The Constitution Doesn't Say That!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 พ.ค. 2022
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
Or does it? 🚀 Get access to the exclusive companion video! -- For a LIMITED TIME get CuriosityStream & Nebula for 26% OFF! legaleagle.link/curiositystream
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers
🪶 What else do people get wrong about the constitution?
🚀 Get access to the exclusive companion video! legaleagle.link/curiositystream
hi
Legal Eagle 2024
Check the chapters, they appear to be for the wrong video!
Orwell didn't parody Marx, he parodied Stalin.
That's a huge mistake.
FYI your chapter tags are showing the NFT video tags for me. Figured you may want to know that.
I wonder when people started viewing the constitution as “giving people the right” as opposed to “restricting the governments ability to infringe on rights”
But the US Constitution does give people rights. I think it was the first national constitution that had "Bill of rights".
Edit: Read the edit so you don't misunderstand what I actually mean. Even if US constitution words the rights as 'god given', that doesn't mean those rights could exist without existence of Constitution. 'god given' doesn't hold any precise meaning. That could also imply that non Americans and people before formation of USA also have rights mentioned in constitution, which is not the case. Those rights are materialized through constitution. They will be meaningless in the eyes of law, if they weren't mentioned in constitution.
You can't go outside USA and claim that you have a natural/god given right to do things mentioned in US Constitution.
Or In some countries food is considered a natural right but in US constitution it is not mentioned, therefore technically in eyes of US courts food isn't considered a right. But some may consider food as an unalienable natural right.
@@sanket.solanke nah, OP is correct. The government did not give us the right to free speech, it’s a right natural to all human beings. The Constitution simply agrees and promises that the fed gov will not infringe upon the rights we all inherently have
@@sanket.solanke incorrect
@@sanket.solanke "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" those rights are god given not government given
@@Ya_Mf_Boi
You have to watch yourself when using the Declaration of Independence as justification for things. One needs to understand the legal justifications necessary to support the argument that the people of a nation were equal to, had equal authority to, and could declare itself independent from the rule of a person who believed he was king due to preordination from a god.
I love it when someone says something like "Hey man, you can't change the Constitution!" Yes you can, it's called an Amendment. There have already been 33 of them.
33 proposed (in the sense that a state could ratify them), 27 passed by 3/4 of the state legislatures or conventions.
I mean, the presumed meaning of that statement is that you can't READ INTO the constitution your own meaning and desires. Obviously we have an amendment process but it's very difficult to do, and with good reason.
@@robertjarman3703 Whether they pass or are not is really irrelevant to his point. The point is there is a process for changing it.
@@SeraphsWitness Literally every decision having to do with the Constitution is based on reading into it, since no one who wrote it is alive today to explain, and even if they were, most would probably say parts were intentionally left vague so that future generations could reinterpret them as needed. The necessity for an overwhelming vote is simply to ensure a given new interpretation is agreed upon by everyone, not to dissuade reinterpretation.
I encountered someone who knew amendments were possible, but thought such amendments couldn't override the main text of the constitution or any prior amendment.
"So you can imagine, if Americans confuse the US Constitution with the Soviet Constitution, they're probably wrong about a whole bunch of other things..." 🤣🤣🤣
I feel like this is rather unfair, as most Americans don’t know every phrase or sentence in the Constitution off the top of their head or by heart. The phrase in question sounds old timey and philosophical so it could easily be assumed it was in the US Constitution.
@@Jax1534 yes, it's such a long paper with seven pages or couple dozen amendments. Something one would use 15 minutes in reading.
@@voittolehti2432 I never said it was long. I’m saying the average person doesn’t have it memorized.
@@Jax1534 if you dont know the constitution of your country be heart then dont start rioting and crying for your liberty be quoting the constitution
@@aoki6332 Most
Americans know the Bill of the Rights though, at least the first few Amendments.
The fun thing about not having an official language is, in theory the corresponding offices could ratify laws in klingon and it would be perfectly viable.
🌎: ''MmmMm-Huhn....Arabic Greek Hebrew Latin and more languages are the compound 'English'. There are so many immigrants with languages here. Most groups celebrate their 'cultures'. Flags Cheers Songs and buy lotsa products. The general population should know how the 'translation' is important.
''My Rights''......"how did you come by the Rights you speak of'' ?
Thanks for your words and reading these.
Except that the official language thing is regulated to states since it’s technically under the 10th Amendment or that the founding fathers didn’t care to put it in since everybody spoke English already.
only if "worf" gringrich gets elected to congress
It's English
Which is why we probably should establish an official national language - Of course everyone should be free to speak whatever language they want to whomever they want, but its only logical to establish a standard language of communication for official matters
Lol I've had more than one person say I was lying about having read the entire U.S. constitution. That it was impossible because it was SO long; no one could read the WHOLE thing! 😆
That's how you know the other person *hasn't* read a lick of the constitution and likely confuses it with the declaration of independence... and probably gets THAT wrong, too.
Then ask them when the constitution was ratified... I can guarantee they'll say "1776" instead of, you know, 1792-ish.
I have been told this too. 😂😂
I literally keep 1 in my coat pocket or backpack, so I have 1 every where I go!
Or you could find any half awake newspaper editor - like Me - who has to read and grasp thousands of words an hour, and ask us to go and run through it.
Aye now if they say they have read the entire US code, now that, that is saying something.
To be fair I'd be impressed if many people have read both the US, and their home state, constitution
"From each according to his ability to each according to his needs"
Me: Everyone knows that's Marx
Legal Eagle: 72% of Americans believe this is in the U.S. Constitution
Me: 🤦🏻
45% of that 72% are commie hating Republicans... just clueless. Jk, jk, I didn't look up their party affiliation, but I wouldn't be surprised.
I thought everyone knew it was Marx too wtf how are Americans so sumb
And yet, despite believing it's in the constitution, Americans still have a problem with Socialism.
When he said that, I thought it sounded a bit too egalitarian, possibly even socialist or even *communist*, to be in the US constitution. Like, that kind of thinking has literally been called "un-American", how could people get it so wrong!
@@inigo8740 becuase people in America like to think they are the most fair and free. And it sounds like a fair concept.
I taught high school government for over 25 years. We read the constitution every year and discussed its history. I only hope they remember it.
They don't. When I get them in college, their pre-test scores for even basic government questions are quite bad (
"Of course we remember studying the Constitution, it's what gives us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!"
They might remember it, but how do they interpret it? Since everything is interpreted nowadays.
Did you treat the important court cases?
@@CheapFlashyLoris why are you citing the declaration of independence?
When I was young (many moons ago) It was mandatory for everyone to read the constitution in High School. The class was called Social Studies. I don't think they teach that anymore.
I remember getting it assigned for an overnight homework in AP Gov. Groans all around--"That's going to take _so long_ to read!" I remember getting hope, opening it up, and breezing through the _extremely plain language_ in like 15 minutes. It's honestly shocking that we don't have middle schoolers read it.
@@GSBarlev I totally agree.
@@GSBarlevin my middle school, although we didnt read the constitution itself, we read the bill of rights and studied the history of the constitution and the intentions of the people who wrote it. I think the idea that the contitution is easy enough for middle schoolers to read is a bit much, since my classmates definitely would not have wanted to read and study the whole thing- or maybe they wouldnt have been able to 🥲🥲highschool is definitely a necessity, but middle schoolers are just too immature and lacking to care
I also learned it in school back in the early 2000s. The problem is America leaves it up to the schools to decide what to teach
They do teach it, whoever they do it in such a fashion to which any self respecting individual would disregard/mistrust the information provided due to the Broken/misinforming school system we have today. Once the test on the topic has come a passed it gets forgotten like any other garbage that was forced to them, even though I do agree that every citizen should have their basic rights known by heart.
Years ago in my 20s I bought a pocket-sized printing of the US Constitution in a book store for like three dollars. Certain "legal experts" (not) to this day still try to tell me things that are "in the Constitution" and I always reply, "Where? I didn't see that in my copy." Always met with silence... I guess those experts never bothered to see if a copy was available in the local book store.
The word is "Precedent."
That's a huge mistake though. The Constitution is more than its text. The details of what it means are hashed out in a long history of court cases and traditions. For instance, the right to have your rights explained to you when you are arrested isn't in the Constitution, it was established in the Miranda case, but it's fair to call it a "constitutional right." And when it comes to human rights, the Ninth Amendment explicitly states that rights may exist even if they are not spelled out in the Constitution. It may be correct that something isn't "IN" the Constitution, but that doesn't mean it's not a part of it.
@@rickhodges4808 but your Miranda rights are the rights found in the 5th and 6th amendments, which are in in the constitution.
@@stephanie22345 Yes, but there's nothing in the Constitution that says they have to read your rights to you.
