To be fair, it'll only really work if a significant amount of people support the dictator. Realistically, it would be enough people where they could do it even without the loophole. For example, the King of England dissolves parliament at the end of their session; however, he also holds the power to dissolve parliament *permanently*. Realistically speaking though, if he tried to do that he would just get overthrown.
He’s got my vote. He encouraged my younger mind to delve into subjects that i would otherwise find boring. I still go back and rewatch the old vsauce videos every year or two
There is litterally a channel that shows laws that were passed with no oversight, people started to abuse the loophole, and the government shut it down quickly.
Lmao 25. You know the "people" part in the constitution, imagine you spend thousands (millions now) of dollars trying to find a loophole to that so they can't vote.
@@willcook1530 The constitution, as described in the video, apparently the guy _found a way_ to break it, not _legally_ breaking the law, but rather, literally _breaking_ the law. However, it hasn't been broken _yet_ since Article V is still unchanged.
That's where the responsibility to prevent that from happening is in the hands of we the people. I'm not claiming that people should not be allowed to complain about it, but I am suggesting that, when shit really hits the fan, the only people who fix it is us. (That said: issue then becomes a matter of defining what it means when "shit hits the fan" that we can collectively agree upon).
@@nickfifteenWe the people won't do shit. Stop lying to yourself. Edward Snowden told us the government is illegally spying on us and we did nothing. Snowden is hiding from our government, now. The people are cowards.
Yeah, I mean, I guess being able to amend the part of the constitution that controls amendments is dangerous, but u still have to amend the constitution first lol. And that’s never been easy, pretty sure Godel brought up this issue at a time where the majority of amendments came from the Bill of Rights and most of the remainder required a civil war to happen. Seems like it’d be much easier to appoint enough Supreme Court justices that agree with your party such that the president or legislators never have to follow the law again. Pretty sure that’s happened in various times in US history, look up worst Supreme Court decisions. And heck, didn’t Andrew Jackson do the Trail of Tears in direct defiance of the Supreme Court anyway? But there were never enough opponents in the House to impeach him? It’s frankly not hard to be a dictator in America, at least temporarily. My guess, just from watching this short - I don’t believe the constitution guarantees anyone the right to vote, it just makes it illegal to strip the right away under certain conditions. So maybe technically, passing a law that says “only members of our new royal family have a right to vote” isn’t specifically racial discrimination or property discrimination, and you’d only need a majority of legislators to pass it? There’s no way that’s actually true tho lol
Given that the other 2 people in the story were his prank buddies... And Albert Einstein's sense of humor is like Mark Twain's only even more juvenile.
Ya know, I can't deny that albert Einstein looks like the guy to legitimately know a secret about the literal constitution and he's just like "hehehe buncha byiches i know a secret you dont knoooww tehe"
Knowing historical context, Albert Einstein is a type of person that would agree to withhold information that can in turn destroy the world. Doing my own read through of the constitution and my own knowledge of government….I have plausible pathways that America can become a dictatorship and it should be addressed….can’t say it’s completely correct but thinking about it is scary in current context (can see trump or any president mad with power and a huge following doing this either slowly or within 2 terms)
@ssstriderboyz7245 ur mad weird. Trump being associated with the word dictator is pretty wild. He didn't take a paycheck, how is that tyrannical? He empowered the police and took power from the federal government. Lowered my income taxes, reduced poverty unemployment crime and homelessness. Sound like a tyrant to you? Sit down
The contra proferentem rule is a legal doctrine in contract law that dictates how ambiguous clauses in a contract should be interpreted. The rule stipulates that if a clause in a contract is ambiguous or can be interpreted in multiple ways, it should be read in a way that disfavors the party who originally drafted, introduced, or demanded the inclusion of that specific clause. The contra proferentem rule guides the legal interpretation of contracts and is typically applied when a contract is challenged in court. It serves as protection against the potential misuse of contract language. It's often applied in contract disputes involving insurance companies that have refused to pay claims. KEY TAKEAWAYS The contra proferentem rule is a legal doctrine in contract law that can be enforced at the local, state, or federal level. The contra proferentem rule places fault on a party who creates or introduces an ambiguous contract clause for their own benefit. Contra proferentem rulings usually require the intermediation of a court to change a contract’s interpretation or results. The rule effectively acts as a safeguard against the potential misuse of contract language by one party over another.
He was a mathematician and not a student of the law. He probably had a misconception. Lawyers go over the law to find loopholes 24/7. I think someone would have found it. By the way many founding fathers thought the constitution should be reviewed about every two decades to keep up with the times. I think Thomas Jefferson was one of them. Yet here we are thinking it is like the word of God.
@@michaelsmith483if it was something easily fixable they would have tried the fact they ignored it probably meant it ain’t a easy and fix and it’s easier to ignore it since it’s more likely no one will find out about it
nah,he just though that looking down and having his glasse almost fell off and wiggling his head at the same times while saying that was hilarious and its true
It isn't. Never was. You can find numerous direct quotes from the Founding Fathers that illustrate how much they actually recognized any democracy is fated to fail.
@@slappy8941like…? You didn’t answer the question. SURELY you don’t mean to imply people living in China, North Korea, Russia etc. have a better quality of life than those in the west, right? That would be silly… right?
The issue here is his finding is moot. We have no choice but to use the document as the guarantee. This is because it isn't decreed by God and thus the word of God. This is the fallibility of man issue, but we as humans know the basis and is why we don't circumvent the constitution. We require a framework that the country is built on because we aren't a muslim country with Sharia law nonsense. However, the fervor of changing or undoing the constitution seems to be more recent. Spiked heavily in 2017 and 2018 by fringe lunatic groups within the country. The two most prominently being the 2nd and 12th.
@@janus3555 The thing about authority, even 'godly', is that you have to have an actual identifiable presence that can be measured and confirmed to be real and accurate. So even if a person were to somehow find the loophole again, they would still need to prove that they are both capable of enforcing their imposition as dictator against a gigantic mob of 'find out'. Not only that, but they would also have to somehow dispose of the current authorities in place already. If such a thing were to occur and succeed on any level, it wasn't any god making it happen for them; and it isn't any god saving you from them. That will be man doing that.
Also having a self-referential paradox is so on brand for the constitution lol. Great document, but clearly not written by people who understood math/ways to write that avoids ambiguity, or knew to try to look for loopholes in order to close them before they're ever exploited.
@sophiedowney1077 It was also meant to be a living document with ambiguity for laws and rulings to be made by the people through the jury system and through our representatives. The issue of it being open to exploitation is also what allows the US to adapt. This being seen recently with the arguments over term limits being removed, being unable to convict a siting president for crimes, and congress having the ability to potentially overturn an election if they 'feel' the vote didn't actually match the people's choice. While yes our laws and amendments can me changed and defined to include those things, it could lead to our representative democracy to become a dictatorship
@@sophiedowney1077 you don't give the Founding Fathers enough credit. The ambiguity is there for purposes of longevity. It would have been easier for them to simply state their desires for the direction of the country in perpetuity but instead they left openings (and yes loopholes/ paradoxes) in order for the document to remain flexible for the changing tides of Democracy. For example: Many of the Fathers were slave owners but they obviously allowed the document to be left open for that to change. Why? It would not be in their best interest for slaves to be emancipated and yet not but a century after its inception the Constitution/ Bill of Rights was amended for thus. The ambiguity of the document, the cornerstone of this fantastic social experiment, is both its weakness and its genius.
@@ethanmorrison7021you've highlighted a key point many people seem to be missing regarding the Trump conviction. Many people immediately equate that someone who is a felon can't vote but can run for President, despite these being clearly separate issues. Felons being allowed to vote is an entire conversation itself but if one were not allowed to run for President then politically motivated demagogues might say use the Judiciary System in order to criminalize their political opposition thus making it impossible for anyone who might have committed a petty crime to oppose them. I'm no fan of Trump, but I am certainly not a fan of the federal government using "justice" as a cudgel.
