don't get to today without going through 1787 and you have to judge 1787 by 1786 and 1686..." Brilliant. I wish this was taught in schools so that our current generation wasn't so self-righteous and realized what it took to get to this point.
Yes so it is true you can’t get through 1787 86 but what’s more important is that people were smart enough to understand it. But what does it do for the people.
Not all societies in the 18th century or before were dominated by hereditary aristocracies. Tribal societies continued to be non-hierarchical, if not voluntary associations. Absent the arrival of Europeans, the "Five Nations" that comprised the Iroquois Confederation operated in a cooperative manner under decentralized institutions of power. There is strong argument that "Magna Carta" is not something for people to celebrate. What it achieved according to British author Fred Harrison is to eliminate the feudal obligations of the monarchy and initiative the rise of a rentier aristrocracy. As historian Charles Andrews observed, the great advantage of European settlers in North America during the 17th and early 18th centuries was "salutary neglect" by British authority. At the same time, the laws relating to landed property ignited centuries of land speculation and political corruption in pursuit of private gain at public expense. This was first recognized and described by the American newspaper editor and political economist Henry George in his 1871 book, "Our Land and Land Policy."
I just finished watching the entire lecture, including the question and answer period at the end, and I must say you really missed the mark. You missed out on a tremendous lecture by not giving Akhil Amar a fair chance.
This is a load of nonsense and the typical fare of tropes around how perfect the constitution is. British monarchy by the time of the US revolution had absolutely no power and the rule of Parliament was well and truly in place. The king or queen did not select the Prime Minister as he states but only through ceremony. I've watch several videos of this person and I must say that he has a very romantic and quite fictional account of history of this time.
True that Amar was uncharacteristically upbeat, but he is the LAST person to claim that the Constitution is "perfect." Read his excellent book on the Reconstruction (and 13th-14th-15th Amendments, essentially a re-do of the Constitution.)
He does not think that the constitution is perfect, especially in its original form. For instance, he’s written extensively on just how damaging the 3/5 compromise was. Try reading a couple of his works before spilling out argument-free diatribes like this.
The constitution is of NO authority whatsoever, is binding upon nobody but those who as a contract decide they want to abide by it.. but nobody has the right to force any of it upon another who does not want it.. as he says himself, it was published for your consideration.. Well, those who read it and considered it, have made choice to not accept it.. and who is he that will force me to live by the rules and laws of another man? If another man can write a law and force others to live by it, then I can write laws and force others to live by them as well.. Fact, the only laws any of us are amenable to are the Laws of Christ and no other..
As an Australian who has been keeping up with US politics, I have read Professor Amar's book - The Constitution Today and have been enthralled!.
Great lecture Mr.Amar ! and what an Amazing tie !
I appreciate his enthusiasm.
Thomas Sowell: 'Intellectuals and Society ' a must read for expanding one's own mind and encouraging further investigations of our world. 📚
His tie tho lol
I want one!
53:54 The constitution as the big bang of democracy. How will this develop?
Basically the Big Bang is a energy that’s released from fire power and it shocks people mind which violates your constitution and 8th Amendment . Cruel and usual punishment
38:52 and the Haudenosaunee confederacy of _democratic_ nations: "Five Nations" (before 1722), and later as the "Six Nations," comprising the Mohawk, Onondaga, Oneida, Cayuga, Seneca, and Tuscarora peoples
@17:21 "From the perspective of today you say 'Professor, what about women and there was slavery in New York" and yes but you don't get to today without going through 1787 and you have to judge 1787 by 1786 and 1686..." Brilliant. I wish this was taught in schools so that our current generation wasn't so self-righteous and realized what it took to get to this point.
Yes so it is true you can’t get through 1787 86 but what’s more important is that people were smart enough to understand it. But what does it do for the people.
Love him
Here in post-Trump February 2022, I wouldn't bet on continuing progress.
How advance I've become from this info
oof the America of 2021 isn't doing that well either. There's another pandemic and we're almost two years into it
Not all societies in the 18th century or before were dominated by hereditary aristocracies. Tribal societies continued to be non-hierarchical, if not voluntary associations. Absent the arrival of Europeans, the "Five Nations" that comprised the Iroquois Confederation operated in a cooperative manner under decentralized institutions of power.
There is strong argument that "Magna Carta" is not something for people to celebrate. What it achieved according to British author Fred Harrison is to eliminate the feudal obligations of the monarchy and initiative the rise of a rentier aristrocracy. As historian Charles Andrews observed, the great advantage of European settlers in North America during the 17th and early 18th centuries was "salutary neglect" by British authority. At the same time, the laws relating to landed property ignited centuries of land speculation and political corruption in pursuit of private gain at public expense. This was first recognized and described by the American newspaper editor and political economist Henry George in his 1871 book, "Our Land and Land Policy."
"charter of the forest" is probably a better one
"dude….you forgot the rights"
This is one of the best teachers around? I almost fell asleep and I only got through three minutes
sometimes the best teachers around are the most monotone or boring. but its pretty easy to follow.
I just finished watching the entire lecture, including the question and answer period at the end, and I must say you really missed the mark. You missed out on a tremendous lecture by not giving Akhil Amar a fair chance.
This is a load of nonsense and the typical fare of tropes around how perfect the constitution is. British monarchy by the time of the US revolution had absolutely no power and the rule of Parliament was well and truly in place. The king or queen did not select the Prime Minister as he states but only through ceremony.
I've watch several videos of this person and I must say that he has a very romantic and quite fictional account of history of this time.
I agree that the Parliament was in place during this time and that they placed King George on the throne.
True that Amar was uncharacteristically upbeat, but he is the LAST person to claim that the Constitution is "perfect." Read his excellent book on the Reconstruction (and 13th-14th-15th Amendments, essentially a re-do of the Constitution.)
Tropes...ha ha...you're a real free thinker.
He does not think that the constitution is perfect, especially in its original form. For instance, he’s written extensively on just how damaging the 3/5 compromise was.
Try reading a couple of his works before spilling out argument-free diatribes like this.
The constitution is of NO authority whatsoever, is binding upon nobody but those who as a contract decide they want to abide by it.. but nobody has the right to force any of it upon another who does not want it.. as he says himself, it was published for your consideration.. Well, those who read it and considered it, have made choice to not accept it.. and who is he that will force me to live by the rules and laws of another man? If another man can write a law and force others to live by it, then I can write laws and force others to live by them as well.. Fact, the only laws any of us are amenable to are the Laws of Christ and no other..
Go preach your bronze-age mythological childish BS elsewhere, this video is for educated and enlightened adults.