Exact phrases dont have to be in the constitution to be a part of the document. There are other documents and precedents that clarify meanings. And we ignore some plainly written parts like "organized militia."
Me: Doesn't live in America and knows nothing about its constitution.
LeagalEagle: You're wrong about the constitution!
Me: Oh no!
Same with me
ahaha same
I knew about the language because I watched a documentary that mentioned it a few years back (also where I learnt that English isn't the official language in England lol)
I know, that it contains a right to freedom of speech, which notably is not freedom of opinion, and yet the US censors curse words on TV.
Anyway
TBH, my high school civics teacher made that class hell, and was more interested in teaching us his own beliefs... but good on Devin for saying "7 pages" with such deep sarcasm. We had a county charter fail once because its opponents kept saying "15-page document" in woeful voices... I like to imagine one of them holding a Clive Cussler novel while saying it...
woah woah woah now... Dirk might have been utterly cavalier in the late 70's, but that's no reason to go round smearing his name saying politicians might stoop so low as to read fiction...
Oh, wait... right. Politicians rarely read non-fiction, and seem to enjoy surrounding themselves with fiction writers...
Just an acknowledgement of your willingness to speak at TH-cam speed, and the quality of your editor(s). This is a great video. Thank you.
"Unsure / don't know" appears to be an option on these surveys, yet tons of people are picking the wrong answer instead. That seems more worrying than not knowing the correct answer.
Dunning-Kruger affect to an extent: people who don't know think they know more than they actually do.
I would also call "Foul!" where "No" is a correct answer but it's lumped with "Unsure" in the graphics shown. "I don't know" should always be a separate statistic. As in "Is X part of the US Constitution? a) Yes, b) No, c) I don't know, resulting in a pie chart with 3 wedges.
@@ldbarthel I'm guessing it was in the original paper, but reporting only gave the headline number. TBF, when two thirds of your respondents think that the USA enshrines the fundamental principle of communism in it's core legal document, the confidence levels of the rest are not really as relevant 😄
@@ldbarthel True in general, but in this case the "no / don't know" could be lumped together as both are "correct".
@@ZhangtheGreat funnily enough, donning kruger is not what you think it is, its not some wild up and down, its actually flat line but just slightly shallower than actual ability line
As a high school social studies teacher, I have been fascinated by the huge surge in discussion of "parent's rights," especially as regards school curricula, in recent years. I was wondering if there is any chance you could do a video on the history of this concept? I know it is not explicitly given in the constitution, though I did find a case that interprets the 14th Amendment to apply to parental rights to raise children as they choose (though this applied to the home, not parental rights over schools). I would LOVE a deep dive into the idea, especially as it intersects with rights of a child and rights of states as regards public schooling. I would do more research myself but I have too many papers to grade. So...please please please?
Parents pay for the school, they should have some influence in how they educate their children. It's not exactly a 'right' as explained by the no taxation without representation section but it isn't really that complicated. A teacher that doesn't listen to their community is not going to be a teacher for long.
Public schools are prisons
Basically it's from the 9th, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The concept that parents wouldn't have near exclusive power over their children's education would be a foreign concept to most in the US a decade or two ago. Back in 1890, schools would have been a hyper local thing (basically group home schooling today) and so it likely never came up. It's also helpful to understand what a right is. A right is what you have in the absence of coercion. The government coercing parents to send their kids to a government school and then ignoring parent's wishes on the content of the teachings is all kinds of problematic from both a rights and constitutional standpoint. Of course, our constitution hasn't even gotten lip service since the 1930's so it's kind of meaningless at this point. Arguably it was never really followed.
@@suzerain840 Parents pay the state, not the school, which elects school boards that parents can vote on. Parents can have some influence over what is taught in schools by electing boards who best represent their interests. And even better than other parts of government, parents can opt out of public school if they don't like their representatives and teach their children at home. Parents have the right to democratic representation, but they should not have power over policy making for the same reason every citizen has the right to representation, but should not have power over law making.
@@GrendalTheBeasty The 14th Amendment was also written to protect unenumerated rights. Most civil rights cases of the last century have been 14th Amendment cases.
The 14th Amendment also changed the nature of American government by making state governments bound to the US Constitution, which prior to 1868, they were not. So the first amendment restricted the Federal Government from establishment of religion but states were free to establish state religions. The ninth amendment also would have only been applicable to the Federal Government prior to 1868
In law school my Con Law professor made an excellent point. What’s taught about the Constitution in law school should actually be taught in high school. The average American should have a basic education in the US Constitution from the commerce clause to the public forum doctrine and everything in between.
No. High schoolers by and large are not going to (1) need those specifics in their daily lives nor (2) remember those specifics five years down the road. All they need to know is that the Constitution is vague, it doesn't specifically address a lot of modern society's questions, so what the court rules is often more a subjective interpretation of the law (keeping precedent in mind) rather than a "I looked it up in the document and found the Truth of the matter" type of ruling. Even the words "Congress shall make no law" has exceptions for most judges. K-12 is big picture with a lot of ground to cover. The nitty gritty comes later as you specialize. My first-year college students do not remember major differences between the House and Senate on a pre-test, and you expect them to remember the nuances of what is and what is not interstate commerce?
@@JK-il7km your post is exactly why constitutional law should be taught in high school . You as a grown adult, clearly have no idea about the basic precepts of the Constitution. That is very clear from your post. The fact that you seem to think the Constitution is vague or outdated is a perfect example. It’s a living document, specially designed to have application well beyond the life of the Framers. It’s sad that someone who claims to be a college professor has such little understanding of one of the most important documents every created. You’d benefit from a lesson in con law .
@@marcc4303 You think 4400 words is full of clearly defined concepts? Where does it define interstate commerce? Where does it define a natural born citizen? Where does it define a militia? How can a document say "Congress shall make no law" but the SC give it exceptions? If it is so clear, why does the SC spend all this time defining concepts? Let me guess, lawyer, thinking the public needs to know the 10+ cases where the SC defined interstate commerce? Because that is what a Constitutional Law classes covers. Please. For non-lawyers, that is irrelevant. Non-lawyers are not going to need nor remember that information.
You realize calling it a "living document" means that it is not clearly defined nor is it terribly specific. Spoken like a third-rate political scientist impressed by a faculty member who called it a living document once. Just because you can amend it, then it must be this special living document that we should cherish. BS. If it's a living document, it's living in hospice care since it's rarely ever amended. The first ten really don't count since they were the result of a compromise with the anti-federalists.
Calling it one of the most important documents ever created and neglecting the innovations in governmental design since 1787 demonstrates a clear bias in your thinking. It's only important historically in the sense that it put a governmental design down on paper. It's not important because of HOW it designed government. You should spend some time looking at governmental designs elsewhere. But I guess you're happy with gerrymandering and policies thwarting the desires of the public, probably still thinking the public cannot be trusted (which many authors of the document changed their mind about), and the such. Geez, you have a document that the SC says doesn't even allow a line-item veto on budget bills. Some work arounds get floated by lawyers, but Congress is so inept because of partisan distrust they cannot even seriously consider it. Yeah, that's a great government. I'll get a tea and watch this unnecessary drama about avoiding a government shutdown in 45 days. You realize we're one of the only countries that have this problem, right? Such inefficiency.
But go ahead, continue to chant "We're so great!" all while being blissfully unaware that, yes, the constitution is outdated when you look at other systems of government and compare outcomes.
@@JK-il7km"precedent" was thrown to the "four winds" by most American Judges along time ago, sadly. What is constitutional, moral, or ethical, matters little to the courts, and procecutors now. If it ever did matter to them. I disagree about all highschoolers not needing to be taught the "Commerce Clause" or many other land mark unconstitutional rulings that can directly affect their daily lives if they're not careful. Many would remember, and many won't. But as they say, "survival of the fittest", sadly. Smh.
I’ve read every single word on the constitution, the federalist papers, and into numerous numbers of writings by our founders
@@vander9678 why
@@vander9678 I will investigate that and spend some time researching it. I have looked at some other profits or I guess philosophers end of the Greek ages.
@@vander9678 It’s funny I was talking to my kids the other day I made the read the federalist papers before the graduated high school. I have to go back and take a look at that again. I brought them a couple of times.
I was a little confused at first when you put up that first phrase. I was like "that's Marx, not the constitution!"
Then you proved me correct and my day was made. Thank you
Same, I first thought: That doesn't sound like any American value, then it hit me it was communist, and I guessed it was Marx.
Yeah, that was my first thought as well. I cannot believe that there are American people that actually believe Karl Marx's words are part of the US Constitution.
Surveys are a really unreliable way of determining what people think, let alone what they know, because the answer can easily be made to be dependent on the way in which the question is asked. Can be done right, but can also result in complete nonsense.