@@ethanmorrison7021 I get all of that, but there are definitely parts of the constitution that are ambiguous to the point of being able to be interpreted in 2 or more completely contradictory ways (looking at you, second amendment). There's also stuff like "not cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Theoretically, a bad actor could interpret this as, "a punishment can be cruel but not unusual, or unusual but not cruel. So if other countries allow stoning as punishment, we can allow it too because it's cruel but not unusual." The founding fathers couldn't have put an "and/or" in the mix? Some ambiguity is good, but a lot makes what you're trying to say completely meaningless or allows for the opposite of what you intended to happen.
@@okididntaskbozo218 no they didn’t. That’s an excerpt from Justice Sotomayor, who was dissenting. She argued that “When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he will now be insulated from criminal prosecution… In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.” It was an opinion of a dissenting justice, not the courts official ruling
"Hey Vsauce, Supreme Leader Michael here!" As I have been reminded of this comment, I shall add more jokes. Supreme Leader Michael in peace meetings: "No, we don't keep our prisoners in gulags... or do we?" Supreme Leader Michael visiting enemy countries: "Oh hi there! Where is your capital? Trick question, it actually doesn't exist anymore..."
Well… it’s actually a republic, as we have elected officials as opposed to true democracy where every single person has a say in every single decision.
@DankMeme-ni2my The United States of America is a Democratic-Republic. It's a republic because it has an elected head of state instead of a monarch and it's a democracy because all the members of government are elected by the people. It is correct to call the US both a democracy and a republic.
This makes sense, since Gödel was famous for his Gödel Number system, which proves that Turing Completeness and all mathematical systems must necessarily have the capability for self-reference, and thus the impossibility for any system to be both complete and consistent.
While his incompleteness theorems are certainly about self-reference, the constitution does not and does not need to encode arithmetic in a formal manner as described by his theorems. The constitution with all of its conclusions also clearly is not complete in the sense of the law. So your conclusion about it doesn’t really work. What can be assumed, however, is that Gödel was more mindful about issues of self-reference because of his research in this field.
@@imengaginginclown-to-clown9363 I don't think OP was trying to say that Gödel's incompleteness theorems imply a contradiction exists in the constitution. He was just pointing out that Gödel was well known for this kind of thing. As another commenter put it, its on brand for him
@@lancearnedo7837 A constitution is a framework for other legislation. By definition, even if it were perfect, it contains ways to change it, because that is its purpose.
@@magnushultgrenhtcthat isn't inherently true. A constitution is just a charter that's used as the basis of a legal framework for a given entity. Such charters had existed well before the U.S. constitution and not all of them contained the ability to change them like said constitution was designed to do.
The rules about changing the rules is something that tons of lawyers are familiar with in many contexts (HOAs, parliamentary procedure, ordinances, contracts, ADR...)
If you never passed out beers to half a dozen friends and sat down with a game of FLUXX, it's absolutely hilarious. The goal of the game is to change the rules until you're the one that wins.
@@Ungodly01I mean if you just get rid of the constitution and then it's probably much much easier to make America a dictatorship but still very difficult
Vote Blue not matter who! do not educate yourself and never question the main stream media! We must never learn to educate ourselves and think outside the democrat mindset! kamala 2024!!!
@@Negan-lo7yr project 2025...Trump has people willing to die for him when he views you and his supporters as statistics. His best interest is pushing America into a radical and probable dictatorship, I mean the Republicans have packed supreme court and those are lifelong positions. The only people wanting a dictatorship are the Trump supporting Republicans. The only way project 2025 can be done is through Trump winning and then exploiting the government as he has before and ruin this nation, say goodbye to rights if you arent a straight white male. TL;DR if you cant read that you shouldnt have a say in this country
This isn't a loophole. It takes 3/4 of the states to change an amendment to the constitution. The reason it takes 3/4 is that it is damn near impossible to get 3/4 agreement. There is no contradiction here. The founder could have made slavery legal too. That they didn't should be the end of the systemic racism argument.
@@MattyC0900That's great man, different countries and cultures can learn so much from one another (minus cannibal tribes) if we only take the time to a little research now and then.
@@justinmiller5660 non american here, wasn't there also some kind of order the president can give to override a lot of bureocratic processes and scrutiny in his or hers decisions? I don't remember the exact name but i remember it was used by bush when dick cheney was around to basically allow him to do anything he wanted with the rebuilding contracts in post war Iraq, that as a matter of fact were mostly unfinished but very much paid
@gabrielepasserini6860 Well, Congress has the power of the purse. However, the president gets to decide how the money is spent, to a degree. Congress can say you have 500 billion to spend on the military. But the president gets to decide what is military spending. In Iraq, Chaney said the rebuild was all military spending l. That's how they did that. But that's what happens when Congress doesn't want to do it's job properly. See our Congressmen don't want their names attached to a down vote of something their constituents might want. Mostly because politicians don't know how to talk to the people that got them elected. So they pass the responsibility off onto the president by saying here's a shit ton of money, go spend it, then when it gets spent on something stupid, Congress says it wasn't us, blame the president.
No, it doesn’t (unless I’m not understanding you). I’m definitely not someone who is in love with social contracts, but law enforcement exists to alleviate this problem. I wouldn’t say that all goes under when someone breaks the law.
That’s not at all how that works we can simply say getting appointed as the new candidate for a political party with no vote by any representative of that party while that political party literally holds power in the presidential office. Seems like a pretty good way, but not the reality is if martial law is involved throughout the nation which case the president has dictatorial powers And they toss the constitution or reframe the constitution to maintain power that only works if you have a large support because Americans have guns so technically no there won’t ever be a dictator dictator of America because Americans have guns that would mean at least 60% of America would have to overwhelmingly agree and support the president dictator in order for them to maintain power the easiest way to make any country a dictatorship is to remove guns from the populous even the Nazis did it Chinese general moa Lennon did it and Stalin I even think Mussolini did pretty much everyone who wants to control people remove their means of self protection and defense just a little FYI
And since we are talking about conspiracy, hypotheticals a false flag such as Hitler’s actions at the Crystal Palace, right or the crystal Knight, where they claimed a group of Jews attacked a government building and burnt it to the ground when it was the Nazi party themselves in a false flag operationI gotta say is it is a little bit odd how after Donald Trump almost gets assassinated twice the government does not talk about trying to get rid of guns.😂😂😂 but they’ll have a mass shooting and coincidentally a guy who is on TV talking about how he made his car run on water making a car engine run on H2O on the news guys in a mass shooting exactly 2 weeks later you know, and then they just bombarded everything with gun control just some conspiracy theories. I think there are a reasonable.
He sort of did after breaking dozens of laws and filling the senate with people loyal to him but yes, inch by inch politically with legions parked outside in case anyone had any objections
Luckily the US constitution has safeguards against a tyrannical government taking over and forcing their will on people.... It's called the 2nd amendment.
Yep. Sadly this elections outcome is already decided. It’s more of a selection than election tbh. Right now it seems Obama will get his 3rd basically 4th “term” but “reign” is a more appropriate word. We lost all semblance of democracy when Biden was *installed* .
@@AnotherHistorianWargamerThis is why we have the judicial branch. The archivist in that scenario violates the constitution, thus invalidating the invention he codifies; so, it will be caught.
@@Gglobe you are exactly right. Donald Trump is currently arguing for not only presidential immunity, but has also stated that the assassination of rivals falls under that immunity. The Supreme Court of the United States of America is over looking the case, and since he has the majority in his pocket, if he wins in 2025, they will rule his way. He will certainly take advantage of it. We know this already. Project 2025 clearly states that they will gut the government of anyone not loyal to conservative views. If Donald Trump is elected again, he will not leave office. In fact, he clearly stated he will become a dictator ‘for only one day.’ As if. We will enter a conservative dictatorship if people do not vote.
@@AnotherHistorianWargamer The Supreme Court could strike down the amendment and issue a writ of mandamus ordering the archivist to withdraw the record from the archives if it was entered illegally.
Since when has any government ever needed a logical loophole to change, reinterpret, or simply ignore laws at their convenience? The right to bear arms is infringed upon, the right to free speech, property rights. Back in the day even income tax was unconstitutional, imagine that! .
@@edd8914 The forging of that ratification was certainly questionable. I say we vote again. Hay if they can’t ratify they just come up with an act. Like the Patriot Act. To be reviewed at the beginning of every presidential term, because it so intrusive. But none the less the today argument is it’s too big to stop because of all those jobs that will be lost. Jobs of that overreach our God given Rights by spying on us in every room of our home to maintain total control over every aspect of our life’s.
