The Second Amendment does not grant We The People the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment denies the Government the authority to infringe upon We The People's God given right to bear arms.
Whaaaaaat? Where else are grade schoolers going to learn that they might have been born the wrong gender? Or that dedication, commitment and effort don't matter, that as long as you participate you're guaranteed to get a trophy? Or that you might have been born "privileged" so that makes you every kind of "ist" (rac-,sex-) or "phobic"?
Me too!!! I can’t believe what they aren’t teaching in school but then again I can’t believe what they are teaching ! We’re in upside down world right now!!!!
You got much of the crux of Article 4 correct, but you failed to mention "the people" when discussing the 10th amendment. When you detoured (appropriately) into discussing the the Bill of Rights, you implied that for the most part, the Bill of Rights actually "grants" people rights, missing the principle that the amendments which make up the Bill of Rights are there to make it clear that our rights are not "GIVEN" by the government, but that the Bill of Rights actually just recognizes what the founders considered as foundational or pre-existing rights that the government may not restrict or infringe upon.
The Tenth Amendment is a truism. It says there is a line that the federal government may not cross, but it does not tell us where that line is. More importantly, the Tenth Amendment does not withdraw any of the powers granted to the federal government by the original seven articles. See United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941) (upholding the constitutionality of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938). Also, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendment, adopted shortly after the Civil War, transferred a huge amount of power from the states to the federal government and by default, to the federal judiciary, which, pursuant to Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution, has authority to decide issues arising under the Constitution.
Actually the constitution DOESN'T directly guarantee those as "rights Americans are born with" like most people who can't read correctly, falsely claim it says, the government DOES GIVE you those freedoms and promises to RESPECT them, not GUARANTEE them, it directly says this by using the word respect instead of guarantee directly...but they can still revoke them at any time if its ratified by the majority or a specific state respectively or it still means they can restrict it...a great example is gun rights, it doesn't GUARANTEE everyone the right to own weapons(otherwise there would be no age restrictions and children could own guns,etc, etc.) it GIVES them the right to do so, and it respects that right BUT it CAN be taken away IF the majority of states vote in favor of it... when they say "not infringed" that doesn't mean you can't REGULATE or control who owns guns. It just means you can't outright ban them nationwide... There's a huge difference that everyone gets wrong.... everyone reads the constitution however they want, and thats why the judicial system is so important... but each specific word carries its own weight. You are NOT BORN with ANY rights. You are GIVEN rights that are then promised to be RESPECTED... big difference.
@@evanneal4936Disagree. The Constitution doesn't give anything, it simply a list of things the federal government can't do. To use your example, it just says the government can't infringe the 2A. Nowhere does it give people permission to have arms. It does recognize that arms are " necessary to the security of a free state".
@@evanneal4936 Strongly disagree.. because we also have the 9th Amendment, which clarifies article 4. Article 9 says that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.". Meaning that the citizens have their rights FIRST. Article 4 is a restriction on the government, not the people. The 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The word "delegates", means that the people have temporarily loaned those responsibilities, as designated in the Constitution, to the government. But the people ultimately still retains those rights. Regulate in the 2nd amendment does not mean "banned", nor "controlled by government". In the 1767 dictionary, it meant "put into good order". The only thing the government required, which was actually required by THE PEOPLE, through their representatives, if they organized themselves into a militia (not government, the people organized it themselves), then those showing up had to have THE SAME GUNS AS AN INFANTRY UNIT WOULD HAVE. Same rifles, same bullets, even the same cannons. Congress asked private shipowners, during the War of 1812 "do you have enough cannons?". Not that they would have to join the US Navy. Yes there is an Amendment process, but even if the 2nd Amendment was to be repealed... the NATURAL RIGHT would remain. All the rights in the Bill of Rights, would still remain, even if the majority repealed them. The founding fathers believed that every man was in fact "Born with certain unalienable rights". The right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was not to be controlled, nor banned by the government. It was always going to be there. That includes the human right to have arms for self defense, from tyranny, both foreign and domestic.
Everyone is ignoring the strongest, most important part of the Constitution. It begins with We the People. This 52 word "Preamble" encapsulates the entire meaning of the entire document and all the Amendments. The Document is Ordained by the People as a whole. Everything in the body of the Constitution is a minimal road map of how We achieve the requirements of the Preamble. We the People, not any government entity, State or Federal, Congress, the President, or the courts own the Constitution. It is We the People that define and defend the Constitution.
As important as it may be, I believe our first 10 amendments AKA "Bill of Rights" are equally as important to hold on to with a tight grip in order to keep them protected at all costs. Just saying...
The PreAmble requires Not just the rights of the Individual but also the rights of the whole, the community. Both have rights. Both must have balance. (I consider this nearly impossible, but…let’s go!!!) The Preamble also nullifies the nonsense that any god created this country. The Preamble also keeps “we the people” looking forward and not just backward, as many seem to want to do today.
We the People did not mean the whole population. It meant rich white land owners. They were the only ones allowed to vote because they were the only ones considered people. Women weren't even considered people for another 150 years after that was written.
We the People of the ; or several States sovereign ,as a matter of form the "United States" was wording in final draft . Note the final page of document, signatures of the delegates. Today, iys shifyed to more like ,We the People of the free democratic state of OurDemocracy . Just the reese's mention of the reese's term, reese's States reese's Rights , is considered reese's, and you're a reese's for saying it, reese's. sorry. not sorry. It's beyond jarring that the 1st Amendments freedom of speech being veiwed as an obstacle , an impediment to the government's ability to govern; It serves at times to hamstring the ability of the govt to do its job.. It's not the AOc, or some wingnut saying it. It's Tim Jong Walz. HRC. The activist on the SCOTUS
Indeed, our Federal Government has overstepped it's authority in literally thousands of bills passed by Congress, mostly through an egregious abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause that was sanctioned by a Supreme Court of little wisdom.
I’m glad to hear you use the word “Civics” to refer to government study, because that’s what they called it back in 1967 when I was a freshman in high school. I’m sorry I wasn’t paying closer attention! It’s never too late to learn! Thank you!
The federal department of education should only be doling, out money for education to states not mandating educational standards. That department is in clear violation of the constitution.
@@chaddog313 if the federal taxes withheld for education were cut entirely, and that money stayed in state education funding, school performance would rapidly improve...
@@JohnPublic-dk7zd Or at the very least our public schools would be better funded. It will still be up to the parents and school boards to hold the school administrations accountable for scholastic performance.
@@blueice35270 Huh? Plz explain what your vague comment means - MAGA is not in power and not the one Funding and Facilitating the Criminal Invasion in total violation of Article IV Section 4. Dumocrazy is a Total Violation of Art IV Section and criminally violated every second by Both parties and all govt servants and 100,000s of Entrenched Govt Employed Criminals...
That's what each branch's general consul does. They review the Constitutionality of actions and legislation. Invasion, I think you really need to invest in a dictionary. Invasions typically are armed and don't include infants. But, I do find it interesting how much effort you go through to justify the atrocity inflicted on refugees from MV St Louis.
Yes, they simply are poor management, our deficit is the prime example of that. And they have forgotten to whom they represent. Now, what to do about this. 🤔
@@ronalddelo8753it actually starts at the very local level. People who work for the government were once called public servants and understood that they actually worked for the citizens. Now they will tell you outright," I do NOT work for the citizens, I work for the government against the citizens." The police are the worst because they are armed against the citizens but it goes for all levels
There is an argument to be made that the major political parties actually, and intentionally, prevent some parts of the Constitution from functioning as written. Could that make political parties unconstitutional?