People always get the meaning of the quote wrong. It was never meant to allow people to slack off and still get everything they want. Marx's definition of "need" was very narrow, as in what a person needs to live and work, not what they desire. Therefore a doctor or lawyer will still get different things than a factory worker and some people will get more than other. Said doctor would get less food than a factory worker, because he doesn't need as much.
Also, since everybody can work whatever they are best at (so not being forced into a low-wage job because you hadn't the money to get education), they are (at least in Marx's views) the most productive at that point and since everybody only gets what they need, everything is used optimally; which in fact is a very capitalist way to order things.
Same lol, I was like that's DEFINITELY Marx.
Just wanting to make it clear- Orwell was an avid socialist and fought against the Franco regime in Spain alongside the members of what he called “utopian” socialist villages; the parody was not of Karl Marx, but of Stalin and his cronies.
Orwell was also thoroughly disillusioned with his socialist allies before the end of all that as well.
if you follow communist ideology and think the end goal of communism is utopian, you’re not a very good communist. we tend to stay realistic: we want a fair and equitable world for everyone. we don’t want a utopia; we want something attainable.
He was criticising both.
@@ExperimentIV ?? The founder of communism believes in a utopia - ‘the end of history’. Pretty sure communism and Utopianism are pretty connected
@@ExperimentIV only tankies think like you
honesty, from a law abiding perspective, this only affirms my belief that cops are not friends. that federal agents will go out of their way to condemn you. the constitution is not designed to protect your rights, it is to curtail the rights of the government infringing upon YOU
Cops are being used and are to arrogant to see it
1:08 Just wanted to add that Soviet Union had three different constitutions enforced individually at different times (1924, 1936 and 1977). The phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work" first appeared in 1936 Constitution and then reappeared in 1977 Constitution.
The American constitution is especially frustrating as a Canadian because a lot of Canadians confuse the two. Ive heard people unironically talk about their second ammendment rights in canada
Oh no!!!!! That’s both terrible and kind of hilarious!
You sure they weren't Americans that immigrated
Well they still have those rights
Yeah, that is partially due to US lobbyists trying to "influence" foreign governments, something that should come with censured, fines etc., but you know money is power. If I remember correctly, that argument has shown up in other countries, including New Zealand and Australia. Their legal system does not have the same contextual subject matter in their 2nd amendment as the US, so it becomes clear this is external interference by a foreign agency.
@@saintwaluigi4464 There is no right to gun ownership in Canada. To even get a license the RCMP will do a background check and if they find reason to believe you might harm yourself or others, you will not be granted a license. Many firearms are also prohibited or restricted, and many modifications (e.g. high round magazines or modding a semi auto to an auto) are prohibited by law. We own guns at the government's pleasure, not by right.
Thank you for doing this, many more people need to understand the Constitution. I blame politics for throwing the Constitution around. Many have lost its meaning and value.
Lol the constitution just a piece of paper written by a bunch of slave owners hundreds of years ago 😆 i wipe my ass with the constitution they didnt even know what micro-organisms were and thought you got sick from having dirty thoughts or something.
Sorry for the rant i iust was going along with the theme of people throwing it around for the sake of justifying arguments
Well, Republicans bear the most blame in recent history, always changing the colloquial definition in order to suit their agenda, like talking about accurate US history and racism now to the idiots is "CRT", criticizing people in power suddenly is now "cancel culture", being woke is used as a pejorative etc.
@@AtomBacon It also includes the phrase "well regulated militia" so the government has more than enough justification and authority to regulate which guns are to be allowed, where are they going to be allowed and who is going to be allowed to have guns, thats what well regulated means, the 2A is not absolute, but the gun fetishists in the right wing think it is.
Much like the other guy, the second amendment is a huge one people misunderstand. The first amendment is my favorite. The Republicans always want to throw that out there. We can't be sensored. Then you have Ron DeSantis trying to prevent people from speaking (or studying about) certain words (or past events)... I mean I do believe it says the federal government can't sensor you. So he is kind of right. A bit overboard. What pisses me off is when you are at work and someone wants to say his boss can't tell him to not say derogatory things to other people. "Nope. My first amendment right says you can't limit me." Not true. That was designed to prevent the government from lying to us and being the only word we heard. Aka if our government told us a story and someone else could prove they were lying to brainwash us, that media source could shine light on it and inform the citizens of the corruption the government was trying to pull. 1st amendment doesn't give me the right to go around and call people nigg..... what's that mom. Hold on. BRB.
@@AtomBacon And Russel has no idea what he's talking about. When the Constitution was written private citizens had the same weapons as the government. And the people should have that same weaponry today.
I am so glad that I came across this website. This is fascinating. I’m a British citizen who lives in the United States and this is important to me.
Dang, I just finished my AP government course in high school and I had no idea that people actually thought those things
"Taxation without representation" as a Puerto Rican I felt this one
and yet you guys keep voting to not become a State, and yet also don't want to be independent. Quite the interesting mess you guys have.
@@matts1166 much like Americans in the mainland or even in the same state or city can vary widely on certain issues, so can Puerto Ricans both within the island and abroad
If you're a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico during the entire tax year, you generally aren't required to file a U.S. federal income tax return if your only income is from sources within Puerto Rico.Jan 3, 2022
In 2016, Puerto Rico paid close to $3.5 billion into the US Treasury in the form of Business Income Taxes, Individual income tax withheld and FICA tax, Individual income tax payments and SECA tax, Unemployment insurance tax, Estate and trust income tax, Estate tax, Gift tax and Excise taxes.
According to the Consolidated Federal Funds Report compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau, Puerto Rico has received more than $21 billion annually in federal expenditures from the United States.
Congress has also allocated $42.5 billion to disaster relief for Puerto Rico after the 2019 hurricane.
Free money without taxation and representation.
@@matts1166 Puerto Rico voted for statehood in 2020.
So if you take voting rights away from inmates, should that mean that if you are convicted felon, you should not pay taxes?
I was told in highschool, "you have no constitutional rights until you're 18"
Been carrying a pocket Constitution around since then.
Think where most get confused is what the constitution grants vs what is left to the states. In other words what is not specifically granted to the federal government remains the states to regulate. The most common decision on this is abortion.
@@cameron398
I think where most people get confused is thinking that the constitution grants rights. It doesn't. It limits the government's power. The problem is we are the ones that are the check and balance against that, and the country's full of a bunch of pussies.
Must of been in public school
@@ablahday2558
Private. Technically "quasi public"
Board of directors instead of board of ed, but gets extorted money.
I tell my daughters this all the time. It's a joke and they know it.
Congressional districts are not in the Constitution. Each State is granted so many Representatives, but by the Constitution, the States can decide how they are allocated.
*Laughs maniacally in Brazilian Law*
I wish public servants had to pass an exam on the constitution. We expect more from nationalized citizens than we do lawmakers.
Can you imagine if they had to have CEUs to stay in power?
If us citizens were more educated and attentive to our own government, perhaps that would be a requirement. But we aren’t so it isn’t.
Then again, if it was a required test, I can think of some politicians, in office now, that would cheat on said test to obtain office.
I wish people who want others to read the constitution would do so themselves.
@@kennethtaylor964 💯
This is genuinely scary to realize how few people actually know about one of the single most important documents to American society.
It because schools have stopped teaching about base freedoms, haven’t you noticed that we are surround by socialist and that the playbook that being taught. Compare or curriculum to that taught in communist countries, you find it shocking.
Can you tell me why I should care?
@@fredstampflee888 Nice buzzwords...
@@fredstampflee888 sadly even people on the right are starting to fall for the liberal propaganda about the bill of rights applying to state and local governments, in spite the first amendment explicitly saying that it only applies to Congress.
@@williampennjr.4448 Technically, you are correct. The bill of rights originally only applied to the national government. However, the 14th amendment's Due Process Clause changed that, requiring both the state governments and national government to protect those rights
(Edit: minor grammatical changes)
The basic idea of what he's saying is, just because the constitution doesn't specifically say something doesn't mean it's not a right and constitutional rights are not absolute; most US states have laws that limit or infringe upon constitutional rights, the 2nd amendment is the most obvious example where you're required to have a license and/or permit to own and/or carry a firearm, I can't think of any other rights where you're required to have a license or permit to have that right, the whole point of a license or permit is that you don't have the right to do it. Have you ever heard someone say, "After I renew my freedom of speech license, I have to renew my right to remain silent permit"? The government gave us these rights (at least until they site sources from which they came) but they can restrict and manipulate them or even take them away completely, whatever makes them happy.
And few know US DOI is based on Scotlands Declaration of Arbroath
Back when I was a sports bar bouncer I ejected plenty of people. All I had to say was "We refuse to do business with you and require you to leave the premises." If that didn't work I just had to call the police and state we had an '86' refusing to leave. A place of business is private property open to the public in a limited manner for the singular purpose of doing business. You can't make me do business with you (coercion) nor can you stay on the property (trespass). This is true even if you feel I am violating your protected status. You do have the right to try to convince a judge that "obnoxious drunk" is a protected status or any innate part of one. The bouncer will be attending that hearing, with witness statements and recordings and a lawyer. You will undoubtedly be representing yourself, as such cases make both lawyers and judges roll their eyes and say "Get on with your life."