@@edd8914 Yeah, and who pray tell are "they" who decided to pass that amendment? Was it the common American democratically deciding it in a popular vote or was it the same kind of elitist people who decided to bailout the banks with your money and let the criminals causing the cracks off the hook? Democracy is not democracy before the people has their say and their voices heard!
From now on I have one goal in life: Becoming famous as a scientist and saying I found something awesome but dying before someone asks what it was so hundreds of people try to find it but can't because there isn't anything 😂
"if the rules about how the rules can be changed, can be changed, anything is possible" Thankfully, the process to change ANY part of the Constitution, INCLUDING Article 5, is pretty damn hard.
Kurt Gödel is THE name when it comes to logic. If he did find a loophole, it’s probably a very obscure one and not takes extremely meticulous reading and logical notation.
@@tomas_ofc if the loophole is the one michael mentioned, then the strength of the constitution isn't affected by the loophole at all. the thing holding it together is our shared consensus of how it should be handled. it's a piece of paper with writing on it, not godzilla, not the planck constant.
Every few days, I receive a Vsauce notification from the TH-cam. Each time, I pull down the notification tray, desperately clinging to the false hope that it will be a full-length video, even though I know in my heart that it will just be another short.
In Turkish constitution article 4 states that first 3 articles can't be changed but it never states it's also can't be changed. Edit:This aged like milk.
The situation is similar with the German Grundgesetz. Article 79 stipulates which articles and parts cannot be changed, but it doesn't include itself. However it is generally understood that it is implicitly included, because otherwise it would not make sense. (at the same time you then can't change it to include itself)
@@Brandlingoah, classic German logic. The rule should implicitly cover itself, which inherently prevents any changes to make it more obvious of that self-inclusion, leaving an assumed de facto execution, while having some gray area over how it the de jure details of the law were written😂
Probably smart. You can imagine there might be some situation where any law/rule needs to be changed, but having a (changeable) rule stopping some rules being changed means you need to change the rules twice (once to change article 4, then to change one of the first 3) so the process is forced to be slower. Gives people more time to really think it through.
Just Google "Trump Article V Convention Movement." Most news outlets have written about this. The loophole needs to be fixed. ANY President could abuse that level of power. We're lucky Trump didn't learn about it until his last few weeks or months in power, and that Biden overturned it as one of his first actions. Now Trump knows, and they have the plans layers out in detail in videos about plowing forward with this literally on Day One. It's terrifying.
@@KennethConnally-np9it the "er" for German "ö" approximation is just old-timey advice that stuck because nobody taught anybody any different similar to people still quoting "let them eat cake" when we actually know what brioche is now (in English)
I’d like to think that he never actually found any loophole, but instead lied about doing so to have people paranoid of the possibility, thus encouraging them to search for any actual loophole that may exist.
The president is elected by electors, not the people, and the electors don't have to vote with their state. Theoretically if all the electors work for you you can be elected every time
Found it! Tried talking to lawyers because I felt I had rights violated. The legal advice they told me, was that because I wasn't being charged with a crime. I can't take legal action against the US government. Although I want to charge the government with a crime, I am not law enforcement and can not legally do so. The only way is if I want to get arrested in protest, then during my trail, the court strikes down the law. Even then, this will only affect the court's local juristic if I'm right about my rights. I would have to lose the case, then take it up in appease court, then lose again, and take it to the supreme court to have any widespread effect. More or less the constitution says there's no penalty for passing unconstitutional laws, things like, Presidential Immunity, and that unconsistaionl laws are to be followed until courts say otherwise, any good luck getting law enforcement to press charges. Any law / executive order is assumed to be constitutional to be default, until it isn't, including one that would make me a dictator, but by the time it gets to the courts, what courts??, those are long gone relics of the past, I've removed those dictator powers ^.^, Good luck enjoy the dictatorship let's look at an example President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law on September 21, 1996 Then United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 in 2013 It took 17 years to notice rights were violated and do something about it. So with the current system it 17 years to notice the country is a dictatorship, what could one accomplish in that time? Apparently not a speedy trial, lol. The general population just sits around waiting to see the results, but this will take years. but by then, pack the court with people that will side with me?
Basically all Constitutions have shennanigans around the articles about changing the Constitution. And basically everytime when that question is brought up to that country's Constitutional Court the answer is always that whatever rule that article applies on other articles, applies to its own as well. In the case of the US this essentially means that when Article 5 requires a two thirds of both houses of Congress to agree to ammend the Constitution, these two thirds shall also apply if Article 5 wishes to be changed as well. But even then, since unlike many countries, all of the ammendments to the US Constitution are just additions to the text and not changes to what was previously written it's unlikely that this article will ever tried to be changed.
Not true. The 3/5ths providion was changed because of the 14th ammendment. The main body does have sections "overwritten" by ammendments.ammendment. that being said since it would take an overwhelming majority of the entire country to change this I don't see it as much of a dictatorship loophole. The last person to hold such a majority would have been Ronald Reagan and it clearly didn't happen then.
@@hengineer What are you saying? Nothing here is about the 3/5ths provision. Article 5 states that for an ammendment to be made to the Constitution two thirds of each legislative House, this is 67 out of the 100 Senators and 290 of the 435 Representatives need to agree to propose the ammendment to the States. This has nothing to do with the population count towards the census during the 1800s
@@hengineer Oh about that. No, it doesn't change it. Article 1 states that all non-free individuals would count as 3/5ths of a person, and the 14th ammendment merely designates all people as free, so both provisions are technically still law and at work, justa that the 3/5ths rule applies to no one due to the 14th ammendment. But should the 14th ammendment be repealed in a future ammendment (let's hope not) with no reference to article 1, then the 3/5ths clause would again apply to any new person who'd be designated as not free
We have unfortunately discovered in the past few years that our not slipping into a dictatorship is mostly based on tradition and unwritten rules, and not precluded by our institutions and laws. 😥
Love stuff like this, like apparently there was some ancient Roman apparatus, a tool, that's use was "So obvious" that no one every brothered to write what it was down
@@gorgeousfreeman1318 This is plainly incorrect, as the SC DIDN'T decide whether Trump's acts were included in what level of criminal presidential immunity. Rather, they referred that question back down to the DC Federal District Court after establishing a *completely new* criminal immunity rule by extending an existing rule about *civil* liability alone for presidential officials, per the Trump v. US Majority opinion at 28 and 42-43. There is no textual indication of presidential immunity from the criminal law, despite evidence that the framers could very well have established it. This is seen in US Const., Art. 1, s. 6, cl. 1, which provides for congressional immunity from prosecution for official duties, and it the fact that several states at the time of the framing did provide for executive immunity, but the text of the US Constitution does not have any such provision. Sotomayor's dissent at 4-10 has a great discussion of the relevant legal history, including Federalist Papers that cut clearly against the idea of presidential criminal immunity.
Funny fact, the german constitution has a paragraph that protects paragraphs 1-8 or so which is stuff like democrazy, human rights, etc. but it doesnt include the paragraph that protects those paragraphs. It's an intentional thing for us even since in case it ever is needed to update those laws we can update that paragraph temporarily to fix stuff in the prev protected ones. But also u need like 3 fourths of the parliament to agree to the change of anx constitutional law no matter how big or small the change + no party will ever probably let that change happen either way.
Im sure the supreme court and house of representatives would stop it. It's not like they're all greedy old people with nothing to... Lose... Oh god this is bad.
"it probably wont be exploited" is how literally every dictatorship starts
This what everyone thought before hitler passed the enabling act
actually no
they didn’t because hitler came up with it himself
@@Agro50 to be fair- people did think Hitler would try and do something, they just also thought they could use Hitler for their own power.
To be fair, it'll only really work if a significant amount of people support the dictator. Realistically, it would be enough people where they could do it even without the loophole. For example, the King of England dissolves parliament at the end of their session; however, he also holds the power to dissolve parliament *permanently*. Realistically speaking though, if he tried to do that he would just get overthrown.
If Michael decides to run for Congress, we know why
Lmao.