Anyone who realizes what an amazing thing our constitution is should listen to Krisanne Hall. She is fantastic at teaching the constitution with original intent. Rest assured you will grow outraged when you realize how politicians have failed and citizens have grown debauched and ignorant and allowed it
She should be more concerned with the State Constitutions. That is where the power of the people resides. Starting with the local townships. Think of them as mini republics, where the people are to assemble for their common good to redress their grievances. This is why they want to do away with local governments, and consolidate. They are trying to federalize everything, including law enforcement. Thus the “defund” the police movement.
She should be more concerned with the State Constitutions. That is where the power of the people resides. Starting with the local townships. Think of them as mini republics, where the people are to assemble for their common good to redress their grievances. This is why they want to do away with local governments, and consolidate. They are trying to federalize everything, including law enforcement. Thus the “defund” the police movement.
@@bettemcpherson8700I'd like to have a conversation regarding defund the police. Having been the object of police brutality for fun at the hands of a psychopath, and having witnessed tanks rolling down a main street to confront peaceful protest by local citizens, I tend to think that military weapons in local police stations to be used against the citizens might not be a good thing when it comes to retaining our liberty. I don't see funding going to educate cops on protecting citizens against corporate or government abuses, but instead on teaching them how to curtail our individual rights and providing ever more lethal forces(and legal representation) to do so. Please explain.
I have and no where in all the documents does it give the federal government the right to make laws covering marriage and abortion those are and shoild have always been up to the individual states not the federal government.
When any government employee or elected official Lie or conspire to lie/stretch the truth or make up laws then there is no law, just a fight for survival. This video is why for the past 40-50 years We The People have become scared of our government from the lowest paid clerk at city hall right up to the president to the point that we no longer want to join or create coalitions to hold our government accountable for their actions. We need More transparences in all aspects of our government.
Add to their criminal acts, the fact that they advocate and support “democracy”, a word that is never uttered in the Constitution or Declaration. section 4 guarantees a Republican form of government, which has nothing to do to do with the Republican Party.
And conservatives denigrate and do their level best to deny Article I, Section 8, especially the welfare clause. Branding entitlements evil, but interestingly, entitlements have another name, enumerated rights.
I learned that our federal government is doing a whole lot that they should NOT be doing. Things that perhaps should be done by the individual States OR maybe are better left to the local authorities OR even by the citizens for themselves. TY for the education, maybe those in Washington DC could use a refresher course. But really it We, the People who are to blame for tolerating this blatant overreach.
We the People aren't intelligent enough to realize what real issues are. We pander to the weak & crying so we forget about everything else that has been lost.
And yet the 10th Amendment has been totally ignored since 1860. The federal government thereby has assumed far too many unconstitutional powers Also there really isnt anything vague about Article III. Its forthright and specifically states what enumerated powers belong to the federal government. Anything not mentioned is retained by the sovereign states.
It wasn’t too bad in the immediate aftermath of the civil war; just reaffirmation of federal supremacy. It started getting ignored in the 1930s, when FDR blackmailed SCOTUS into upholding his unconstitutional New Deal.
more since 1937. federal supremacy was reaffirmed after the Civil War, but it wasn't until the New Deal that the federal government would really intrude into everyday affairs. during the Gilded Age, for example, it was states who made most labor laws, not the feds.
But... You have forgotten that the ultimate power is the People Thereof. If you read again... amendment 10... you'll see that it declares at the end: OR THE PEOPLE. not just the State since it is about the People to protect the People. So, the Federal and State must be NOT above People as it has come to now days. WE THE PEOPLE of the United States of America must remember not only the what and how but the why and where too. Thank you for sharing. Blessings!🙏 SHALOM!😁
@@paulrodgers252 It isn't. What is said however, is that other than a few specific things, ALL other issues were always meant to be states rights issues. Period. Further, the power structure is supposed to be Federal answers to state, answers to the people. Somewhere, that somehow got reversed.
@@CommanderRedEXE all the United States States, all 50 States, Government Officers and the United States Government Officers ‘shall be bound to support this Constitution’ as establish in the United States Constitution Article VI.3 since 17 September 1787; the problem is civil infestation in the Officers Offices in the United States of America;
This is outstanding! Why don’t more people visit here?! I’m hoping there’s more of the same. I miss channel and will binge watch whatever you have! 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
The 10th Amendment also includes powers retained by the People. Reading "or the people" out of it strips the people, from who the power is derived, from the ability to grant limited power to the State as well. This effectively nullifies state constitutions specifically enumerated powers vested to a State governing body, and gives them all power not vested in the Federal government. Don't fall into that trap.
Daughter of 35 year Civics HS teachers and Constitutional scholars. Cumero vs the California Teachers union. Took 8 years the SC Agreed with my father William Cumero. Taxation without Representation. Well Done! 5 Star's for the 4th Amendment 🎉🎉🎉
Skipped right over the ending clause of the 10th Amendment - the men who wrote the USC put a great deal of emphasis into the final clauses…but we wouldn’t want to discuss that, reminding people of their personal responsibilities in protecting people’s liberties.
It would be great if the federal government stuck to big picture topics. Mandatory 30 day sessions every quarter…then go back home to work a regular job.
@@mmancino1982 Only an idiot would think a country with over 100 times the population now compared to when it was founded, would think that original style of government is still applicable.
And NO legislation unless it was really, really, really needed. This notion of creating 7-headed hydra, consisting of 8,000 pages of arcane language cross-referenced with 3,000 other HUGE documents has got to STOP. Simple, straightforward, one or two-sentence rules, painstakingly sculpted for clarity. TINY government! 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
@@milesbowen9433 Oh really? Now ask those same people if their employer represents them better than the government. I’d like you to show me a single person who would agree, versus the hundreds of millions of americans who actually involve themselves politically.
One part that was glossed over (actually wasn't even mentioned) is the end statement of the 10th Amendment: "...or to the people". This is a critical component of the 10th Amendment and in essence, Article IV of The Constitution. Please make a video stressing the importance of and the role that "the people" play within our system of governance.
I've had many people mention this and I agree. When writing the video script, I'm usually making sure I hit educational standards for the students to learn for their class/state test (Which was mostly article 4 and federalism). My big regret for this video is not spending more time on the 10th amendment including the people. I can definitely focus more on amendment 10 in a future video.
Yeah, but they get so many things wrong! These United States are NOT one Nation and NOT a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic protecting the smallest minority -- the individual -- from would-be democracies. And we are a Country consisting of 50 *_Nation States_* (Ref: Black's Law Dictionary). 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
The constitution doesn't give the states or federal government any powers it tells the states and federal government what they can or cannot do from we the people.
It most certainly gives the feds and state power just as you stayed when you said “it tells them what they CAN and cannot do.” Perhaps what you were trying to say is the constitution is more about what the government cannot do than it is about what it can do.
Well, I learned something new by watching the video, but I learned even more by reading the comments so thanks to EVERYONE for your comments and the video!! Plus you got a new subscriber.
they had on saturday mornings in the 60's and 70's cartoon skits on tv that taught the kids about the constitution the bill of rights and the preamble to the constitution and the revolutionary war but the networks took all that off the air in what is called the dumbing down of the united states
Very nice. It gets past the sticky spot because of the magnetic spin and the angle of the magnets but as you see it winds down. I have 2 similar setups that get kentic energy from the attraction to get past the sticky spot. One is a pendulum that goes to noon and falls back down slowly when dropped from 2 pm. The other is a PM that passes over several metal plates with gaps which was Butch Lafonte's idea. Norman
Marriage is not controlled by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The validity of marriage is determined by the rules governing conflicts of law. The general conflicts rule is that a marriage valid at the place of celebration is valid everywhere, unless the marriage offends the strong public policy of the forum. For example, a state is not required to recognize a marriage that is incestuous or polygamous. The obligation to recognize interracial marriages (Loving v. Virginia) and obligation to recognize same sex marriages (Obergefell v. Hodges) comes from the Equal Protection Clause, not the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Tenth Amendment does not refer to powers "expressly" or "specifically" granted to the federal government. That language was in the Articles of Confederation, but it was not carried over into the Constitution.
