Відео

Thanks for the help!

They argue privileges or immunities not privileges and immunities. They are different.

conservative republicans were shamed by society to come to their views.... give them super majorities with no civil push back and see what their true viwes are. besides political power, why is abortion a political hot topic? conservative republicans believe "i knew you before you were born" , "baby jumped in womb at the presence of the holy spirit". Religious nuts are still with us today .....

thanks for ur sharing. learnt a lot

Great video!

Thank you so much! This was the only thing that made me fully understand the reasoning for this decision!

why did it take 2.5 minutes to disclose just a hint of the subject of the case?

B v B was the final "ruling" securing that all colors of people were to be treated as property subject to the plenary power of Congress, less than 6 months came the 1954 IRS Code... Eisenhower starved to death 1000k German prisoners (Rhine camos) and allowed Russia to imprison US Soldiers in Siberia... it's all about control🤔

Referencing your video for my college assignment on this case, thank you good work 💯🤝

Thank you for your explanation, so few UA-cam videos explain cases well. Usually just giving key facts within like, 2 minutes. This is very helpful!

thank you

How do we return to this.

"God hates dead soldiers" is "clearly political speech"??? How are you so sure it's "clearly political"?

thanks for this

The case was the last in a series of cases over several years, starting with Brown v Board of Education in 1954 that sought to finally overturn the wretched doctrine established in Plessy v Ferguson (1896) The idea that there is such a concept as "Separate but equal". Cooper v Aaron may not be as well known to people outside the legal profession, but it's a crucial case to understand. Because it is here that we derive what have been two other disastrous doctrines. Judicial Supremacy and Judicial Universality. Despite the Court's claims these doctrines were "Settled law" this exposed them as a total fabrication of the opinion's main author Justice Brenner. Tthese two anti-canonical doctrines that have been thoroughly debunked as a new, novel, broad and rather unprecedented expansion and abuse of federal power. Josh Blackman's article on Cooper v Aaron for Georgetown Law Journal - papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c... Shlomo Slonim article on - Federalist No. 78 and Brutus' Neglected Thesis on Judicial Supremacy (University of Minnesota Law School, 2006) - hdl.handle.net/11299/170108

SO this means conservatives will also never ever pass an amendment THEY want ... right ? All lefties have to do is clear a couple states. Conservatives have to clear over 20 opposing states to pass any amendment. SO stop crying and continue to persuade, make a case if you actually care about this issue.

I have a question - why could you not simply use lincom to calculate the statistical significance between the proportions for the second example? Why is a z score needed instead of a t score and a p value from lincom

This is a great video, really helpful!! Thank you!

You can't imagine how much this helped. Thank you!

thanks a lot!

Great video!! Helped me study for my con law final!!

Hello Sir, thank you so much, I didn't know the coeflegend trick. You saved me so much time. Take care of you

this is a bullshit video. if you listen carefully, his language is coded and the many freudian slips are quite telling.

who here after dobbs v jackson 😂

thank you professor.

So the bottom line here is that the highest court finally agreed in this case because it was after the FDR New Deal/ the Great Depression/ the Still Hard Economic Times for Americans until War World II put women to work, was that these justices finally came to their senses and were now being empathetic to the wages and working conditions of the laborers, i.e. a woman in this case and therefore agreed to uphold the state's minimum wage for women which was higher than that which the hotel wanted to pay Parrish; although, paying her the higher $14 per week for working a back-breaking 48 hours per week as a hotel maid vs. the lower wages of just $12 per week that the cheap hotel wanted to pay her was still "slave wages" even for the 1930's, or for the time that she was employed from 1935 to 1937. It was crazy then as it is still today in 2023. Nothing has really changed when it comes to the employer always wanting to take advantage of the employee. Just another form of "slavery" in this country, in my opinion.

Who called the Police?

Currently taking U.S. Con Law and this video was extremely helpful. I might argue it is one of your more underrated videos. Thanks Todd for the explainer!

Hey Todd, I was wondering if you were going to continue your series on SDP with the Dobbs case?

Thx for helping me with my apush dbq

Ty

American Booksellers Association banned a book in 2021 "Irreversible Damage."

ua-cam.com/video/kg3dmntq8CE/v-deo.html

good summary. this is going to help me with my case brief

This helped with my Con law class at Kent so thank you

I absolutely love your videos!!!

thx bestie this helped out a lot

amazing, really helped me in my con law class today!

great video! i finally understand

Thank you!!! Law student here!!!

Hello Dr. Curry, this is a really good lecture, thank you. Just wanted to ask if you ever managed to do the second chapter? I did look for it but couldn't find it. Regards

super helpful thank you!

😉🍻🍀

Outstanding sir

Justice Lewis Powell on an interview after leaving the Supreme Court believed the one case he got it wrong was this one. It was overturned 5 years after his death.

You need to do an update on this since Roe v Wade has been overturned by Mississippi Dobbs 2022 case.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s biopic 2019 movie ‘Basis Of Sex’ is a good one to watch.

I’m a supporter of substantive due process but I think sadly it will be eliminated though previous cases may stay in order due to Kavanaugh and Robert’s saying they won’t overturn it

you were right on the money

This video dreatly clarified the issue of substantive due process. Thanks!