What will he change in the constitution?? 🤔
"Michael is accepted" - we're not even surprised.
genuinely he would be a much better president than the options we have now
He’s got my vote. He encouraged my younger mind to delve into subjects that i would otherwise find boring. I still go back and rewatch the old vsauce videos every year or two
It must've been awesome to be one of those people who were in Einstein's circle and can just be like "yo bro look at this"
E
E
@UTubeTrollPoliceNWO wtf bot.
Wtf is that bot saying?! Lol
@@LinusBlue344 idk but the report button does seem shiny from here let me just press it.
"Loopholes that probably wouldn't be exploited" sort of sums up the last 25 years of American politics...
Only 25? 🤔
That would’ve just been the patriot act
There is litterally a channel that shows laws that were passed with no oversight, people started to abuse the loophole, and the government shut it down quickly.
Lmao 25. You know the "people" part in the constitution, imagine you spend thousands (millions now) of dollars trying to find a loophole to that so they can't vote.
Those were not loopholes, genius
"Hey Vsauce, Michael here. I don't own the United States of America"
"Or do I?"
lmao. this made me laugh
Since he is a citizen of the USA and the USA is a republic, he is (partially) the owner of the USA along with all other citizens.
@@The0Stroyor is he?
Hey Vsauce Michael here
I am a human being
Or..
am I…
I heard the music change at the end of your comment 😂
I feel like Vsauce is trying to turn America into the dictatorship of Michael.
You ain't scaring anyone.
He is the kinda guy to do that.
You ok? Having a stroke or something? Do u want me to call an ambulance?@UTubeTrollPoliceNWO
Call an ambulance, I think he's having a stroke
I feel like America is already turning itself into a dictatorship so I guess they're halfway there
That is terrifying.
Michael is, not America being a dictatorship
@VECTRONANGRYASRIELWORSHIPPERYFbro shut up
@@AtomixTigerit’s not, nice try being edgy though
@@B-fq7ffIt's not, but it would be if Trump got his way. :P
Stop voting for socialists/totalitarianists and you can safely avoid being a dictatorship
CIA, FBI: got us in the first half, not gonna lie
If we’re unlucky, we’ll find out in real time
Unitary Executive Theory. Look it up, another big deal in American Constitutional law.
Gödel is such a badass dude, first he broke math logically and second he broke the law without breaking it.
The judicial law or a mathematical law? Lol I don't know much about Godel
@@willcook1530Both! Thats why its crazy
@@multiumx7896 what was the legal law?!
@@willcook1530 The constitution, as described in the video, apparently the guy _found a way_ to break it, not _legally_ breaking the law, but rather, literally _breaking_ the law. However, it hasn't been broken _yet_ since Article V is still unchanged.
@@mateofamate1387 ohhhh wowwwe I'm an idiot so obvious once pointed out lol. Thank you!
It's called "have enough cronies in office who will disregard the law."
That's where the responsibility to prevent that from happening is in the hands of we the people. I'm not claiming that people should not be allowed to complain about it, but I am suggesting that, when shit really hits the fan, the only people who fix it is us. (That said: issue then becomes a matter of defining what it means when "shit hits the fan" that we can collectively agree upon).
AKA Donald Trump
@UTubeTrollPoliceNWOwtf is wrong with you! Get some help please!
@@nickfifteenWe the people won't do shit. Stop lying to yourself. Edward Snowden told us the government is illegally spying on us and we did nothing. Snowden is hiding from our government, now. The people are cowards.
Yeah, I mean, I guess being able to amend the part of the constitution that controls amendments is dangerous, but u still have to amend the constitution first lol. And that’s never been easy, pretty sure Godel brought up this issue at a time where the majority of amendments came from the Bill of Rights and most of the remainder required a civil war to happen.
Seems like it’d be much easier to appoint enough Supreme Court justices that agree with your party such that the president or legislators never have to follow the law again. Pretty sure that’s happened in various times in US history, look up worst Supreme Court decisions.
And heck, didn’t Andrew Jackson do the Trail of Tears in direct defiance of the Supreme Court anyway? But there were never enough opponents in the House to impeach him? It’s frankly not hard to be a dictator in America, at least temporarily.
My guess, just from watching this short - I don’t believe the constitution guarantees anyone the right to vote, it just makes it illegal to strip the right away under certain conditions. So maybe technically, passing a law that says “only members of our new royal family have a right to vote” isn’t specifically racial discrimination or property discrimination, and you’d only need a majority of legislators to pass it? There’s no way that’s actually true tho lol
Imagine it was an elaborate prank to get more people to study the Constitution!!🤣🤣🤣
Given that the other 2 people in the story were his prank buddies... And Albert Einstein's sense of humor is like Mark Twain's only even more juvenile.
It comes with that particular hair/mustache combo.
Ya know, I can't deny that albert Einstein looks like the guy to legitimately know a secret about the literal constitution and he's just like "hehehe buncha byiches i know a secret you dont knoooww tehe"
Knowing historical context, Albert Einstein is a type of person that would agree to withhold information that can in turn destroy the world. Doing my own read through of the constitution and my own knowledge of government….I have plausible pathways that America can become a dictatorship and it should be addressed….can’t say it’s completely correct but thinking about it is scary in current context (can see trump or any president mad with power and a huge following doing this either slowly or within 2 terms)
@ssstriderboyz7245 ur mad weird. Trump being associated with the word dictator is pretty wild. He didn't take a paycheck, how is that tyrannical? He empowered the police and took power from the federal government. Lowered my income taxes, reduced poverty unemployment crime and homelessness. Sound like a tyrant to you? Sit down
The contra proferentem rule is a legal doctrine in contract law that dictates how ambiguous clauses in a contract should be interpreted. The rule stipulates that if a clause in a contract is ambiguous or can be interpreted in multiple ways, it should be read in a way that disfavors the party who originally drafted, introduced, or demanded the inclusion of that specific clause. The contra proferentem rule guides the legal interpretation of contracts and is typically applied when a contract is challenged in court. It serves as protection against the potential misuse of contract language. It's often applied in contract disputes involving insurance companies that have refused to pay claims. KEY TAKEAWAYS The contra proferentem rule is a legal doctrine in contract law that can be enforced at the local, state, or federal level. The contra proferentem rule places fault on a party who creates or introduces an ambiguous contract clause for their own benefit. Contra proferentem rulings usually require the intermediation of a court to change a contract’s interpretation or results. The rule effectively acts as a safeguard against the potential misuse of contract language by one party over another.
chatgpt
One day he’s gonna make a video from the inside of an insane asylum
hes already in one, he just doesnt know it yet
Hey vsauce Michael here I spent a week Inside an asylum or did I? But what is an asylum? *Vsauce theme starts*
@@Karsikudafoxohoho! mrow! augh! har har har har
what the sigma is that
He was never the same after the isolation
Let's all just take a moment and be grateful that all of these men had the clarity of mind and foresight to NOT write it down.
Yes thank goodness
Yes… And no because it also can’t be fixed.
He was a mathematician and not a student of the law. He probably had a misconception.
Lawyers go over the law to find loopholes 24/7. I think someone would have found it.
By the way many founding fathers thought the constitution should be reviewed about every two decades to keep up with the times. I think Thomas Jefferson was one of them.
Yet here we are thinking it is like the word of God.
@@michaelsmith483if it was something easily fixable they would have tried the fact they ignored it probably meant it ain’t a easy and fix and it’s easier to ignore it since it’s more likely no one will find out about it
Einstein couldnt write very well.
the way he says "hehehe but really, no one knows!" makes it sound like he knows and he's not telling
nah,he just though that looking down and having his glasse almost fell off and wiggling his head at the same times while saying that was hilarious and its true
We all know. It's getting obvious lol
nah prolly cuz that shit keeps him up lol
He really pulled a "I have a girlfriend, but she goes to another high school...in Canada."
"hey Vsauce Michael here
America is a democracy
Or is it"
Que music
It isn't.
Never was.
You can find numerous direct quotes from the Founding Fathers that illustrate how much they actually recognized any democracy is fated to fail.
it's a constitutional republic
@@Zetact_ what would work instead of democracy then? genuinely curious about your opinion
@@crysstall8968 Literally anything works better than a democracy.
@@slappy8941like…? You didn’t answer the question. SURELY you don’t mean to imply people living in China, North Korea, Russia etc. have a better quality of life than those in the west, right? That would be silly… right?