Why would anyone involve the government in a personal relationship ? If two people want a union then form a corporation that defines every aspect of the business and sign a contract.
The 10th starts out with, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution," which seems pretty cut and dry. It doesn't require any qualifiers such as 'expressly' or 'specifically'.
Excellent! Thank you! As an EXPat raising young Americans overseas, you helped me with my grandson's home school homework in away that freed him from my own suspect interpretations of the important intricacies within Article 4 of our Constitution. Further, I would have completely missed how Article 4 and the 10th Amendment form the concept and structure of Federalism without ever calling it "Federalism".
I'm glad I'm not the only one to pick up on that LIE. They also LIED by calling *_These_* United States a "nation," instead of a *_Country_* consisting of 50 Nation States. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
@@viverra Don't think so. Certainly, there were representatives, and there were democratic elements. *_BUT there were numerous ANTI-DEMOCRATIC elements,_* including power to the states (see 10th Amendment), the election of senators by state legislatures, and the Electoral College. Many of the Founding Fathers explicitly wrote against democracy, shying away from including the word in the main founding documents. The reason is simple: *_consolidation of power, even with the people,_* was anti-American, and dangerous. It took a British historian a century later to put this sentiment into words with great clarity: *_Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely._* "Power TO the people" is a *_Communist_* slogan (and LIE). America is NOT based on this, but on "Power FROM the People." 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
@@viverraeven if that was true we hear the term democracy all the time. So to the point of the comment it’s a republic it’s not a democracy. To your point, start using the full term representative democracy. Nobody says representative democracy. They say democracy which is incorrect.
8:57. The Bill of Right don't give the individual anything. It restricts the power of the government. Inidially Federal, but also State governments under the 14th Amendment.
@@bullettube9863 You misunderstand. These natural rights and rights already enumerated in common law are rights we already have. What the Bill of Rights does is provide a written reminder to lawmakers to not restrict these rights. Any right 'granted' can be removed, which makes them not 'rights' but 'privileges'. Even at that, we have to fight for some of these rights that certain governmental powers wish that We the People did not have, simply by being a person.
@@bullettube9863 Inalienable rights mean a LOT to me. The Bill of Rights was added to essentially guarantee that some shlub doesn't decide to remove an ipso facto 'inalienable' right just because no one was paying attention. There was much argument that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary because these rights were self-evident. Yet, our government _has_ attempted to infringe on many of our rights despite the presence of the Bill of Rights. Color me confused; I am unsure how you came to the conclusion that our inalienable rights meant nothing to me.
Should also discuss amendment 9. Amendment 10... "or to the people" It seems people and the government have forgotten what the constitution is. We the people have granted limited power to the government, rather than the government granting us limited rights.
This explanation tells me very much. I makes me think about our legislators of our government. How many of them can at least recite the Preamble of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? We need to adjust the requirements to allow a legislators to take our government's offices. 😊
If you ever question the US Constitution, all you have to do is question as to why OTHER countries copied out constitution and also as to WHY out country has been whole for over 200 years when other countries have fragmented and gone thru multiple iterations including Communism, Socialism, Dictatorships and Tyrannies. Our constitution was created to stop those.
We need to enforce section four of article four that says, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...". 😃
With the caveat that "Republican" in this context has nothing to do with the Republican Party, just as the "Bull Moose" party had nothing to do with Moose. It's just a name they adopted. Also remember the Constitution says nothing about political parties, and many of the Founders thought political parties should be avoided.
Much like the Chevron Doctrine, the ICC expansion by SCOTUS is the one doctrine I'd love to see reversed. The fact that a gun manufacturer uses parts made in different States should not give Congress legal control over gun manufacturers. The fact that an item is made in one State and sold in others should not give Congress control over the regulation of that industry. The fact that a welfare recipient decides to move from a State with low benefits to one with much higher benefits should not give the Courts or Congress the power to dictate how much he should receive in the new State. The fact that pro-sports are played by teams in multiple States should not give Congress the authority to investigate controversies or impose laws in that arena. Anyone else remember the hearings about steroid use when they should have been focused on balancing the budget and a myriad of other matters?
As in the federal government has totally misused and misinterpreted what 'to regulate commerce between the Several States' actually meant. It only meant to keep commerce regular since the states were interfering with commerce with tariffs and taxes. It never meant regulate in our modern understanding of the word.
In my eyes, the Constitution is an AMAZING document. This country hasn't had a competent POTUS, legislative branch or state government worth its weight in salt in well over 50 years, and yet we're still rolling. Admittedly, someone's going to have to grab the steering wheel soon. You can't just blindly rely on autopilot... Thank you for the episode!
@@RodMartinJr I would put money on it sir and if our founding fathers were around and they would be calling for a revolution and do everything I can to overthrow sickening system that is in place nowadays. Truly believe that with all my heart. I could be wrong and most people would say I'm wrong but I really don't think I am.
@@CD3WD-Project Amen! But with *_humility_* we remain open to learn new things. And I only recently learned that the John Birch Society (JBS) has been fighting the Deep State throughout most of my 74 years. Their video, "Overview of America," turned my head around. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
Yes, and a democratic republic is a government that revolves around the citizenry who uses a democratic process to elect public servants of various kinds. A democracy is a government that revolves around what a minority of individuals representing interests decide by vote or veto. In a republic, only citizens are guaranteed the freedom and liberties assured by the Constitution and Amendments. A democracy makes those things negotiable and may provide them to non citizens for an extended period (talking institutions vs human beings). In a republic, the citizens determine the direction of the nation, and in a democracy, anyone the central government allows to vote can participate in such things (corporations deciding the direction the nation will go in, for example.) A mob rule scenario has no vote, no central power, no agency, and laws really don't exist because one mob or the other will run things their way (chaotically) and will fight for supremacy over another. All that takes is getting groups of people riled up whether what information is used is genuine, true or neither. So, a democracy retains centralized power but reserves it for an elite group, forcing everyone else to abide their rules. That's basically Marxist and will lead to communism and slavery.
Its important to also consider the Declaration of Independence, as well as the Preamble when looking at any of the parts of the Constitution. Everything starts with The People (who have a set of unalienable rights from their "creator")...then the People, through the Constitution grant certain powers to the federal government (its essentially the same at the state level...its starts with the People)...anything not specifically granted (through it, or the various amendments) is reserved for the States and the People. The first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, which were ratified along with the Constitution..place a further set of specific restrictions on the government.
Article 4 is exactly why LTC reciprocity from most states is unconstitutional. Every state should recognize the legal documents of another state such as marriage license drivers license, but they fail to do so of our LTC. As well as they don’t treat others the same in issuing their state license to carry as well… they will issue residents their own license but to those out of state.
@@lukeasacher nope you don’t, but you know what states I am referring too. NH is sue if Mass because you all have a lot of residents that go into MASs.