I wish more people would understand that since so many seem to think that you can kick anyone out at any time regardless of protection. It is just that you can't kick them out/ deny service if they are protected. So you can't stop a disabled person from entering the bar due to their medical equipment or even just that you don't like the way they look. However, if that same person gets too drunk and causes problem then they can be kicked out.
It really isn't all that complicated yet so many people don't understand it. A few years ago there was a group of people who were working with their service dogs in a halloween store. They were all either protected under the ADA or a state law that gives in training dogs the same rights as fully trained service dogs. The manager had to call the police because they weren't buying anything and were actively getting in the way of other customers. It wasn't just a little in the way either but they were significantly blocking shelves and walkways.
They tried to act like the business owner kicked them out for having service dogs and posted everywhere about it only for later information to come out showing that they were causing issues. The store owner then became the protected class instead of the people since the ADA includes the right to kick out a disabled person's service dog if they cannot control their service dog. You do need to then give them a way to access your services whether that is letting the person come back in alone, or letting them place their order and have it brought out by an employee
Thanks for posting this. I'm quite certain that nothing in the US Constitution gives anyone the "RIGHT" to enter private property against the owner's will. Even the owner has to give a certain amount of notice before entering a tennants property.
@@surferdude4487 I think there is one exception, but it's most likely not in the constitution but just general law.
You are required by law to allow anyone access to your private property to give them the chance to introduce themselves. After which you can of course tell them to leave and they have to oblige, but the first thing is still there.
I think this is mostly in place to give public servants like mailpeople the right to enter your private property, even though you have signs on the door that state you aren't allowed access. I think it's called something like 'seeking consent', but I don't remember the exact wording. There are probably many caveats to it...
@@Shade01982 IMO, if you don't want the mail carrier entering your property, you might consider putting the mail-box out at the edge of the property. I'm sure there are also exceptions under the law where people such as police officers and meter readers can enter your property whether you want them to or not if they have official business. I wouldn't know because I haven't read the US constitution yet.
@@surferdude4487 It's been a while when I looked at this, so I don't remember the details, but it was very much like that yeah.
A common language that everybody learns in addition to their native tongue is not a bad idea. Forcing people to abandon their native tongue is horrific. Speaking as an Inupiaq here; I never really learned the language, despite living my early years in my home village, and that was because the language was attacked so completely. I can’t even count to ten 😢
I agree that it's not a bad idea, but it shouldn't be mandatory. Perhaps we agree on that.
Well said. We're still grappling with the repercussions of doing that on a national level here in New Zealand. (And we have a legally binding treaty that says we wouldn't do shit like that)
Thankfully, we're slowly putting things right and teaching Te Reo Maori in schools, as well as many other acts to help repair that wrong.
Can you learn it now?
My 70 yr old Navajo friend Rose was illegally adopted by Mormons at birth. It really messed her up because she is not grounded in either culture. She lives 2 blocks from the Indian Hospital which is just making her sicker. What she really needs is a medicine man, tho her religion won't allow it.
@@redmoondesignbeth9119- The ya'taali would need a good block of time. Sounds like she needs a number of ceremonies, but without a grounding in her birth culture they might not do any good.
The American legal system's principle of presuming innocence and requiring proof of guilt is based on the logical standard of "onus probandi," which asserts that the burden of proof lies with the individual making a claim, not the one denying it. When someone is accused of breaking the law, the burden is on the accuser to prove the allegation. This principle traces back to ancient Rome and the Greek empire, reflecting a longstanding logical tradition. The onus probandi holds that one cannot prove a negative. For example, if someone claims there is a 500-foot tall statue of Michael Jackson floating in space, it is not up to others to disprove it without evidence. This principle underpins the American legal standard that a person must be proven guilty and does not need to prove their innocence.
So glad I found your channel. Refreshing to getting real (not imagined) facts!😊
It’s almost like the Constitution is a framework for how the government works, and what limits it has, and not a list of things that ordinary citizens are allowed to do.
After I finish shifting your entire convoy of truckloads of sarcasm, I have to say "Thank you Captain Obvious!" and then politely ask you to move over in the lifeboat of wisdom so that others might also take a seat.
and now, cue up the snowflakes with the hate at someone who just states the obvious, while utterly undermining whatever gripe they have with how "The System" is just out to get them.
Sort of, it gives the framework for our government, primarily limiting the governments control over the public. Free speech, right to bear arms and so on.
Not "almost like." It is.
its a list of what the gvmt can not do
It's not "almost like" ...
It's Exactly what the Constitution is
When someone starts ranting about "constitutional" and such, the fastest way to shut them up is to hand them a pocket copy of the Constitution and Amendments and say "show me"
There is a need for more individuals like you out in public.
Whenever making a claim always ask for proof.
I dont think the ability to point out a right within a wall of text should be the standard required for the general public. People need to be better educated on the relevant rights they have and do not have, and should not have to know all of them or point them out in the constitution.
The ability to use google should cover that requirement though lol.
@@alisilcox6036
Agree with much of what you wrote, except the portion where you indicated, "and should not have to know all of them or point them out in the constitution."
To clarify, the Constitution does not grant rights - it restricts the authority of government to limit rights.
People become confused on this point which is why James Madison did not want a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. He feared the people would come to believe these were their Constitutional Rights - their only rights. They are not.
@@thefederalist6786 that's fair, I considered writing "rights and freedoms" but decided against for simplicity. Im just as irritated as I expect you are by the sentiment that people have, for example, a right to free speech, which in fact is simply a freedom from government curtailment of speech, not freedom from private or public consequences of speech. I'd also say this comment isnt restricted to the US public but a statement on what people should have expected of them globally - knowing and pointing out positive OR negative rights (as a "freedom from" is indeed still a "right to freedom from" after all) in the specific, whether in the constitution or other piece of legislation, shoudn't be nescessary to protect yourself or express your rights or freedoms. This might not seem just or fair to some people, but it's an unfortunate reality that the people whose rights are trampled most often are the same groups who are systemically not educated on them.
And they go to page zero and show you there is nothing in the constitution about abortion. But plenty on right to life.
My wife’s grandmother was one of those native kids put into a mission school before WWI. She was beaten for speaking Ojibway.
Blackstone, an English lawyer, had a big impact on laws in early American law makers. It’s a rather interesting read.
As a naturalized U.S. citizen, my first government handout was a pocket-sized U.S. Constitution. Yay!
As a born-American citizen, I wonder if the government would give me one.
Honestly, I’m of the mindset that every household should be given a free law library, in print, provided by the government, with replacements for outdated materials every few years. If we’re supposed to know and follow all laws, then we should all be supplied with them, legibly in print, as not to disenfranchise people without computers.
I get a lot of pushback on that, generally saying that everyone can’t be lawyers, but that’s part of why I worry, since everyone is expected to follow the law like a lawyer, yet few WANT to follow the law “like a lawyer” except the people that want to become a lawyer.
The law must be as fair to the citizen that uses the internet, goes into public often, and watches the news as it is to the people who do not use the internet, do not go into public often, nor watch the news.
Anyway, Stanley, I hope you enjoy America. It is not perfect but it is my home, and it sounds like it may just be your home, now, too. Happy to have you here! Sorry for the rant, but this has always been a big issue for me, and if you’re excited by a pocket constitution, maybe you’d have an opinion on my opinion of giving everyone a law library.
Would probably also help us cut down on our ever more complicated laws, too, if the government was forced to put them all together on paper and give them freely to all, maybe we’d get rid of some of the extraneous laws that have added up over time.
As a naturalized US citizen, you probably understand the thing better than 99% of natural-born US citizens. As I understand it most of us would have trouble passing the citizenship test y'all have to go through.
@@krissisk4163 I personally believe anyone who runs for a US political office should have to pass the citizen test to qualify. If you can't pass that, you shouldn't be in charge of any part of the government.
@Stanley Tweedle I assume you are from Canada and/or the Commander of the Lexx …
@@jlaakso1706 but I mean what about people who can remember "Woman. Man. Camera. TV." five minutes later? I mean surely there should be exception for intelligence on that level!
The constitution does too say That, the word 'that' occurs 16 times in the text, 24 if you count the amendments.
You forgot to say objection
That's very important to keep in mind.
You are technically correct which is the best kind of correct!
One should count the amendments
objection! you didn't say objection!
“It’s !SEVEN! Pages long and has like TWO DOZEN amendments”
😂😂god I love you
It’s apparent most of the lawfulness of the constitution is ignored in favor of the unlawful legal system.