They don’t need a loophole to take away your rights
definitely not, just claim "national security" and EVERYTHING is free game
I mean, dictatorships are usually a result of violent coups, not of math nerds thinking they know the first thing about law.
Capitalist democracy is an oxymoron
@@kx7500 no it’s not, dingus lmao. Arguably ancient democratic Greece was capitalist
@@Leonard-nb7jk arguably, not definitively
"It probably won't be exploited...but also none of the three of us will ever write it down or talk about it to any kind of media."
Hence the probably part
godel was very worried about it apparently, so it makes sense that his friends respected his wishes even if they thought he was wrong
I know Trump had the whole FBI looking for the answer 😂
@@HaroldTheWizardCat As per usual, someone in the comments who can't live two seconds without bringing up their opposing political party.
@@hulksmash3429 *Video that literally has everything to do with Politics*
You: wOW YoU bRouGhT uP pOlITicS
They'd have to pass an ammendment to revise it. It's possible if a party gets enough power.
bro found the self destruct button
And it should remain buried and unreachable by anyone
The issue here is his finding is moot. We have no choice but to use the document as the guarantee. This is because it isn't decreed by God and thus the word of God.
This is the fallibility of man issue, but we as humans know the basis and is why we don't circumvent the constitution. We require a framework that the country is built on because we aren't a muslim country with Sharia law nonsense.
However, the fervor of changing or undoing the constitution seems to be more recent. Spiked heavily in 2017 and 2018 by fringe lunatic groups within the country. The two most prominently being the 2nd and 12th.
@@janus3555 The thing about authority, even 'godly', is that you have to have an actual identifiable presence that can be measured and confirmed to be real and accurate.
So even if a person were to somehow find the loophole again, they would still need to prove that they are both capable of enforcing their imposition as dictator against a gigantic mob of 'find out'. Not only that, but they would also have to somehow dispose of the current authorities in place already.
If such a thing were to occur and succeed on any level, it wasn't any god making it happen for them; and it isn't any god saving you from them.
That will be man doing that.
It would be very hard to self-destruct faster than we already are.
There are more guns than people in the USA...
I don't think people would just let the country be an official dictatorship...
"Hey, Vsauce. Michael here. Ignore the screams behind me: I'm currently in a mental hospital against my will. I had no choice coming here...or did I?"
Ignore, report, move on
@UTubeTrollPoliceNWO h u h
@VECTRONANGRYASRIELWORSHIPPERYFIf I were you, I would delete that comment before Michael seceedes in turning America in a dictatorship.
Cue the theme music!
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Gödel finding a self-referencial paradox in the US constitution is honestly so on brand for the guy.
Also having a self-referential paradox is so on brand for the constitution lol.
Great document, but clearly not written by people who understood math/ways to write that avoids ambiguity, or knew to try to look for loopholes in order to close them before they're ever exploited.
@sophiedowney1077 It was also meant to be a living document with ambiguity for laws and rulings to be made by the people through the jury system and through our representatives. The issue of it being open to exploitation is also what allows the US to adapt. This being seen recently with the arguments over term limits being removed, being unable to convict a siting president for crimes, and congress having the ability to potentially overturn an election if they 'feel' the vote didn't actually match the people's choice. While yes our laws and amendments can me changed and defined to include those things, it could lead to our representative democracy to become a dictatorship
@@sophiedowney1077 you don't give the Founding Fathers enough credit. The ambiguity is there for purposes of longevity. It would have been easier for them to simply state their desires for the direction of the country in perpetuity but instead they left openings (and yes loopholes/ paradoxes) in order for the document to remain flexible for the changing tides of Democracy. For example: Many of the Fathers were slave owners but they obviously allowed the document to be left open for that to change. Why? It would not be in their best interest for slaves to be emancipated and yet not but a century after its inception the Constitution/ Bill of Rights was amended for thus.
The ambiguity of the document, the cornerstone of this fantastic social experiment, is both its weakness and its genius.
@@ethanmorrison7021you've highlighted a key point many people seem to be missing regarding the Trump conviction. Many people immediately equate that someone who is a felon can't vote but can run for President, despite these being clearly separate issues. Felons being allowed to vote is an entire conversation itself but if one were not allowed to run for President then politically motivated demagogues might say use the Judiciary System in order to criminalize their political opposition thus making it impossible for anyone who might have committed a petty crime to oppose them. I'm no fan of Trump, but I am certainly not a fan of the federal government using "justice" as a cudgel.
@@ethanmorrison7021 I get all of that, but there are definitely parts of the constitution that are ambiguous to the point of being able to be interpreted in 2 or more completely contradictory ways (looking at you, second amendment). There's also stuff like "not cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Theoretically, a bad actor could interpret this as, "a punishment can be cruel but not unusual, or unusual but not cruel. So if other countries allow stoning as punishment, we can allow it too because it's cruel but not unusual." The founding fathers couldn't have put an "and/or" in the mix?
Some ambiguity is good, but a lot makes what you're trying to say completely meaningless or allows for the opposite of what you intended to happen.
And then the Supreme Court said presidents could do whatever they wanted…
Vsauces office is inside that little shed in the middle of the Pentagon's courtyard so they can keep an eye on him
The scariest thing is they still lose track of him
Nah that's just his clone the real vsauce already escaped and is plotting his takeover of the planet
@@BN0FFICIALthere is nothing we can do. 🧍♂️
@@kx7500Michael is an SCP, he’s gotta be.
@@Xeonortor maybe he is dr.Bright in a disguise.
I'm glad that Albert Einstein and friends learned about STFU Friday decades before it was invented.
What...? U mean tgi Friday?
@@dravenpetroski9109 Just search "STFU Friday".
@@dravenpetroski9109I think he means shut the f up friday
@@Football-EKing no I get it... but I'm a zoomer bro I never heard that shit in my life
You dropped your crown, king 👑
“I have discovered a dangerous loophole in the Constitution, but this margin is too small to contain the explanation.”
"Switching the country from a democracy to a dictatorship has been left as an exercise for the reader."
+1
@@GoblinMode3004 Its a republic though....
@@Lowlightt It's a representative democracy
@@Lowlightt true enough
Ive been thinking about this "fun fact" ever since Trump said at a rally, "If we win here, you wont have to vote again"
This one aged... Questionably.
Yeah..
What are you talking about?
Fax, yikes!!
@gradyjones7017 the supreme court ruled the president as a "king above the law"
@@okididntaskbozo218 no they didn’t. That’s an excerpt from Justice Sotomayor, who was dissenting. She argued that “When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he will now be insulated from criminal prosecution… In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.” It was an opinion of a dissenting justice, not the courts official ruling
"Hey Vsauce, Supreme Leader Michael here!"
As I have been reminded of this comment, I shall add more jokes.
Supreme Leader Michael in peace meetings: "No, we don't keep our prisoners in gulags... or do we?"
Supreme Leader Michael visiting enemy countries: "Oh hi there! Where is your capital? Trick question, it actually doesn't exist anymore..."
Bahahha
"The USA is a democracy... or is it?" *cue Vsauce music*
Well… it’s actually a republic, as we have elected officials as opposed to true democracy where every single person has a say in every single decision.
The Good Ending
@DankMeme-ni2my The United States of America is a Democratic-Republic. It's a republic because it has an elected head of state instead of a monarch and it's a democracy because all the members of government are elected by the people. It is correct to call the US both a democracy and a republic.
This makes sense, since Gödel was famous for his Gödel Number system, which proves that Turing Completeness and all mathematical systems must necessarily have the capability for self-reference, and thus the impossibility for any system to be both complete and consistent.
While his incompleteness theorems are certainly about self-reference, the constitution does not and does not need to encode arithmetic in a formal manner as described by his theorems. The constitution with all of its conclusions also clearly is not complete in the sense of the law. So your conclusion about it doesn’t really work. What can be assumed, however, is that Gödel was more mindful about issues of self-reference because of his research in this field.
@@imengaginginclown-to-clown9363 you literally just stated what the guy was implying
@@imengaginginclown-to-clown9363 I don't think OP was trying to say that Gödel's incompleteness theorems imply a contradiction exists in the constitution. He was just pointing out that Gödel was well known for this kind of thing. As another commenter put it, its on brand for him
Not unlike an MC Escher print.