@@williamwofford2503 problem is, those items aren’t being issued licenses… or legal documents. The constitution just said they have to recognize legal documents.
we the people trust in God no government to give freedom no cops to hand out justice in God we trust no politicians to tell the truth or do there jobs exactly your jobs and duty as we the people we make them freedom isn't free justice isn't given we trust in God here and police government it doesn't police the people or it becomes the injust system dollars on your heads and they couldn't build prisons fast enough and would fall into civil war destroying itself from within without my right this country's foundation and only protection from the enemy within since day one government and the unbais unopinionated fact checked news we understand exactly how to find truth and make politicians tell the truth and do there jobs exactly your jobs as we the people we fact check news and sheriff interprets law we interpret justice following no law decide guilt on injust no injust not guilty and the state can't be the victim or it becomes the injust system dollars on your heads and they couldn't build prisons fast enough and would fall into civil war destroying itself from within without my right this country's foundation and only protection from the enemy within since day one government and the unbais unopinionated fact checked news we fact check news and interpret justice following no law is out job and duty as we the people freedom isn't free justice isn't given.
When you're granted a bail request one of the conditions is you waive your Fourth amendment That means wherever you are the police can come in and search the house It doesn't have to be your residence the only restrictions would you have to prove that you weren't in other rooms of the home therefore they would restrict how far they could search. Remember any argument you make in court is billable hours for your attorney including preparing for the court appearance
An individual keeping and bearing arms (as in knives, swords, armor, pole arms and firearms) is, under the 2nd Amendment, a right, while driving a car on public roads is considered by the state governments to be a privilege, regulated by law.
To be perfectly honest, the Second Amendment does not require carry permits (concealed or open) and the 'shall not be infringed' portion of the Second applies to all the States. So technically, all US citizens should be able to carry across State lines with whatever arms they choose without any piece of paper issued by a State. We're not there yet, but it's looking like SCOTUS will be addressing the issue in varying degrees during this upcoming term. Hopefully, one day, we'll be able to carry as the Second Amendment intended without fear of prosecution in any State.
@@libertycosworth8675 A license to carry issued by one State should be honored by all States. And all States should have to issue licenses to carry under the same terms and conditions to an out-of-state applicant as they do to their own residents.
@@brennaballen9783 Ultimately, because of the NSRPA v Bruen and DC v Heller decisions, a license to carry (concealed or otherwise) may end up being determined as unnecessary since you can't require a license for a right which applies to the people, and keeping and bearing arms entails allowing carry in any venue where the government is unable to completely ensure the safety of the people present. Failing that, they may rule that, any state LTC would be facially valid in all states.
That depends what party is in office, selective prosecution. Hillary and Biden no charges, Trump gets charged. DOJ says Hillary didn't mean to, and Joe is just to old, but Trump is a threat to democracy. See how that works?
There is a lot of intermixing of rights and responsibilities between the two and we need to adjust the rules to justify that. Educational standards is one that should be the same across all states. You should not have to figure out what the standard is of another state when trying to hire an out of stater. Just my thoughts in that but really you can't have a high school education be more if a middle school standard from another state. I'm sure there are other issues that need fed and state cooperation such as transportation and environment, just to name two.
we the people trust in God no government to give freedom no cops to hand out justice in God we trust no politicians to tell the truth or do there jobs exactly your jobs and duty as we the people we make them freedom isn't free justice isn't given we trust in God here and police government it doesn't police the people or it becomes the injust system dollars on your heads and they couldn't build prisons fast enough and would fall into civil war destroying itself from within without my right this country's foundation and only protection from the enemy within since day one government and the unbais unopinionated fact checked news we understand exactly how to find truth and make politicians tell the truth and do there jobs exactly your jobs as we the people we fact check news and sheriff interprets law we interpret justice following no law decide guilt on injust no injust not guilty and the state can't be the victim or it becomes the injust system dollars on your heads and they couldn't build prisons fast enough and would fall into civil war destroying itself from within without my right this country's foundation and only protection from the enemy within since day one government and the unbais unopinionated fact checked news we fact check news and interpret justice following no law is out job and duty as we the people freedom isn't free justice isn't given.
If you mean a direct town-meeting type of democracy, yes. But on the level of nation-states, and also of sub-national states, “democracy” is understood to mean “representative democracy.” A “constitutional republic” could be a dictatorship with unlimited power given (by the constitution) to the dictator and NO representation of the people’s will, or a republic with majority vote to choose representatives, defined terms and defined procedures for exceptional circumstances (e.g. American style impeachment, or parliamentary style no confidence votes and snap elections), with the stipulation that when power is removed by those limits, the incumbent MUST accede to the peaceful transfer of power. Thus, the United States is, in theory, a DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, and some dictatorships such as Russia are UNDEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLICS.
The speaker says that Article IV maintains order and democracy. Out country is not a democracy, thank God and the forefathers, and no where in the Constitution is the word democracy used. Democracy ia a majority of 1. The 10th Amendment is never cited to shut the pie holes of abortion rights activists yet it should be. Abortion rights is not an enumerated power and it is not a "big picture" such as declaring war, miinting currency, etc. so overturning Roe vs. Wade going back to state control is the correct thing to do.
@4speed3pedals the ninth amendment says there are unenumerated rights retained by the people. So, not everything needs to be written in the constitution.
The 9th amendment says that just because a right was not listed in the first 8 amendments does not mean a right doesn't exist. Federal law always transcends state law, and the Roe vs Wade decision said the government has to respect a women's right to privacy pertaining to abortion. The right to privacy is in the 4th amendment, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses etc". This amendment over ruled any state law for thirty years until the SCOTUS over ruled it. Our country is a Democratic Republic, ie a democracy, and don't you ever forget it!
The Constitution establishes a federal democratic republic form of government. That is, we have an indivisible union of 50 sovereign States. It is a democracy because people govern themselves. It is representative because people choose elected officials by free and secret ballot.
did you read the Constitution of the United States of America complete? then Amendment XIV? ‘democracy’ is not establish any where in the Constitution where as military office is;
Many of the comments here are people selectively extracting and interpreting sentences and paragraphs to emphasize their preconceived ideas (which are often preconceived idiocy in reality). It is worthwhile to have some basic civics addressed on UA-cam. This was my first video on this channel, so I'll withhold criticism and commentary of the video directly. And I will look to see if the Preamble is covered, as it ought to be. The Preamble is the guidepost of the Constitution. It is what We The People wish to achieve, and the whole body of the Constitution should be viewed through the lens of the Preamble. It is fairly short, and fairly clear. We're a union trying to be more perfect. We share the burdens of effort to Establish Justice. Ensure Domestic Tranquility, Provide for the Common Defense, Promote the General Welfare, and Secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity. The states have no right to work against this. They must have governments that do not differ from these ideals.
Except that the federal government was actually supposed to be very limited in their powers. "General Welfare" is a great example of Congress, having violated their oaths of office for nearly 120 years now. "General welfare", according to James Madison's own comments in the 1792 Cod Fishery bill, was never supposed to allow the Federal government to control redistribution of wealth, nor to "be benevolent from the general treasury".
"Was actually" statements are only as good as the argument behind it. The countless challenges to the laws regarding federal spending have thus far failed to show that they violate the Constitution. Your interpretation that Congress is violating their oath because they have been passing laws and spending money in ways you think don't align with the Constitution, is only valid in your mind. The Constitution was Amended 17 times since Madison wrote those words. Included was the 16th, which allows taxing income. This sounds like the Constitution authorizing the redistribution of wealth, at least according to how you seem to mean that phrase. The Constitution has a built in mechanism for change over time to meet the needs of the People, who collectively hold power.