"No taxation without representation!"
Supreme Court to territorial citizens: well actually...
*Sad Puerto Rican noises*
The opinion that allows this is one of the most disgustingly racist pieces of writing I have ever read. It's shameful that it's still part of our laws.
The territories of the US today were not part of the US back then. Also, originally, only the white male owner class was allowed to vote. And even that was for many founding fathers a compromise as they thought people are idiots who can't be trusted. Which is why you got the electoral college.
@@SkiDaBird ya they say that they should seek legislative remedy while also reminding them that they're 2nd class citizens with no legislative remedy.
And that's not inherent in a federal system. Australia's two major territories have two federal senators each (to the 12 of a state), and minor territories get assigned a major territory to be part of for voting purposes. And we don't even have the issue where there are 'territories' with greater populations than some 'states'. The ACT (our DC equivalent) is only some 25% less than Tasmania, but it is still less, and Tasmania is the only state so close to a territory in population.
I took a Constitution Class my last year of high school, and I’m so grateful. You’re right, most people don’t really know what it says. And… it’s really short in the grand scheme of the law. We really should be learning it in school on a widespread basis.
In my country, the Constitution is so long and so committed to tasks I have never thought they existed
I was in a law and justice based academy at my high school. Was made to read and take tests on the Constitution. Very useful nowadays.
State constitutions are the ones that require lots of caffeine.
I mean we already complain about needing to memorizing the amendments, I think kids would chafe quite at memorizing what all the articles talked about lol
When I was in high school in the 1990s we had a required American Government class, but it was sadly only half the length of other required classes.
Wow, I bet that breaks some minds. Plenty of neighbourhood constitutional scholars out there re-evaluating their “research”
It scares me that with such a "small" (7 articles + 20+ amendments) constitution, most US citizens didn't got around to read it and be up to par on what their constitutional rights are. Over the years in Brazil we got a trend of people actually reading up on their rights and understanding what they are (or aren't) entitled to by constitutional right, despite our constitution being 250 articles long + 120 extra articles made back when we were still transitioning from the 1967 constitution, covering some bases that weren't properly covered before + 125 amendments made over the years (the last one dating from july 14 2022).
I wholeheartedly believe that in every country, constitutional law should be taught in schools when students are in their young teens or even younger than that if they're able to grasp the concepts of the rights being taught to them.
The Constitution does not give you any rights it limits the government's power to trample those rights that already existed.
This is basically sophistry. Those rights are only rights insofar as they are stated to be rights by the constitution. There is no fundamental law of the universe that makes them rights. They are rights for Americans because the constitution declares them to be rights.
@@TheLobsterCopter5000 they are inalienable rights. They are universal, they are real, go ahead and try to test out your theory by taking them away from someone.
You are correct though - your statement is basically sophistry, thanks for being honest.
@@leeknivek if that was true every country would allow the people to arm themselves.
@TheLobsterCopter5000 they are rights fundamental to life. That is why the US Constitution was written the way it was. To make it as hard as possible for the government to trample on and take them away.
But hey if you want the US army in your house by all means don't let me stop you.
i tried to say that and couldnt find the words .
In the Philippines, a lot of college courses have an elective that just spends an entire semister to study the Philippine Constitution, regardless if their major is not Political Science. It helps a lot to teach us to understand what our rights are to better protect ourselves against authorities who abuse the law.
In 1986-87 my High School political science class (which they no longer have) covered the same thing as this video.
@mikelmacrichard4772 that sort of thing should be taught in high schools... it's a shame they stopped.
@@victoriarodriguez9981we need to join PTA & enforce it, demand it, petition for it, we need to get it back in instead of letting Rockefeller choose every bit of info we learn, like he’s done with what sort of health care is considered standard
Excellent. Shd be mandatory for h.s. grad in every country.
The Constitution, ratified and signed, is written in English.
In Canada they have french and English written into their law, in both French and English.
This is a great channel. It’s interesting and the host is engaging.
Anytime I get into a discussion with other people about the Constitution, I’m constantly correcting misconceptions other people have. It’s a very simple read and isn’t actually that hard to understand and can be read by most people in about 30 minutes ( I know a lot of slow readers). I always try to get as many people as possible to actually read it instead of just listening to what other people say about it.
It takes me about an hour to read through it and I have a pretty high reading level. It’s just dry.
I'm tired of people thinking the constitution is perfect, should never be changed and should be the "be all end all" of US law.
The constitution is great, it has alot of great core concepts but it was written before toilet paper existed, when people died of diseases that we eradicated and it was considered an acceptable loss.
There is an express reason why the founders allowed for amendments, because they knew things would change or that they might have missed something.
I would read it over the Australian Constitution any day!
Oh my goddess, those creating a parliamentary system had to be some of the most boring people alive. I flicked over said constitution once more just to refresh because I have read it like... once, ever... and I regretted it immediately. Rules on what to do if so-and-so isn't present, rules reminding people that a year is 12 months, and all sorts of other little things that I guess should be noted down if you want a consistent government. None of which containing any flowing text what so ever, which to be fair I hate seeing in a Constitution but still makes the whole thing so tiring to read.
Well, in reality, much is ambiguous and requires critical thinking. It is a guide, in many/most cases, outlining the general form of government and configuring levels of responsibility.
@@coachhannah2403 It can also be pretty much ignored if the rulers, interpreters, and enforcers decide to
Summary
0:16 "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
1:29 "English is the Official Language of the U.S."
4:39 "No Taxation without Representation"
7:22 "The Right to Enter a Store or Restaurant"
9:36 "Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty"
11:50 Promo for continued video on Nebula
Thank you!
Should talk about the right to privacy too
@@WarlordM
Oh man, please.
That's so interesting. Especially with current technology.
In my "legal issues with IT" class. We spent at least a month talking about this very issue.
@@WarlordM I know next to nothing, but isn't there an amendment regarding unlawful searches?
@@ryansgameing6961 - I've wondered about this. In companies that I've worked for, there've been degrees of privacy/sensitivity of information, from "Do not share with anyone and destroy when you're finished with it" through "can be shared within the company", to "can be shared with anyone". But in wider culture, we seem to want to be able to make do with "public" and "private", even though I don't think that's really how many of us live our lives.
Some people would argue that, if you can eavesdrop on a conversation, that conversation is public, but... is it? And likewise, some people will insist that a photo shared on a social media platform has at that point become "public", but would that mean that we'd accept its use in any and all possible forms? Legally, we might be stuck with saying "yes", but culturally, we know a shitty thing to do when we see it.
Classification of levels of privacy seems essential if we want a system that matches the reality of how people communicate, and I'm hoping that it will evolve beyond the binary notion that is often implemented.
If I have learned anything from reading Magic the Gathering and Yu-Gi-Oh cards, it's that length does not necessarily correlate with complexity. I have seen cards with 3 lines of text that take several minutes and a judge to figure out what they actually do, and I have seen 10 lines of text that clearly do precisely one thing and only that one thing. Being 7 pages does not mean that the constitution is simple to understand.
Understanding of The Constitution went out the window when reading comprehension went out the same window.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nowhere in that does it say, "the people have the right to free speech." The Amendment doesn't GIVE you free speech. It says the government can't abridge that Right.
It says -->Congress shall make no law
This really gets to me, as it seems like the people who have many of the strongest political opinions are among those who are most ignorant of what it does and doesn't say in that very short document. Citizenship is a responsibility as well as a right, and knowing the basics of American governance should be your first responsibility before spouting off about it.
Dunning-Kruger Effect to an extent: those who know the least are the most confident in what they think they know.
@@ZhangtheGreat Yep, but more people need to shout in their faces that they don't get to call themselves "patriots."
!!!!! This
Everyone should have to pass a us citizenship test to vote. Dark history of testing to vote be damned
@@TeslaHaxz Well, the first question should be why that's a bad idea. What we need is actual civics education back in schools.
"I prefer the person who burns the flag and wraps themselves in the Constitution than the person who burns the constitution and wraps themselves in the flag." Molly Ivins
Sadly too many of our politicians do the latter and we as a people lose a few more I.Q. points in the process.
You referring to the politicians and their lobbyists that are trying to implement hate speech laws, gun control, codify Roe, and those rioting because they're upset with the independent judiciary or the police cleaning up the streets? Ambiguous.
There are people who burn both.
@@pollytix7271 Im referring to the ignorance of far too many people about the Constitution and how politicians use that ignorance to incite and inflame "Faketriots" into believing that less Freedom and the deconstruction of the Constitution is some how Patriotic.
@@radosawbartoszewicz7247 Libs burn the flag. Repubs burn the Constitution and use the flag as cover.
@@art2736 It is impossible to wrap yourself in a flag without a constitution, just as it is impossible to wrap yourself in constitution without a flag. Those who burn either of them, love neither.