Philosophy has known for a long time that completeness and consistency can't exist perfectly at the same time
This is horrifying! I have a really bad feeling about this.
G: "There is a loophole in the law!"
Anyone who is not a mathematician: "Yes, laws that are not mathematical can be changed."
Do you know what a loophole is?
@@lancearnedo7837 A constitution is a framework for other legislation. By definition, even if it were perfect, it contains ways to change it, because that is its purpose.
@@magnushultgrenhtcthat isn't inherently true. A constitution is just a charter that's used as the basis of a legal framework for a given entity. Such charters had existed well before the U.S. constitution and not all of them contained the ability to change them like said constitution was designed to do.
@VECTRONANGRYASRIELWORSHIPPERYFYB BETTER
Spam reported
@VICTRON*********
I didnt expect Einstein involved in this 😂
Einstein had to say shush, read the book about their walks together
Einstein: "I agree"
That kid? Einstein.
Then everyone clapped.
Yes. That guy again.
We don't know what Einstein's last words were, so they very well could have been what the loophole was.
The rules about changing the rules is something that tons of lawyers are familiar with in many contexts (HOAs, parliamentary procedure, ordinances, contracts, ADR...)
If you never passed out beers to half a dozen friends and sat down with a game of FLUXX, it's absolutely hilarious. The goal of the game is to change the rules until you're the one that wins.
@@darrennew8211 that sounds cool I might check it out
I really need to check this out! @@darrennew8211
@@darrennew8211 sounds a lot like being a politician!
@@darrennew8211I fucking love fluxx it's an amazing game and they make all kinds of variations
A wise man once said something so profound that I forgot what he said.
Don’t worry Michael, America won’t need the constitution to turn itself into a dictatorship. No loophole needed 😅
If it were need they than are probably using it already🫡
It’s citizens are going to vote a dictator into office 🗳️
We've got the bible
Brave take from someone I would bet my life can’t explain what they mean by that
@@Ungodly01I mean if you just get rid of the constitution and then it's probably much much easier to make America a dictatorship but still very difficult
Brother giving us spoilers for 2025
Vote Blue not matter who! do not educate yourself and never question the main stream media! We must never learn to educate ourselves and think outside the democrat mindset! kamala 2024!!!
He’s not talking about the democrats.
@@Negan-lo7yr Project 2025, Dictator on Day one, suspend the constitution, Eastman “coup” memos”, Jan 6th, Electors Plot
@@Negan-lo7yr project 2025...Trump has people willing to die for him when he views you and his supporters as statistics. His best interest is pushing America into a radical and probable dictatorship, I mean the Republicans have packed supreme court and those are lifelong positions. The only people wanting a dictatorship are the Trump supporting Republicans. The only way project 2025 can be done is through Trump winning and then exploiting the government as he has before and ruin this nation, say goodbye to rights if you arent a straight white male. TL;DR if you cant read that you shouldnt have a say in this country
@@Negan-lo7yrProject 2025 AKA conservative dictatorship
"hey vsauce, Michael here, America belongs to everyone, but everyone belongs to me"
Good thing they didn't write it down or we'd all be saying "Hail King Trump" right now
you mean Fauci
“But really, no one knows.” Michael said calmly
This isn't a loophole. It takes 3/4 of the states to change an amendment to the constitution. The reason it takes 3/4 is that it is damn near impossible to get 3/4 agreement. There is no contradiction here. The founder could have made slavery legal too. That they didn't should be the end of the systemic racism argument.
Bye the way, this guy is an idiot
HARRYPOTTERDIDYAPUTYERNAMEINTHEGOBLETOFFIRE
@@benschwartz6565 you understood the reference 😂
Itd called covid. All liberties lost tp corporate overlord powers.
With a one-minute TH-cam short, interest in Constitutional law has suddenly been rekindled. 😎
Same, and I'm not even American
@@MattyC0900That's great man, different countries and cultures can learn so much from one another (minus cannibal tribes) if we only take the time to a little research now and then.
It's basically about the national archivist, because the constitution says whatever he says it says.
@@justinmiller5660 non american here, wasn't there also some kind of order the president can give to override a lot of bureocratic processes and scrutiny in his or hers decisions? I don't remember the exact name but i remember it was used by bush when dick cheney was around to basically allow him to do anything he wanted with the rebuilding contracts in post war Iraq, that as a matter of fact were mostly unfinished but very much paid
@gabrielepasserini6860 Well, Congress has the power of the purse. However, the president gets to decide how the money is spent, to a degree. Congress can say you have 500 billion to spend on the military. But the president gets to decide what is military spending. In Iraq, Chaney said the rebuild was all military spending l. That's how they did that.
But that's what happens when Congress doesn't want to do it's job properly. See our Congressmen don't want their names attached to a down vote of something their constituents might want. Mostly because politicians don't know how to talk to the people that got them elected. So they pass the responsibility off onto the president by saying here's a shit ton of money, go spend it, then when it gets spent on something stupid, Congress says it wasn't us, blame the president.
When Michael's glasses wiggle at the end: I felt that
I thought the glasses were comped on like a camera filter, but it's just because he was looking straight down.
Lmao.
@@karlmuster263glass wearer’s problems 😭
So this is how Liberty dies the thunderous applause is actually possible
I do not wan't that loophole to be discovered, unless and until the day I take office.
Go back to your room, Don.
@@YashaHarari I do what I want! Respect my Authoritah!!
I trust you
Unless it was and we as the people are just late to see it
the government knows about this loophole tho.
“it probably wouldn’t be exploited” Micheal have you SEEN america?
It was the academics who believed that, not Michael
@@orang1921 Also this was in the 1940s
You’d need a coup like what trump tried (but more planned and successful) to really do it
People, ignore em, just report em
It probably won't be exploited because there are easier ways to achieve the same goal.
This is one of the problems with social contracts. If even one person starts thinking "I don't have to follow these rules" it all goes straight under.
Consent of the governed.
This is literally why we have prisons.
That is why the founding fathers put in the second amendment as a safeguard against tyrannical government.
@@imuw5408except for those that we tax without representation, like Guam, Puerto Rico, and DC
No, it doesn’t (unless I’m not understanding you). I’m definitely not someone who is in love with social contracts, but law enforcement exists to alleviate this problem. I wouldn’t say that all goes under when someone breaks the law.
Appoint supreme court justices that will decide the law doesnt apply to you. 😒
That’s not at all how that works we can simply say getting appointed as the new candidate for a political party with no vote by any representative of that party while that political party literally holds power in the presidential office. Seems like a pretty good way, but not the reality is if martial law is involved throughout the nation which case the president has dictatorial powers And they toss the constitution or reframe the constitution to maintain power that only works if you have a large support because Americans have guns so technically no there won’t ever be a dictator dictator of America because Americans have guns that would mean at least 60% of America would have to overwhelmingly agree and support the president dictator in order for them to maintain power the easiest way to make any country a dictatorship is to remove guns from the populous even the Nazis did it Chinese general moa Lennon did it and Stalin I even think Mussolini did pretty much everyone who wants to control people remove their means of self protection and defense just a little FYI
And since we are talking about conspiracy, hypotheticals a false flag such as Hitler’s actions at the Crystal Palace, right or the crystal Knight, where they claimed a group of Jews attacked a government building and burnt it to the ground when it was the Nazi party themselves in a false flag operationI gotta say is it is a little bit odd how after Donald Trump almost gets assassinated twice the government does not talk about trying to get rid of guns.😂😂😂 but they’ll have a mass shooting and coincidentally a guy who is on TV talking about how he made his car run on water making a car engine run on H2O on the news guys in a mass shooting exactly 2 weeks later you know, and then they just bombarded everything with gun control just some conspiracy theories. I think there are a reasonable.
He realy went like: "I will tell it all my german friends, but dont tell the americans"
Jews not Germans
@@pardeepthind4208German Jews.
@@pardeepthind4208men not jews
Only Albert was Jewish and they all were German. Also, that doesn't matter, so stop being antisemitic. @pardeepthind4208
@@pardeepthind4208 why would that matter?
Oh boy he's onto them now.