@@jacobew2000 "Except that the federal government was actually supposed to be very limited in their powers" Baloney. Madison can say whatever he wants, he's one of many founders and was outvoted. The constitution states quite clearly that most power is to be held by the Congress but that the other two branches were to be restricted. The exec was to be limited because they didn't want a king, and the judiciary was to be limited because they didn't want unelected politicians cosplaying "justice" in black robes becoming dictators. You won't find the phrase "co-equal branches" anywhere in the constitution. The Congress was given the power to pass whatever laws it saw fit. If they passed a bad law, the constitutional remedy was to have a new law written to replace it. Instead, we now have the Court meddling with the Congress which is the branch closes to the people and the only branch the founders gave real power to.
@@havable I can say baloney on that, based on what the founding fathers actually passed into law with the Constitution. It took the 14th Amendment to apply the Federal Constitution upon the states. There was a clear separation of powers until then. No, Congress does not have unlimited powers. They have only the powers enumerated in Article 1. Nothing in those powers lists things like the EPA, nor the Department of Education. There is no "limiting powers", only DESIGNATED POWERS. Justices are not "becoming dictators" by striking down clearly unconstitutional laws that the Congress has passed. The Judiciary decides what is Constitutional. That is the power invested into the judiciary, by the Constitution. Congress is limited in their powers, as designated in article 1. Congress has the power to override with a Constitutional Amendment process, or the states can grab back all their powers, with an Article 5 convention of states. Ultimately, the states have the final say over EVERYTHING THAT CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENT, or COURTS do. What you are describing, of Congress having "unlimited powers", is not in our Constitution. What you describe is what is called a "Banana Republic". Where only the legislative and executive branches have any say in the government. Sorry, but the Courts have say in what is Constitutional or not. That is a check upon the Congress going amok, and becoming tyrannical.
What's interesting about The United States Constitution is that there is no EXPLICIT protection of bodily autonomy. Which means it's kicked down to the states. I'm not just talking slavery (which was abolished via constitutional amendment) or abortion rights (which now recently isn't). It means the right to do drugs, engage in sex work, or to perform suicide and/or euthanasia is a states issue rather than a federal one. That's why there are small areas in Nevada that have legal sex work and no where else in the country. Or the use of marijuana is state by state. And now abortion is not a nationally protected right anymore. Oh, and the ages of sexual consent is also state by state (gross). The history of America would be completely different if bodily autonomy was part of the Bill of Rights. (But, hey, we got the post office and copyright laws in there.)
The right to privacy is in the 4th amendment, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses etc". Roe Vs Wade was about the right of a woman to keep her abortion private from the government. On the other issues, since the founders couldn't know everything in advance they included the 9th and 10th amendments.
@@bullettube9863fine, but right to privacy is not the same as a right to perform a specific act. That is the monumental flaw in trying to connect abortion rights to privacy. Privacy is about protection from others knowing what you're doing, NOT a planet protection that anything you do in private is legal.
@@bullettube9863 why go back and read (again) an extremely flawed judgement, that even leftist jurist felt was terrible vis-a-vis actually passing constitutional muster. I would also point out, you did virtually nothing to refute the substance and logic of my post. Here endeth the lesson.
@@Mst-bh9ti Sorry, but as I said if you read the court's final answer they cited the 9th and 14th amendments as protecting the right to abortion. The present court disagreed with this on flimsy grounds because they are conservative and more interested in lining their pockets.
Good Job! A few points of clarification: Citizens are NOT a party to the US CONstitution. See Paddelford case. Those with an oath of office or contract to perform public services SHALL perform such services accordingly, ie Constitution, statutes, etc. The government has a LAWFUL fiduciary duty to protect the people and their property. The People have unalienable rights, ie the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, WITH THE unlimited right to contract or NOT contract. If the People CONSENT to accept a "benefit from government, ie civil liberties, TOO, accept the liability that goes with such benefit". Unalienable rights are superior and are Creator freely given, while civil rights are rights that are here today, and gone tomorrow and are political in nature in order to obtain votes and further enslavement of the People. Consent makes the law. With this stated, keep in mind, WE DO NOT have government today. We have an infiltrated criminal cartel APPEARING as government whereas TODAY, it is the people's duty to protect the financial benefit of those IN government rather than the intent and fiduciary duty of the government to protect the people. It's flipped around. In other words, we the People are nothing more, legally, than chattel sh*t for the government. The fact that CONgress CONSENTS to operate the US under a perpetual bankruptcy, THUS the fact that Federal Reserve Notes are still in USE TODAY MEANS, the People are helpless enslave to a private central private bank cartel. One can NOT own ANY property located within the US since it has not been PAID for ONLY purchased with USE RIGHTS rather than ownership rights. Do you get it?
Wait til you hear about what the Nato/EU/UN want to do. google this statement and it should take you right to it: "World leaders today adopted a Pact for the Future that includes a Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future Generations. This Pact is the culmination of an inclusive, years-long process to adapt international ... "
@@Au_Ag_ratio5021 Person, people or any other "term" is meaningless in regard to THEIR obligations. Bottom line, THEY have an oath of office, THEY have a duty, THEY have to perform, THEY are the trustees. THEIR RULES, their laws, their duty - NOT me. I have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness CONDITIONED upon no harm to others in order to trigger them to "perform" a duty. See? We have the unlimited right and free will to join their sandbox profit system, but it will cost us.
Well done. This should be required viewing for all elected officials, and add local & county also. And also for all government drones, I mean tyrants, n I nean employees. At all levels.
That's because Tom Jefferson made up a smear about democracy. He said it was two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch. But the reality is that its 99 sheep telling one wolf that nobody is going to eat anyone. Jefferson was that wolf. He was the top 1% enslaver, telling the sheep that they should vote to have wolves eat them. Our current set-up is we have two judges who represent wolves for every judge who represents sheep (forget congress, our laws are all written by the Supreme Court now). Jefferson's vision finally came to pass, and its only possible through a "republic" which means, these days, "rule by the rich." Back when Franklin called us a "republic" all republic meant was "we don't have a king." That's still what it means in Europe.
Article 1 States " the Peoples of the Americas have a Right to Democracy and the Government has an obligation to promote and defend it ,"......!!!!! Wat are you talking about,........?
@@tboned70 The Peoples of Americas? I'm afraid that is not a real quote. Please do a word search within a free copy of the US Constitution. It never mentions "democracy".
How about the enumerated powers of the Departments of Education, Health & Human Services, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior (which steps directly on states rights).
Probably all unconstitutional and should be done away with. If anything, the states should send representatives for each department for a advisor position. Basically they compare notes with suggestions, and each state has the final say.
@@AJ-vm8ft There has been no amendment that stripped the states of thier power control education, and gave it to the federal government. As far as a well organized militia, yes it is a good idea. What was your question specifically about?
7:20 - it is more like that the Constitution gives the authorities & responsibilities to the Federal Govmt, and that anything not specifically given to the Federal Govmt belongs to the States; rather than the Federal Govmt ‘gives’ to the States (being a little picky on language, but it does have importance on how powers are seen & from where they originate.
@@tboned70 Where in the Constitution does it say that we are a democracy? Article 4, section 4 says that we are a Republic. "the Republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind". Thomas Jefferson letter to William Hunter 1790
Sorry. You lost me before 2:00. The Articles of Confederation were vastly superior to the vaunted Constitution. Too bad well-enough had not been left alone. Sigh!
The articles of confederation did not define how to execute law. The ideas were there, but in the form of a document that would never hold water today. A small bit of understanding of our court systems would change your mind.