On restaurants (or any other place of business) requiring "proof of vaccination" before someone can enter... what about HIPPA?
How can they have any legal authority to demand someone's medical records, and therefore the ability to deny service based on a person's refusal to give up their privacy rights under HIPPA?
Really great to listen to people who know what they are talking about. Thanks you!!!
I imagine this video is the result of Devon hearing too many incorrect descriptions of the Constitution and he just finally snapped.
To be fair, professionals of almost every field of study would be annoyed at how people frequently get things wrong.
Pretty much everyone that thinks the first amendment means they can do and say whatever they want to anyone they want anywhere they want without consequences.
These are weird incorrect descriptions though, I've never heard any of these. Are people really that dumb that they think Marx' communist quote is a part of the Constitution?
@@SeraphsWitness How many even know who Karl Marx is?
@@brodriguez11000 Sad but true probably. Fair enough.
Maybe that's why his ideas are regaining popularity, as if they're somehow fresh and new.
The language section reminds me of a shirt I saw - "English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows other languages into dark alleys and rummages through their pockets for loose grammar". Even if someone just wants to learn English, knowing the languages that English as we know it came from is important and interesting. Knowing other languages on top of that helps as well, especially if you ever want to work with folks who came from other countries/cultures, or even those who just have different accents than what you might otherwise be used to. Regional terms and accents have history to them, and that can lead down all sorts of interesting learning rabbit holes that can become useful later on.
English is a mutt language in my opinion as it picked everything from other languages.
Yes, that shirt is spot on. I can spot some of the places where French is lurking but that's just a fragment of the history of the language.
I have always loved etymology! It's interesting where some words came from...
Now all I can think about is 'Dubya allegedly saying that the French have no word for "entrepreneur". The day I heard that is the day I learned what "facepalm" is, and also the day I became curious about etymology.
I remember read a history of English language and the writter said the Celtic languages of the Birtish islands influence exists in a hand full of words and the word DO. and that it came form a small celtic kingdom in Wales, and that English liked to dress up as a Celt on lonely Saturday nights..
April 2024--Oregon has just passed a law outlawing gun sales in the state. No One can import a gun across the state boundaries either. Water now belongs /to Oregon and that includes your personal well as well. No one can use State water for farm or garden uses either.
The problem with the general public is that they don’t actually know the constitution like they think they do. In law school we had over 4000 pages of information surrounding all 27 amendments. To this day if I were to volunteer for a lecture at the colleges here locally I will bring my 477 stacked pages surrounding the fourth amendment alone and slam it on the desk and say “if you don’t know all of the information in these papers then you don’t know the fourth amendment.”
As an example people think that police actually need warrants under the fourth amendment to search a persons house, vehicle or person. They absolutely do not as a warrant can indeed be excluded and in fact….the majority of searches performed by police yearly (81%) are in fact warrantless and well within the scope of the law and how it’s written out over the constitution and SCOTUS. In all of my years as a Prosecutor I’ve never seen hardly any of the 1800 officers in our county with the 37,000 cases they submit a year outside of the scope of lawfulness with searches. It happens, but it is EXTREMELY few and far between as the mistakes made are nothing more than boneheaded idiotic decision making by a incompetent rookie. That specific topic alone surrounding searches covers 400 pages of paperwork in itself. Again if you don’t know that then you don’t know the fourth amendment. Simply reading the fourth amendment as written and remembering it does not mean you understand the first thing about it. Don’t even get me started on the 1st amendment.
I've always heard there are circumstances that do not require a warrant such as reasonable suspicion, belief someone is in trouble, what can be seen from the doorway are just a few from the top of my head. I'm sure there are many more.
I guess I'm safe to say that Hollywood glamorizes a warrant
@@whiskeyandlace
Like that episode in Boston legal, where a black guy was looking at houses in a white neighbourhood, and a cop thought he might be thief, so requested an id, under the assumption if he was a thief, he would avoid breaking in under the assumption the policemam would remember him if there was a home invasion. But the black guy refused, and an altercation ensued.
@WWIITrophyLugerPO8 I remember that episode. That was profiling. The neighborhood was white so the cop felt the black guy was casing the neighborhood. I really enjoyed that episode...
You know what gets misinterpreted A LOT? Freedom of speech. Even people working in media outlets get it wrong, which I think they should know better, since they inform the public. People don't realize that this protection is only against your government. From citizen to citizen, that right is regulated and it DOES have limits. That's why crimes like harassment (verbal or written), verbal assault (threats of harm), libel and slander are a thing. You can't say whatever you want about and/or to another citizen. Your right ends where someone else's right begins.
Freedom of speech exists as a philosophical concept independent of laws and government.
People _severely_ misinterpret "freedom of speech" as "freedom from consequences." No, your "freedom of speech" does _not_ protect you from someone else exercising _their_ freedom of speech in a way that might make you feel bad.
I thought most people understood this. harassment and assault are definitely a no-go, as well as libel and slander. I thought the divide was more along the lines that hate speech is legal when many people say it is not. Hate speech is illegal in many other countries, but in the US you can say hateful things about a group of people legally.
"Freedom of speech" has a caveat and that caveat is freedom of association. People are free to gather with or be around whom they want (within reason) and if that means deliberately excluding someone that's fair game too. One cannot force another person to tolerate them in the other's space.
It's also been updated over time with laws as new forms of communication and new mail services popped up and stuff. To say it's just been only about the government legally is also a mistake. It ends with someone's right to not listen eventually and when lies deliberately mess up your life.
My school district required us to pass a Constitution test to enter High School. I think that everyone should have such a test.
My School district did the same thing but we also had to pass the Constitution test to graduate high school as well
Barely have to pass a drug test today.
I know that the Civics Teacher at a school that I taught at butchered the Constitution's content. When questioned, he stated that they would get a more accurate coverage in college. The problem with that was probably more than three quarters were either uninterested in even high school subjects, or never attend any college, junior or four year; meaning his over simplification or out right inaccurate comments are all that they would ever hear. I saw the same thing with history classes.
Agree. I taught it in Middle School. My students were not enamored at first but in my survey at the end of the year the VAST majority said their favorite part of my class was learning the Constitution and being able to understand it. They always said it helped them understand the rest of American history better. I have no idea how anyone can really understand American history without learning the Constitition.
@@kathynj6479
Good teacher!
All this shows is that you can be an attorney and still not fully understand the constitution to insure the government doesn’t unlawfully violate your rights.
It is worth noting that the original tax clause in the Constitution was 100% dependent upon the Several States to pay the bill. The States with higher populations had a higher tax burden. It was therefore up to the State Legislature to decide how to collect taxes. People had a more direct representation in the State than the Federal Government, the way it ought to be.
It was the 16th Amendment (income tax) that changed the whole scheme. I would be in favor of repealing both the 16th Amendment and the 17th Amendment to restore the all important relationship between the federal government and the state government as articulated by Article IV and the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Federalism has been broken, and that was an important mechanism in the Constitution of 1789. To get back to Taxation and True Representation the Progressive Amendments must go.
Finally, people also need to understand that if the maxim of “no taxation without representation “ is true, the inverse is also true: “No Representation without Taxation “
While completely unpopular, the principle stands.
I know this will likely never happen, but it’s fun to discuss.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Must be nice to have your entire constitution fit on to a 14 page pdf instead of a mash up of countless documents, royal proclamations and treaties that predate your country.
Sincerely, a Canadian
The collation is nice, but sometimes the brevity is a double-edged sword. There's a lot of parts that seem like they were tired of arguing about how the government was going to work, and just said "we'll fill in the details later". 250 years later... still working on that.
We gained our independence through "Hey, what if we kept doing things the same...but did it without you?"
That means we started with a hot mess, and arguably made it hotter. Rather than start from scratch.
@@Zraknul Despite all the ideas it borrowed and how many Amendments eventually needed to be added, the U.S. Constitution was remarkably advanced for its day. Nowhere else at the time did you see ideas like complete religious freedom with no official religion, the ability to criticize the government with very limited consequences, abolishment of royalty and all forms of nobility, voting rights granted to all adult, white male citizens, three separate branches of government with a complete set of checks and balances, etc. directly implemented into the government itself. That's why it's managed to last well over 200 years without ever having any widespread sense of dissatisfaction among the people.
@@Compucles The Civil War could be described as a really bad dose of dissatisfaction
@@standard_gauge The dissatisfaction wasn't over the constitution per se; the common misconception is that the civil war was fought over "states' rights," which is only _technically_ true, but an obfuscation that distracts away from the fact that one of those rights the states demanded was the ability to own a person - it comes up by-name at least a dozen times or more in the Confederacy's official secession.
The taxation thing always makes me laugh. The taxes they were unhappy about were, well, war debts that they did not want to pay (and were unhappy with the treaty that ended the war).. but as soon as they had their own government with war debts, they were perfectly happy to put down their own rebellions and force people to pay for 'their freedom'.