@KungFuPandaYFGA imma tell master shifu on you
Michael didn't Epstein himself
Anyone reading this, don’t reply to the bots, report and move on
Augustus became Emperor legally and had the Senate begging him to
He sort of did after breaking dozens of laws and filling the senate with people loyal to him but yes, inch by inch politically with legions parked outside in case anyone had any objections
Dictator was a very different thing in Rome
Very good point.
@@frenchsoldier8485 "An ancient Roman magistrate appointed temporarily to deal with an immediate crisis or emergency. "
@@gr33dl0cknein3 Correct
The ability to remove the 2nd Amendment.
Full stop.
>German arrives in America
>Immediately discovers how to form a dictatorship
Edit: Austrian, even better lol
Coincidence?
@@Maximus_stupidusas a German, I think not
ALL HEIL-
Austrian
Even worse, he shared it with the Tiny hats. Now they control the entire western world sadly.
🙌 A mathematician came up to me, big guy,✊with tears in his eyes,👐saying “sir, I have a way you can be President forever”👌
Remember pals, report and move on
Lol
What in the flying hell
How long does it take after it's reported for it to actually be removed?
Hmm, wasn't it a Democrat who came closest to becoming Dictator for Life in the US? Interesting.
Don't you ever look down on me again Vsauce
💀💀💀
Stop looking up at him.
Oh god…… HE KNOWS WE MUST STOP HIM
Had to rewatch the first part 5 times to hear it correctly..
@UTubeTrollPoliceNWO What the actual fuck
Solo 5 volte? Io l’ho ascoltata ripetutamente e non c’ho capito una nulla!
@@ւԼԼւdude. Look at his name
Yeah he speaks pretty fast
@@RizieriMCELLI così ti ha capito SICURAMENTE 😂
“It probably won’t be exploited” as that’s exactly where we’re headed…
Luckily the US constitution has safeguards against a tyrannical government taking over and forcing their will on people.... It's called the 2nd amendment.
Yep. Sadly this elections outcome is already decided. It’s more of a selection than election tbh. Right now it seems Obama will get his 3rd basically 4th “term” but “reign” is a more appropriate word. We lost all semblance of democracy when Biden was *installed* .
@@TheBestEverEverEver Totally agree.
@@TheBestEverEverEver listen, biden is a shitty "president" (hes barely in control) but, do you know what project 2025 is?
@@TheBestEverEverEver you has 🧠🪱
37 states would have to ratify the change adding a new ammendment canceling article 5 and that would not happen.
Or would it.
It always “would not happen.” Right up until the day it does happen
@@AnotherHistorianWargamerThis is why we have the judicial branch. The archivist in that scenario violates the constitution, thus invalidating the invention he codifies; so, it will be caught.
@@Gglobe you are exactly right. Donald Trump is currently arguing for not only presidential immunity, but has also stated that the assassination of rivals falls under that immunity. The Supreme Court of the United States of America is over looking the case, and since he has the majority in his pocket, if he wins in 2025, they will rule his way. He will certainly take advantage of it. We know this already. Project 2025 clearly states that they will gut the government of anyone not loyal to conservative views.
If Donald Trump is elected again, he will not leave office. In fact, he clearly stated he will become a dictator ‘for only one day.’ As if. We will enter a conservative dictatorship if people do not vote.
@@AnotherHistorianWargamer The Supreme Court could strike down the amendment and issue a writ of mandamus ordering the archivist to withdraw the record from the archives if it was entered illegally.
Since when has any government ever needed a logical loophole to change, reinterpret, or simply ignore laws at their convenience? The right to bear arms is infringed upon, the right to free speech, property rights.
Back in the day even income tax was unconstitutional, imagine that!
.
Your example with income tax doesn’t follow from your premise. They had to pass the 16th amendment to levy the income tax, which is clearly logical.
@@edd8914 The forging of that ratification was certainly questionable. I say we vote again.
Hay if they can’t ratify they just come up with an act. Like the Patriot Act. To be reviewed at the beginning of every presidential term, because it so intrusive. But none the less the today argument is it’s too big to stop because of all those jobs that will be lost. Jobs of that overreach our God given Rights by spying on us in every room of our home to maintain total control over every aspect of our life’s.
@@edd8914 Yeah, and who pray tell are "they" who decided to pass that amendment? Was it the common American democratically deciding it in a popular vote or was it the same kind of elitist people who decided to bailout the banks with your money and let the criminals causing the cracks off the hook? Democracy is not democracy before the people has their say and their voices heard!
From now on I have one goal in life: Becoming famous as a scientist and saying I found something awesome but dying before someone asks what it was so hundreds of people try to find it but can't because there isn't anything 😂
there was fear and pain in that laugh at the end.
Godel: "Hey, Oscar, I've got a great idea for a prank. Think Albert would be willing to pretend I found something?"
Albert Einstein was known to be a prankster. So I doubt he would have something against it.
"if the rules about how the rules can be changed, can be changed, anything is possible"
Thankfully, the process to change ANY part of the Constitution, INCLUDING Article 5, is pretty damn hard.
This has the same energy as "trust me bro"
Or is it? 👀
Except the bro is Kurt Gödel, a logician with significance compared to Aristotle. What bro says bro knows
Kurt Gödel is THE name when it comes to logic. If he did find a loophole, it’s probably a very obscure one and not takes extremely meticulous reading and logical notation.
@@tomas_ofc if the loophole is the one michael mentioned, then the strength of the constitution isn't affected by the loophole at all. the thing holding it together is our shared consensus of how it should be handled. it's a piece of paper with writing on it, not godzilla, not the planck constant.
@@tomas_ofcthere’s logic, and then there’s constitutional law. They are two different things.
Every few days, I receive a Vsauce notification from the TH-cam.
Each time, I pull down the notification tray, desperately clinging to the false hope that it will be a full-length video, even though I know in my heart that it will just be another short.
It’s been like six months or something he’s probably got something big
Move along folks nothing to see here
@UTubeTrollPoliceNWO
These bots are really getting out of hand 💀
6 months? ITS BEEN A YEAR AND A HALF WE NEED MICHAEL BACK@@veenmikki27
Fr
In Turkish constitution article 4 states that first 3 articles can't be changed but it never states it's also can't be changed.
Edit:This aged like milk.
The situation is similar with the German Grundgesetz. Article 79 stipulates which articles and parts cannot be changed, but it doesn't include itself.
However it is generally understood that it is implicitly included, because otherwise it would not make sense. (at the same time you then can't change it to include itself)
@@Brandlingoah, classic German logic. The rule should implicitly cover itself, which inherently prevents any changes to make it more obvious of that self-inclusion, leaving an assumed de facto execution, while having some gray area over how it the de jure details of the law were written😂
Probably smart. You can imagine there might be some situation where any law/rule needs to be changed, but having a (changeable) rule stopping some rules being changed means you need to change the rules twice (once to change article 4, then to change one of the first 3) so the process is forced to be slower. Gives people more time to really think it through.
Don’t give Erdogan any idea
We are going to Washington With This One 🗣🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅
I feel like Michael knows the loophole and this is the start of him ascending to ultimate power
@VECTRONANGRYASRIELWORSHIPPERYF😂actual, maybe there is a reason why he has more followers and likes than you
@VECTRONANGRYASRIELWORSHIPPERYF I respect your dad for leaving asap
Make sure politicians never learn it.
We would have to go back in time for that
They already wear down democratic avenues any way they can
A politicians job is to power grab, they’re entire life is spent for this purpose
Probably why they never told anyone
Just Google "Trump Article V Convention Movement." Most news outlets have written about this.
The loophole needs to be fixed. ANY President could abuse that level of power. We're lucky Trump didn't learn about it until his last few weeks or months in power, and that Biden overturned it as one of his first actions. Now Trump knows, and they have the plans layers out in detail in videos about plowing forward with this literally on Day One. It's terrifying.
Me reading "Göbbels" instead of "Gödel's"
😱
Ello
Karl Gördeler - member of the 1944 Hitler assassination plot
To be fair, Göbbels was also interested in turning a democracy into a dictatorship
@UTubeTrollPoliceNWO if age is just a number jail is just a place
Knowing something is wrong but not knowing what is the most frustrating priblem to have.