The articles of Confederation were mob rule of the states. Basically, it would had destroyed the states themselves if that had been allowed to stand. There was no ability for the Federal government to regulate trade, especially between the states. Could not tax to provide for the common defense. Could not conduct foreign agreements without states overriding each other, or even having separate trade agreements. The Federal government could not enforce requests for an Army in an invasion. It would had resulted in splittering of the states into factions against each other. The Civil war would had happened by the 1810s if Britain had succeeded in their invasion. The reason why Britain was unable to win, was because of the Federal government was able to quickly raise troops, even from states that refused at first to send their militias.
The Welfare clause of the Constitution does not define an addition power of the central government but serves as a limiting qualifier on the explicitly enumerated powers of the central government. This was explained by the author of that clause, James Madison, in the "Federalist Papers.
Thanks!
The Second Amendment does not grant We The People the right to bear arms.
The Second Amendment denies the Government the authority to infringe upon We The People's God given right to bear arms.
This video is so very helpful. I graduated from high-school in 1971. Lets bring back real education and rid of the nonsense.
❤
❤
Whaaaaaat? Where else are grade schoolers going to learn that they might have been born the wrong gender? Or that dedication, commitment and effort don't matter, that as long as you participate you're guaranteed to get a trophy? Or that you might have been born "privileged" so that makes you every kind of "ist" (rac-,sex-) or "phobic"?
Me too!!! I can’t believe what they aren’t teaching in school but then again I can’t believe what they are teaching ! We’re in upside down world right now!!!!
@@krisbeynon9600
My 7th grader in Florida is studying Civics.
You got much of the crux of Article 4 correct, but you failed to mention "the people" when discussing the 10th amendment. When you detoured (appropriately) into discussing the the Bill of Rights, you implied that for the most part, the Bill of Rights actually "grants" people rights, missing the principle that the amendments which make up the Bill of Rights are there to make it clear that our rights are not "GIVEN" by the government, but that the Bill of Rights actually just recognizes what the founders considered as foundational or pre-existing rights that the government may not restrict or infringe upon.
The Tenth Amendment is a truism. It says there is a line that the federal government may not cross, but it does not tell us where that line is. More importantly, the Tenth Amendment does not withdraw any of the powers granted to the federal government by the original seven articles. See United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941) (upholding the constitutionality of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938). Also, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendment, adopted shortly after the Civil War, transferred a huge amount of power from the states to the federal government and by default, to the federal judiciary, which, pursuant to Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution, has authority to decide issues arising under the Constitution.
Actually the constitution DOESN'T directly guarantee those as "rights Americans are born with" like most people who can't read correctly, falsely claim it says, the government DOES GIVE you those freedoms and promises to RESPECT them, not GUARANTEE them, it directly says this by using the word respect instead of guarantee directly...but they can still revoke them at any time if its ratified by the majority or a specific state respectively or it still means they can restrict it...a great example is gun rights, it doesn't GUARANTEE everyone the right to own weapons(otherwise there would be no age restrictions and children could own guns,etc, etc.) it GIVES them the right to do so, and it respects that right BUT it CAN be taken away IF the majority of states vote in favor of it... when they say "not infringed" that doesn't mean you can't REGULATE or control who owns guns. It just means you can't outright ban them nationwide... There's a huge difference that everyone gets wrong.... everyone reads the constitution however they want, and thats why the judicial system is so important... but each specific word carries its own weight. You are NOT BORN with ANY rights. You are GIVEN rights that are then promised to be RESPECTED... big difference.
@@evanneal4936Disagree. The Constitution doesn't give anything, it simply a list of things the federal government can't do. To use your example, it just says the government can't infringe the 2A. Nowhere does it give people permission to have arms. It does recognize that arms are " necessary to the security of a free state".
There are rights you ARE born with. You have the right to live, defend yourself, and the ones you love, and create any form of art however you want.
@@evanneal4936 Strongly disagree.. because we also have the 9th Amendment, which clarifies article 4. Article 9 says that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.". Meaning that the citizens have their rights FIRST. Article 4 is a restriction on the government, not the people.
The 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The word "delegates", means that the people have temporarily loaned those responsibilities, as designated in the Constitution, to the government. But the people ultimately still retains those rights.
Regulate in the 2nd amendment does not mean "banned", nor "controlled by government". In the 1767 dictionary, it meant "put into good order". The only thing the government required, which was actually required by THE PEOPLE, through their representatives, if they organized themselves into a militia (not government, the people organized it themselves), then those showing up had to have THE SAME GUNS AS AN INFANTRY UNIT WOULD HAVE. Same rifles, same bullets, even the same cannons. Congress asked private shipowners, during the War of 1812 "do you have enough cannons?". Not that they would have to join the US Navy.
Yes there is an Amendment process, but even if the 2nd Amendment was to be repealed... the NATURAL RIGHT would remain. All the rights in the Bill of Rights, would still remain, even if the majority repealed them. The founding fathers believed that every man was in fact "Born with certain unalienable rights". The right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was not to be controlled, nor banned by the government. It was always going to be there. That includes the human right to have arms for self defense, from tyranny, both foreign and domestic.
Everyone is ignoring the strongest, most important part of the Constitution. It begins with We the People. This 52 word "Preamble" encapsulates the entire meaning of the entire document and all the Amendments. The Document is Ordained by the People as a whole. Everything in the body of the Constitution is a minimal road map of how We achieve the requirements of the Preamble. We the People, not any government entity, State or Federal, Congress, the President, or the courts own the Constitution. It is We the People that define and defend the Constitution.
We the People include All who work for the People, Sir,.....!!!
As important as it may be, I believe our first 10 amendments AKA "Bill of Rights" are equally as important to hold on to with a tight grip in order to keep them protected at all costs. Just saying...
The PreAmble requires Not just the rights of the Individual but also the rights of the whole, the community. Both have rights. Both must have balance. (I consider this nearly impossible, but…let’s go!!!) The Preamble also nullifies the nonsense that any god created this country. The Preamble also keeps “we the people” looking forward and not just backward, as many seem to want to do today.
We the People did not mean the whole population. It meant rich white land owners. They were the only ones allowed to vote because they were the only ones considered people. Women weren't even considered people for another 150 years after that was written.
We the People of the ; or several States sovereign ,as a matter of form the "United States" was wording in final draft .
Note the final page of document, signatures of the delegates.
Today, iys shifyed to more like ,We the People of the free democratic state of OurDemocracy .
Just the reese's mention of the reese's term, reese's States reese's Rights , is considered reese's, and you're a reese's for saying it, reese's.
sorry. not sorry.
It's beyond jarring that the 1st Amendments freedom of speech being veiwed as an obstacle , an impediment to the government's ability to govern;
It serves at times to hamstring the ability of the govt to do its job..
It's not the AOc, or some wingnut saying it. It's Tim Jong Walz. HRC. The activist on the SCOTUS
“Something we don’t want” is exactly what we have.
Indeed, our Federal Government has overstepped it's authority in literally thousands of bills passed by Congress, mostly through an egregious abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause that was sanctioned by a Supreme Court of little wisdom.
WE THE PEOPLE
Can never be underestimated nor OVERSTATED
ABSOLUTELY! The WHOLE INTENT OF ITS CREATION SIGNED AND “SEALED!”
Lol and who were “the people”?
@@NotFakeNewsss the ones who don't create fake ass accounts and lurk on pRedditr and don't use "lol"
@NotFakeNewsss Most educated Americans and all legal immigrants know the answer is :We.
It should never be MISUNDERSTOOD either. Remember, YOUR interpretation may not be the correct one.
I’m glad to hear you use the word “Civics” to refer to government study, because that’s what they called it back in 1967 when I was a freshman in high school. I’m sorry I wasn’t paying closer attention! It’s never too late to learn! Thank you!