So the Boston Tea Party was a prank? No tax on tea, glass- well you name it. Taxes began the war and in a way the two ended it. Taxes never ended. They knew exactly what they were doing. It was the only way to fund a revolution.
That they did not want to pay because they had zero influence in their governments decision making process. Who would want to pay taxes for a war they were forced to fight?
Also another funny thing to add onto that was that the colonies were taxed a bunch because the English people were already getting sick of parliament taxing them back home. The government really dug themselves into a representative hole there.
It was about "no taxation without representation" once the government was able to represent the people, they had the right to tax
@@enclave3228 The government did not represent the people though. Most people were not allowed to vote in the US for a long time. The right to vote was originally only given to white male property owners.
Your opening snark about "who has time" reached my heart, as a former English/Latin professor.
It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights_of the Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be Obsta Principiis [Boyd v. United. 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (885). The court is the people of the jury. In a court of record, the jury is the tribunal or judges. A court of record operates under the law of the Land "Common Law." To fully understand the Constitution, you must first understand common law. At any time one can open a court of record and remove power from the judge who then becomes a mediator. A Clerk Masquerading as a Judge is not competent to do anything judicial like issue orders, or warrants • A Clerk Masquerading as a Judge is operating in his private capacity, and has no immunity • "Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities" Burns v. Sup., Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1
I love this channel, I'm an admitted attorney of the High Court of South Africa and its so interesting to see the parallels and difference of our legal systems.
This guy is biased. He's got a political agenda to push.
@@Sal3600 which guy?
Yes, but the South African constitutional framers had the good sense to take parts of the US constitution and add any important cases that have been strongly debated and resolved and added them explicitly. It also has a far more sensibly explicit and comprehensive list of protected rights so that there is far less chance that modern rights have to be interpreted in by the courts.
Imagine if every complicated US Supreme Court Case forced a constitutional convention that didn't allow the delegates to leave or eat anything except bread and water until they definitively settled the issue by constitutional ammendment, and you might have as comprehensive a set of protections as the SA constitution
@@blumoogle2901 that's a bit unfair in the US constitution, we had the benefit of decades of real world experience when our constitution was written by some of the finest legal and philosophical minds, the US constitution was written by the 12 guys who could write, all things considered it's not too bad.
Thats the most lawyerly way of telling everyone you're an attorney. 😂
Why use one word where you can you use 8.
Who did you bill for telling us?
And this is why "if it's not enumerated specifically in the constitution, it doesn't count" is REAL dangerous.
And even if a right IS enumerated in the Constitution, the Supreme Court always finds a way to undermine it or get around it.
Particularly because the 9th Amendment specifically says that unenumerated rights are a thing American citizens have.
That's why we got the 9th amendment. But Republicans justices pretend that doesn't exist.
@@edwardmiessner6502 That or states will claim “states rights” and proceed to imprison people for pursuing happiness.
The 9th Amendment specifically states that any right not enumerated in the Constitution is something all American citizens have.
That NY cop sounds so New York, my screen turned into a bagel
I just reread the Constitution, yesterday. It is a good idea to refresh your memory, maybe on the 4th of July.
One of my favorite classes I ever took was US Law. We covered some basics of civil and criminal law.
But the majority of the class was going line by line through the constitution and discussing everything in it. Plus discussing how the various parts of the constitution affect our lives and what rights they give. It was soo much fun and entertaining every period.
I wish every single American had the fortune to learn the constitution through Professor Dickey.
What school did you go to?
This might be my misconception but isn't the constitution supposed to be about what rights the government isn't allowed to take away from the people and not a list of the rights we have?
@@the3nder1 you’re thinking of the bill of rights, the first 10 amendments to the constitution. The constitution is the document that says how the US government will run, the bill of rights are amendments stapled onto the back of the constitution to outline some rights that citizens of the US have in terms of governance.
Most of them are just things that the government can’t do, but like the 6th amendment does provide things that the government must do for you during a trial.
I would highly recommend reading at least the bill of rights, if not the entire constitution/amendments. The bill of rights can be read in about a minute.
@@the3nder1 and yeah the 9th amendment basically says “just because a right isn’t in here doesn’t mean that somebody doesn’t have that right.”
You can’t say somebody in the US doesn’t have a right just because it isn’t covered by the constitution or amendments, you’re right.
@@MotorcycleWrites the amendments are in fact part of the constitution.... they are ya know... amendments.... to the constitution.
"Who else pays taxation without representation?" [ad break] "Homeowners in Massachusetts..."
* absolutely perfect timing *
People who work in Philadelphia but don't live within its city borders pay a wage tax, which is pretty high, but they can't vote in Philadelphia elections.
BTW, the constitution is not Seven pages long. It was either known as one pager or a whole book. The original constitution can fit on one page, the version if you order today would be a book.
Quebeckers are often looking to Louisiana for what "could have happened" to their language. It inspires them to stay strong to French.
I first read the constitution in its entirety when I was in high school and again in college. I recommend that everyone in the USA read it. You'd be surprised at how little our political leaders and local law enforcement agencies know about this document.
I did it in Junior High because it was in the back of the Social Studies book and I was intrigued. I later found out it was later one of the requirements for the Citizenship of the Country Boy Scout Merit Badge.
Reading it is hardly enough though. As with most texts, it can't be fully understood on its own.
@@rickhodges4808 it's actually pretty straightforward. The only reason why someone would need a translation is if they don't understand written English.
@@AnarkeeSoundVibes, or because they want it to say something else.
@@AnarkeeSoundVibes I didn't say "translation" - seems you are the one who doesn't understand English. I said understand - and that's entirely true. One cannot simply read the Constitution and think they are suddenly a constitutional attorney who fully understands it.
Thank you for talking about residential schools, even if just briefly. We need to normalize people discussing the more distressing parts of history when it's relevant!!!
This! Especially with the first part of that landmark report about them being released this week.
Yeah I found it strange when the U.S. was shitting on Canada for their terrible residential schools while not talking about their own at all.
But when you try to, half of the cou try calls it "woke liberal propaganda" even though it's just facts. They want certain facts ommited.
Just watch as youtube channels mentioning the unpleasant parts of American history are eventually getting banned and burned like some books, lol.
@@austinhernandez2716 how would they convince people to kill and die for their country if they knew the full history?
A therapist said, the f word is just a word to scream how you feel.
The most shocking videos to watch are those 1st amendment audit videos. The wild things the police say will make your jaw drops. Literally dont even understand the technical difference between public and private lol. Its scary.
A saying I wish would catch on is, "No Representation Without Taxation," so that tax dodging rich people and corporations couldn't bribe our government.
A bribe is just a tax the rich pay to avoid laws
I get the sentiment, but that would also stop the very poor and the elderly.
Yes. The rich should not be allowed loopholes. It's basically legal tax evasion.
@@austininflorida Just another example of "to each according to their need." Not being able to pay taxes is not the same as dodging taxes with loopholes.
It's the government that offers tax incentives to business owners, not the other way around. State governments offer those incentives because large businesses moving into their states means more jobs for the people and a better economy for the state.
The idea that rich people and corporations don't pay any taxes IS A MYTH, so stop spewing it everywhere.
I love this. To encourage my high school students in U.S. Government class to read the whole U.S. Constitution - I let them purchase and use a pocket Constitution of the United States on their exams.
That's a fantastic idea
When I was in High School, before President Jimmy Carter created the cabinet-level federal Dept. Of Education, we routinely studied the US Constitution, Constitutional History and Constitutional Law. We learned all about everything from the different responsibilities of branches of the federal government to the origin of "Miranda Rights". We never heard it was supposed to be difficult to read and understand, that it was a "living document", that it "evolved", ot that things like the 14th Amendment meant anything besides exactly what it said. Of course, this was back in the day when high school boys had gun racks in the pickup trucks in the school parking lot, we all had pocket knives, and schoolkids really brought firearms to school because we had a Rifle Club that competed against other High School rifle clubs, and they posed in the school yearbook with their rifles, just like the football team, basketball team, and baseball team posed for photos in the yearbook. And sure, there were fist fights, but nobody got stabbed, nobody got shot, and the worst injury we ever had was maybe a black eye and a bloody nose
Jimmy Carter was swept into office in 1976, on a wave of Christian Humanitarianism -- Share the Earth. That scare the Be-Jesus clean out of the Republican Party. In California in 1966, the Constitution was taught in 8th grade -- and one had to pass the test to get out of Junior High. Or so I was told. The gun racks went away when the hippies stole the guns to buy drugs and alcohol. Silly Hippies. Epochal Eclipse April 8th 2024. Don't stare at the sun: Matthew 16: 4 Jonah 3: 5, 8 Jonah 4: 11
I beg to differ! D.C. has no senators, but they DO have a representative in the House (i.e. congress). In 2023 her name is Eleanor Holmes Norton. Washington D.C. is NOT a state. It is surrounded by Maryland and Virginia, but the federal seat of government is NOT subject to the state laws of either. Since only states can have senators (two each), D.C. can have no senators. It was judged then, and I agree today, that the people who provide the president, the senators, the representatives, and the justices (and their staffs) their food, laundry, transportation, protection, etc. already have enough influence over federal policy without participation in the senate.