The fact this is even being discussed tells me that exploitation is not only inevitable, but it's coming sooner than we would like.
Brother, nobody knows what it is
@parkerblacklock8272real
Imagine thinking that we don't already live under a dictatorship. 😂😂😂
Yeah, you’re right kid lol
@@slappy8941imagine thinking that we do 😂😂😂😂.
I love how Michael just americanified Gödel's name, calling him "Gurdle" 😭
*girdle, Kurt was very supportive
Try it in Bin Translator with umlaut.
How would you say it differently?
@@KennethConnally-np9it Well, there's no R
@@KennethConnally-np9it the "er" for German "ö" approximation is just old-timey advice that stuck because nobody taught anybody any different
similar to people still quoting "let them eat cake" when we actually know what brioche is now (in English)
Your curiosity is infectious, thank you
I think a loophole is recently created by how the president can't be charged with any crimes now.
It's what is known in the industry as a constitutional arbitrary code execution.
Dont worry its open source, im sure theres enough trustworthy developers to patch it
Lmfao get a free mew with one weird trick
"But really, no one knows!"
"Or do I?"
*vsauce_music.mp3 starts playing
Vsauce would find a contradiction in the laws of the universe, I wouldn't be surprised if he knew that too
Moon men is the name of the song btw
the song is called moon m- dang it
@@合合合合合合合合合合 😂
no one:
I’d like to think that he never actually found any loophole, but instead lied about doing so to have people paranoid of the possibility, thus encouraging them to search for any actual loophole that may exist.
That is ficken genius
Maybe who knows it was never revealed.
Time to study up on the constitution and law!
The president is elected by electors, not the people, and the electors don't have to vote with their state. Theoretically if all the electors work for you you can be elected every time
Term limits: I don't think so mr.
Not necessarily. Many states penalize false electors or outright void their vote if they don’t vote for who they promised.
some states make it illegal to be faithless elector
If you have enough money, anything is legal. Our country is a joke.
Yep
“It won’t be exploited, Welp, better not tell anyone so they can’t change it”
Found it!
Tried talking to lawyers because I felt I had rights violated. The legal advice they told me, was that because I wasn't being charged with a crime. I can't take legal action against the US government. Although I want to charge the government with a crime, I am not law enforcement and can not legally do so. The only way is if I want to get arrested in protest, then during my trail, the court strikes down the law. Even then, this will only affect the court's local juristic if I'm right about my rights. I would have to lose the case, then take it up in appease court, then lose again, and take it to the supreme court to have any widespread effect.
More or less the constitution says there's no penalty for passing unconstitutional laws, things like, Presidential Immunity, and that unconsistaionl laws are to be followed until courts say otherwise, any good luck getting law enforcement to press charges.
Any law / executive order is assumed to be constitutional to be default, until it isn't, including one that would make me a dictator, but by the time it gets to the courts, what courts??, those are long gone relics of the past, I've removed those dictator powers ^.^, Good luck enjoy the dictatorship
let's look at an example
President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law on September 21, 1996
Then
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 in 2013
It took 17 years to notice rights were violated and do something about it.
So with the current system it 17 years to notice the country is a dictatorship, what could one accomplish in that time? Apparently not a speedy trial, lol. The general population just sits around waiting to see the results, but this will take years. but by then, pack the court with people that will side with me?
TL;DR Government is too slow to catch a dictator.
You are truly, TRULY, one of the gems of TH-cam.
Basically all Constitutions have shennanigans around the articles about changing the Constitution. And basically everytime when that question is brought up to that country's Constitutional Court the answer is always that whatever rule that article applies on other articles, applies to its own as well.
In the case of the US this essentially means that when Article 5 requires a two thirds of both houses of Congress to agree to ammend the Constitution, these two thirds shall also apply if Article 5 wishes to be changed as well.
But even then, since unlike many countries, all of the ammendments to the US Constitution are just additions to the text and not changes to what was previously written it's unlikely that this article will ever tried to be changed.
Not true. The 3/5ths providion was changed because of the 14th ammendment. The main body does have sections "overwritten" by ammendments.ammendment. that being said since it would take an overwhelming majority of the entire country to change this I don't see it as much of a dictatorship loophole. The last person to hold such a majority would have been Ronald Reagan and it clearly didn't happen then.
@@hengineer What are you saying? Nothing here is about the 3/5ths provision. Article 5 states that for an ammendment to be made to the Constitution two thirds of each legislative House, this is 67 out of the 100 Senators and 290 of the 435 Representatives need to agree to propose the ammendment to the States. This has nothing to do with the population count towards the census during the 1800s
@@_MrMoney you said ALL ammendments add, they don't change. This proved you wrong
@@hengineer Oh about that. No, it doesn't change it. Article 1 states that all non-free individuals would count as 3/5ths of a person, and the 14th ammendment merely designates all people as free, so both provisions are technically still law and at work, justa that the 3/5ths rule applies to no one due to the 14th ammendment. But should the 14th ammendment be repealed in a future ammendment (let's hope not) with no reference to article 1, then the 3/5ths clause would again apply to any new person who'd be designated as not free
@_MrMoney people in prison are non free and yet because of the 14th are counted as 1 person, not 3/5s.
We have unfortunately discovered in the past few years that our not slipping into a dictatorship is mostly based on tradition and unwritten rules, and not precluded by our institutions and laws. 😥
"No-one knows what it is." Well, that's convenient.
"it probably won't be exploited" we're almost the exact words the Australian government used when creating domestic abuse laws targeting men
what
Gigachad australia. Unlikeable men -> prison.
@@egggge4752 how is using domestic abuse laws as a cudgle based.
@@MikeHunt-zy3cn unlikeable men -> prison -> Gigachad, Based & Redpilled
Love stuff like this, like apparently there was some ancient Roman apparatus, a tool, that's use was "So obvious" that no one every brothered to write what it was down
I’ll be back here in 2 years to see if we still exist.
Lol depending on your leanings and what the Biden administration is gonna do after the selection you might just end up in a reeducation camp.
Vote Michael for president
It's like when unstoppable not-a-rule meets inexorable rule.
SCOTUS didn't know either, so they made one.
not what happened but okay
presidential immunity always existed, the case was to decide if Trump's acts fell under it
brainswahsed propaganda spreading npc
You could have not been an idiot, and yet here we are.
@@gorgeousfreeman1318 This is plainly incorrect, as the SC DIDN'T decide whether Trump's acts were included in what level of criminal presidential immunity. Rather, they referred that question back down to the DC Federal District Court after establishing a *completely new* criminal immunity rule by extending an existing rule about *civil* liability alone for presidential officials, per the Trump v. US Majority opinion at 28 and 42-43.
There is no textual indication of presidential immunity from the criminal law, despite evidence that the framers could very well have established it. This is seen in US Const., Art. 1, s. 6, cl. 1, which provides for congressional immunity from prosecution for official duties, and it the fact that several states at the time of the framing did provide for executive immunity, but the text of the US Constitution does not have any such provision. Sotomayor's dissent at 4-10 has a great discussion of the relevant legal history, including Federalist Papers that cut clearly against the idea of presidential criminal immunity.
@jmcd1128 whatever. We have alternative facts which say that the SC didn't do anything unusual and that Trump was innocent
Funny fact, the german constitution has a paragraph that protects paragraphs 1-8 or so which is stuff like democrazy, human rights, etc. but it doesnt include the paragraph that protects those paragraphs.
It's an intentional thing for us even since in case it ever is needed to update those laws we can update that paragraph temporarily to fix stuff in the prev protected ones.
But also u need like 3 fourths of the parliament to agree to the change of anx constitutional law no matter how big or small the change + no party will ever probably let that change happen either way.
This being possible at all is genuinely terrifying if someone finds it out
I imagine, being invited to a party, and all 125 people there, are is energetic as you! That would be amazing!
Im sure the supreme court and house of representatives would stop it. It's not like they're all greedy old people with nothing to... Lose...
Oh god this is bad.
Not really. The constitution wouldn't stop anything regardless. Not to mention, democracies suit autocrats more than a dictatorship does.
It will never cease to mess with me how the American accent and the German ö and œ just sound like “err” no matter how well it’s pronounced.
So sad to hear that the original guy was found dead from self inflicted 29 stab wounds to the back 😢