I was a freshman in 1982...it was under the umbrella of "social studies" by then
Thankfully, I was paying attention & I was not a nerd in 1970. My dad told me to pay close attention in that class & I did. 💙
@@janice68329WHAT A SHAME 😢
So now we have to go to UA-cam for what we used to get from school?
Welcome to the federal dept of education...
The federal department of education should only be doling, out money for education to states not mandating educational standards. That department is in clear violation of the constitution.
@@chaddog313 if the federal taxes withheld for education were cut entirely, and that money stayed in state education funding, school performance would rapidly improve...
@@JohnPublic-dk7zd Or at the very least our public schools would be better funded. It will still be up to the parents and school boards to hold the school administrations accountable for scholastic performance.
Sad sad thing
Very enlightening. If only the voters in the USA were familiar with this.
Democraps don't care...
Well the federal government definitely needs to read article 4. Especially that part about protecting states from an invasion..
What do you think MAGA is doing?
@@blueice35270
Huh? Plz explain what your vague comment means - MAGA is not in power and not the one Funding and Facilitating the Criminal Invasion in total violation of Article IV Section 4.
Dumocrazy is a Total Violation of Art IV Section and criminally violated every second by Both parties and all govt servants and 100,000s of Entrenched Govt Employed Criminals...
That's what each branch's general consul does. They review the Constitutionality of actions and legislation.
Invasion, I think you really need to invest in a dictionary. Invasions typically are armed and don't include infants.
But, I do find it interesting how much effort you go through to justify the atrocity inflicted on refugees from MV St Louis.
Sadly current US policy is governed by the UN .
@@spvillanonumbers matter as much as weapons in invasions.
If the numbers are large enough, weapons are hardly necessary.
Unfortunately, neither of the major parties pays attention to Article 4. The federal government is out of control.
Yes, they simply are poor management, our deficit is the prime example of that. And they have forgotten to whom they represent. Now, what to do about this. 🤔
@@ronalddelo8753it actually starts at the very local level. People who work for the government were once called public servants and understood that they actually worked for the citizens. Now they will tell you outright," I do NOT work for the citizens, I work for the government against the citizens." The police are the worst because they are armed against the citizens but it goes for all levels
There is an argument to be made that the major political parties actually, and intentionally, prevent some parts of the Constitution from functioning as written. Could that make political parties unconstitutional?
The word federal is not even in the Constitution FOR the United States of America.
There is no federal government. There is only a national government.
Anyone who realizes what an amazing thing our constitution is should listen to Krisanne Hall. She is fantastic at teaching the constitution with original intent.
Rest assured you will grow outraged when you realize how politicians have failed and citizens have grown debauched and ignorant and allowed it
Absolutely RIGHT
She should be more concerned with the State Constitutions. That is where the power of the people resides. Starting with the local townships. Think of them as mini republics, where the people are to assemble for their common good to redress their grievances. This is why they want to do away with local governments, and consolidate. They are trying to federalize everything, including law enforcement. Thus the “defund” the police movement.
She should be more concerned with the State Constitutions. That is where the power of the people resides. Starting with the local townships. Think of them as mini republics, where the people are to assemble for their common good to redress their grievances. This is why they want to do away with local governments, and consolidate. They are trying to federalize everything, including law enforcement. Thus the “defund” the police movement.
@@bettemcpherson8700I'd like to have a conversation regarding defund the police. Having been the object of police brutality for fun at the hands of a psychopath, and having witnessed tanks rolling down a main street to confront peaceful protest by local citizens, I tend to think that military weapons in local police stations to be used against the citizens might not be a good thing when it comes to retaining our liberty. I don't see funding going to educate cops on protecting citizens against corporate or government abuses, but instead on teaching them how to curtail our individual rights and providing ever more lethal forces(and legal representation) to do so. Please explain.
People don't know the CONSTITUTION THEY HAVE NEVER READ IT,WAKE UP AND KNOW WHAT ITS ABOUT,ALL ARTICLES!!!!!
I think everyone should read all the documents and quit cherry picking!
I have and no where in all the documents does it give the federal government the right to make laws covering marriage and abortion those are and shoild have always been up to the individual states not the federal government.
Sooo
Article 4
Section 4
THEY AREN'T DOING THEIR JOB!!
When any government employee or elected official Lie or conspire to lie/stretch the truth or make up laws then there is no law, just a fight for survival. This video is why for the past 40-50 years We The People have become scared of our government from the lowest paid clerk at city hall right up to the president to the point that we no longer want to join or create coalitions to hold our government accountable for their actions. We need More transparences in all aspects of our government.
Add to their criminal acts, the fact that they advocate and support “democracy”, a word that is never uttered in the Constitution or Declaration. section 4 guarantees a Republican form of government, which has nothing to do to do with the Republican Party.
And conservatives denigrate and do their level best to deny Article I, Section 8, especially the welfare clause. Branding entitlements evil, but interestingly, entitlements have another name, enumerated rights.
I learned that our federal government is doing a whole lot that they should NOT be doing. Things that perhaps should be done by the individual States OR maybe are better left to the local authorities OR even by the citizens for themselves. TY for the education, maybe those in Washington DC could use a refresher course. But really it We, the People who are to blame for tolerating this blatant overreach.
We the People aren't intelligent enough to realize what real issues are. We pander to the weak & crying so we forget about everything else that has been lost.
Much appreciation for your efforts in this presentation. Clear, concise overview. I look forward to more in-depth videos as you grow your channel. THX
And yet the 10th Amendment has been totally ignored since 1860. The federal government thereby has assumed far too many unconstitutional powers
Also there really isnt anything vague about Article III. Its forthright and specifically states what enumerated powers belong to the federal government. Anything not mentioned is retained by the sovereign states.
It wasn’t too bad in the immediate aftermath of the civil war; just reaffirmation of federal supremacy. It started getting ignored in the 1930s, when FDR blackmailed SCOTUS into upholding his unconstitutional New Deal.
Like the federal department of education is unconstitutional
more since 1937. federal supremacy was reaffirmed after the Civil War, but it wasn't until the New Deal that the federal government would really intrude into everyday affairs. during the Gilded Age, for example, it was states who made most labor laws, not the feds.
@jwil4286
Federal supremacy could be seized and it was, but it could not be reaffirmed because it was never written into the constitution
Probably a typo; Article IV, not Article III, which created the Judicial Branch.
Very good. These are things we had to know to graduate high school in the 60's that seems to not be required recently.
But... You have forgotten that the ultimate power is the People Thereof. If you read again... amendment 10... you'll see that it declares at the end: OR THE PEOPLE. not just the State since it is about the People to protect the People. So, the Federal and State must be NOT above People as it has come to now days. WE THE PEOPLE of the United States of America must remember not only the what and how but the why and where too. Thank you for sharing. Blessings!🙏 SHALOM!😁
where is the Word ‘Federal’ in the Constitution of the United States of America to begin with?
@@paulrodgers252 It isn't. What is said however, is that other than a few specific things, ALL other issues were always meant to be states rights issues. Period.
Further, the power structure is supposed to be Federal answers to state, answers to the people. Somewhere, that somehow got reversed.
@@CommanderRedEXE
all the United States States, all 50 States, Government Officers and the United States Government Officers ‘shall be bound to support this Constitution’ as establish in the United States Constitution Article VI.3 since 17 September 1787; the problem is civil infestation in the Officers Offices in the United States of America;
@@paulrodgers252 Very well aware. And we the people keep allowing it with our inaction to do anything about it.