I wrote a book on methodologies for interpreting the Constitution a few years back, and in developing that I was surprised what was actually written down in the Constitution. It is a remarkable document, and it is now frustrating to me how many people have no clue what is in there.
are there cats?!
@@stanleytweedle467 There are at least four cats in the constitution
@@z-beeblebrox I'm glad, 4 is the least amount to form a purrfect union
I always assumed that "innocent until proven guilty" was due to the fact that the prosecution must provide irrefutable, or at least very convincing, evidence that the jury can then use to make a decision. A decision that must be unanimous. Any lack of proof could, therefore, stir up doubt in the jury, resulting nondecision or innocent due to lack of convincing evidence(proof).
another reason i’ve heard cited for why the us runs by innocent until proven guilty is because the ‘prosecutorial mind can make anything seem suspicious’ so it *HAS* to be the government’s burden to prove guilt. at least, that’s what attorney tom says!
12 angry men
There are states where it certainly doesn’t need to be unanimous… so that’s not part of the constitution
@@timschultz1928 Just looked into it, this is currently under discussion and is going to the supreme court for cases in Louisiana. States can interpret the Constitution in any way they want to.
in 2018 Colorado removed the part of the 13th amendment that states labor can be used as punishment for a crime from the state constitution. Yet, somehow, agencies can still sentence people to "community service", which is labor, for their crimes.
But the point is that none of that (that the prosecution must present convincing evidence to the jury, that a jury verdict in a criminal case must be unanimous, etc.) is expressly stated in the Constitution.
I would like to hear more about the separation of church and state.
There is not “separation of Church and State”. We have a right to religion freedom not a freedom from religion.
A phrase that is taken entirely out of context these days. The separation means "churches" no longer "dictate" to the masses or the state as though they have legal authority. But Americans should select and prefer Christians as leaders if they want this nation to remain a free republic. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ~John Adams, a founder of USA.
Too many people think that this means no one is allowed to make a law that is similar to a religious view and that is not what that means. We have plenty of "religious" laws. Some are unjust and others are not. It really depends on a few things. One of the most basic ones that most folks agree with is... no murdering folks. This is a very old religious law and even non-religious folks can see the good sense in having it.
So there are a lot of laws we pass that will match up with one religion or another and they not be in violation of the Separation of Church and State as you put it, because it is not the church enforcing the rule, but instead the state. That is what the separation means.
@@CD-vb9fi bs
@@CD-vb9fi Another quote by John Adams: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],-and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Adams submitted and signed the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797.
"I mean, it's SEVEN pages long...". I see you immediately go for the jugular. LOL.
I see what you just did there, LegalEagle, especially the bit about "innocent until proven guilty" not actually being in the Constitution, but nevertheless a fundamental part of our jurisprudence. Nicely done.
This just reminded them that it's a right they can take away...
@@Halinn wait so are we with or against Alito on this “deeply rooted in history and tradition” thing? I guess it depends on the issue, huh?
Don't see anything about causing corporations republicans happen to be lobbing for to spontaneously explode either 👀👀
Weird huh? You'd think they'd put something like that in there...
@@seal869 well it’s not really if you’re for or against Alito, the entire court has used that test long before he became a justice. And it’s also been used to overturn anti-sodomy laws such as in Lawrence v. Texas. It’s not that it’s a bad test necessarily, but framing of the issue is most relevant. Broad framing generally = fundamental right. Narrow = no fundamental right
@@Hprost1 you’ve made a real mess here. No need to comment on subjects you don’t actually understand
It's a chore to be in parts of the US where a nakedly misinterpreted constitution is brought up constantly; its significance exaggerated and fashioned into a club to rule them all. Political conversations usually end in a disagreement about the reality of this document.
It doesn't help that the document is so unhelpful. It says nothing about so much, too much about things it shouldn't have (that regrettable 3/5 compromise), and is vague on the rest.
It's in noway exaggerated.
@@kordellswoffer1520 It's significant to the degree that we currently use it to structure our government. I don't see how it's any more permanent than the constitution of Rome.
The paper itself is a fetish for wackos who misconstrude and weaponize it to legitimize irrationality.
It has many groundbreaking ideas to carry forth but to assume it'll last for generations in a tech-savy world is absurd.
@@QuesoCookies It definitely has a regrettable history. It would seem a good majority of the arguments against a constitutional convention is that it exposes itself to corruption and its for the best to not touch it. What a wonderful foundation for a superpower! We expend so much energy and money fighting over its structural interpretation, all while lives are being thrown away from the lack of resolute law.
@@Wbjpen what the hell are you talking about. The mere fact that it is used to structure our government makes it significant and inherently hard to exaggerated its importance. It also has a very large cultural impact, it helped form the values of the right and helped form the values the left likes to fight against. You can go off into nonsense about Rome as if it has any form of relevance.
Who are these wackos and what are they being irrational about and what has been misconstrued by them. All you're doing is asserting things with nothing but vague words.
I has lasted for generations in a tech savvy world, it's at least lasted for about 2 generations by this argument.
Also why wouldn't it, what does technology have to do with the core aspects of the constitution from free speech to guns to private property and so on. As technology doesn't make these rights any less or wrong or put any doubt upon them, a tech savvy generation should be perfectly fine with these exceptional rights if they were themselves rational. Are you saying they aren't or are you saying the rights set out in the constitution is wrong.
The Bill of Rights clearly says on the 2nd A. "Shall not be Infringed" !!!
Of which they clearly are "Infringing" !!!
It says "Rights" not Privileges !!!
A "Right" when taxed regulated or restricted becomes a Privilege !!!
clearly says people, if you are one of the people.
@10:25
The fundamental rights are sourced to line of text in the Constitution at Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Thomas Jefferson said of our unalienable rights,
"but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.
I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
“Did you know that you have rights? Constitution says ya do.”
Actually it don’t. There a innumerable rights that are reserve to the state and the people that are not mention in the constitution or ay amendments.
@@MinhNguyen-nl8zzbecause i think it was either the ninth or tenth amendment that said your rights are not limited to those written in the amendments or constitution
@@MinhNguyen-nl8zz A reference to unlisted rights is an overt statement that such rights exist.
2:45 My grandfather (born 1911) was taught completely in German in a Texas elementary school, in a region of Central Texas populated mostly by German immigrants. They didn't change to being an English school until after World War I. Even his birth certificate was written in German by German-speaking Texans.
Central Indiana is well known for being one of the most German settled areas in our country. And those people couldn't wait to be American. They embraced it all.
I'm from Southern Indiana, according to my high school history teacher the city's German language newspaper was discontinued at the start of WW2
My great grandparents still spoke German around the house and my Grandfather was able to communicate a little with German POWs when he served in WW2.
The local German Heritage club was still quite popular, admittedly, with an older crowd when I left in the 1990s
I read recently that the last high school in Texas to use German as its means of instruction had just closed due to lack of German speakers, but that’s a helluva time to keep a minority immigrant language going. Here in Britain, children of Indian and Pakistani immigrants are at best semi speakers of Hindi, Urdu etc., while the grandchildren don’t speak it at all.
Yeah, but German with a Texas drawl is really hard to read on birth certificates.
are they the same as the amish?
My Dad thinks that the 4th Amendment means guilty until convicted. Guilty until dead seems to be the mindset of the police in some areas. You'd think there wouldn't be any arrests made if our privelidge is innocent until proven guilty; arresting someone for something is an automatic guilty charge, especially if the police can't meet the rules of evidence to arrest someone and they have to make up charges so they have an excuse to take someone into custody, especially if they are the same sex as they are, as well as political party affiliation, they become puzzled at what to do with a non-partisan. Being determined to prove guilt is an automatic death sentence by the police, and in the event of surviving the incident then there is a necessity to have to be treated by a Chiropractor, as with which respect the police commit an offense of performing an "adjustment" of the spine which in this State is exclusive to the Chiropractic profession and is otherwise a crime if done by someone who is not a Chiropractor, which is usually my perception of their intent, to the point of causing death, as well they assume psychiatry to apprehend and cause to be imprisoned anyone who they determine to be diagnosed with mental illness based on anything that person may have said. Judges also have discovered how to frame sentences or questions to the accused so the accused has no opportunity to defend themselves in the courtroom. Police are not Chiropractors and they certainly are not Psychiatrists.