@@CommanderRedEXE
under stand able on your concern and ‘We the People’ over US of A are a ware of this too;
Thus is a great explanation of what the federal and state governments are supposed to do. Now you should do one on what they actually do.
This is outstanding! Why don’t more people visit here?! I’m hoping there’s more of the same. I miss channel and will binge watch whatever you have! 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
The 10th Amendment also includes powers retained by the People. Reading "or the people" out of it strips the people, from who the power is derived, from the ability to grant limited power to the State as well. This effectively nullifies state constitutions specifically enumerated powers vested to a State governing body, and gives them all power not vested in the Federal government. Don't fall into that trap.
Daughter of 35 year Civics HS teachers and Constitutional scholars.
Cumero vs the California Teachers union. Took 8 years the SC Agreed with my father William Cumero. Taxation without Representation.
Well Done! 5 Star's for the 4th Amendment 🎉🎉🎉
Skipped right over the ending clause of the 10th Amendment - the men who wrote the USC put a great deal of emphasis into the final clauses…but we wouldn’t want to discuss that, reminding people of their personal responsibilities in protecting people’s liberties.
It would be great if the federal government stuck to big picture topics. Mandatory 30 day sessions every quarter…then go back home to work a regular job.
right? "Politician" was never supposed to be a career title.
@@mmancino1982 Only an idiot would think a country with over 100 times the population now compared to when it was founded, would think that original style of government is still applicable.
And NO legislation unless it was really, really, really needed. This notion of creating 7-headed hydra, consisting of 8,000 pages of arcane language cross-referenced with 3,000 other HUGE documents has got to STOP. Simple, straightforward, one or two-sentence rules, painstakingly sculpted for clarity. TINY government!
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
The only Taxpayer healthcare, our "representatives" should get is at a VA in their state.
@@johnbland1422 absolutely! And their pussy should be the mean income is their constituents with a stipend for travel to DC.
I learned something new today. Kudos to you! 👍🏾👍🏻👍
Civics" was a favorite; unknowingly, began to learn about, "the law of the land"; from the beginning.
They will teach civics and ethics once again. With the direction of debate and desire for more / less govt education will prevail.
And to the Republic for which it stands.
One nation, under God…..
@@ronalddelo8753 Under God is not original.
@@ronalddelo8753 ...Indivisible, With liberty and justice for all. But somehow that didn't apply to slaves or natives.
@@luddity1865 was a very long time ago. Move on to the present. You were never a slave.
YES!
And both the state and federal governments have overstepped their authority.
Neuter our government, our only form of representation, and instead you’ll give unelected conglomerates 10x the power they already have.
@@gio-ko7kf ask anyone if they feel like their politicians truly represent them
@@milesbowen9433 Oh really? Now ask those same people if their employer represents them better than the government.
I’d like you to show me a single person who would agree, versus the hundreds of millions of americans who actually involve themselves politically.
@@milesbowen9433 Part of the reason why is that our legislatures are too small.
@@milesbowen9433 Ask anyone if they feel that the corporations who would fill up that power vacuum represent them in any way at all.
Beautifully done. Thanks for the clear explanation.
One part that was glossed over (actually wasn't even mentioned) is the end statement of the 10th Amendment: "...or to the people". This is a critical component of the 10th Amendment and in essence, Article IV of The Constitution.
Please make a video stressing the importance of and the role that "the people" play within our system of governance.
I've had many people mention this and I agree. When writing the video script, I'm usually making sure I hit educational standards for the students to learn for their class/state test (Which was mostly article 4 and federalism). My big regret for this video is not spending more time on the 10th amendment including the people. I can definitely focus more on amendment 10 in a future video.
@civicsreview5697 that would be awesome. Thank you.
Thank you. This channel looks like a promising site for clear and easy to understand videos on basic civics.
Yeah, but they get so many things wrong! These United States are NOT one Nation and NOT a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic protecting the smallest minority -- the individual -- from would-be democracies. And we are a Country consisting of 50 *_Nation States_* (Ref: Black's Law Dictionary).
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
Thank you for this instructions, really well done.
The constitution doesn't give the states or federal government any powers it tells the states and federal government what they can or cannot do from we the people.
It does give the federal government a very specific set of powers....most of which they have far exceeded.
It most certainly gives the feds and state power just as you stayed when you said “it tells them what they CAN and cannot do.” Perhaps what you were trying to say is the constitution is more about what the government cannot do than it is about what it can do.
Thank you for sharing this with us 🤲🏾🙏🏾❤️💪🏾
Well, I learned something new by watching the video, but I learned even more by reading the comments so thanks to EVERYONE for your comments and the video!! Plus you got a new subscriber.
6:11 Someone should remind DC of this little fact...
This video was a pleasure to watch. I have studied the historical documents for many years. I already 'get it'.
10th amendment limits the power of the states over the citizens.
So too does the 9th Amendment.
Our first 10 amendments AKA "Bill of Rights," are all protected for the power of the people, my friend. Just saying...
Thank you for a well presented discussion.
Very well explained. Why don't we teach this in grammar school anymore?
they had on saturday mornings in the 60's and 70's cartoon skits on tv that taught the kids about the constitution the bill of rights and the preamble to the constitution and the revolutionary war but the networks took all that off the air in what is called the dumbing down of the united states
Very nice. It gets past the sticky spot because of the magnetic spin and the angle of the magnets but as you see it winds down. I have 2 similar setups that get kentic energy from the attraction to get past the sticky spot. One is a pendulum that goes to noon and falls back down slowly when dropped from 2 pm. The other is a PM that passes over several metal plates with gaps which was Butch Lafonte's idea. Norman
Marriage is not controlled by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The validity of marriage is determined by the rules governing conflicts of law. The general conflicts rule is that a marriage valid at the place of celebration is valid everywhere, unless the marriage offends the strong public policy of the forum. For example, a state is not required to recognize a marriage that is incestuous or polygamous. The obligation to recognize interracial marriages (Loving v. Virginia) and obligation to recognize same sex marriages (Obergefell v. Hodges) comes from the Equal Protection Clause, not the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
The Tenth Amendment does not refer to powers "expressly" or "specifically" granted to the federal government. That language was in the Articles of Confederation, but it was not carried over into the Constitution.
No confederates
Why would anyone involve the government in a personal relationship ?
If two people want a union then form a corporation that defines every aspect of the business and sign a contract.
@jacksnyder7318 As in a Civil Union. Government should not be involved in marriage.
The 10th starts out with, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution," which seems pretty cut and dry. It doesn't require any qualifiers such as 'expressly' or 'specifically'.
@@jacksnyder7318 a corporation is established by a state. It is subject to the laws of every statebin which it "does its business".
Excellent! Thank you! As an EXPat raising young Americans overseas, you helped me with my grandson's home school homework in away that freed him from my own suspect interpretations of the important intricacies within Article 4 of our Constitution. Further, I would have completely missed how Article 4 and the 10th Amendment form the concept and structure of Federalism without ever calling it "Federalism".
Why say article 4 exists to ensure democracy, which is not mentioned? Why not say a republic like article 4?
I'm glad I'm not the only one to pick up on that LIE. They also LIED by calling *_These_* United States a "nation," instead of a *_Country_* consisting of 50 Nation States.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
Because, to the Founders, a republic meant a representative democracy.
@@viverra Don't think so. Certainly, there were representatives, and there were democratic elements. *_BUT there were numerous ANTI-DEMOCRATIC elements,_* including power to the states (see 10th Amendment), the election of senators by state legislatures, and the Electoral College.
Many of the Founding Fathers explicitly wrote against democracy, shying away from including the word in the main founding documents.
The reason is simple: *_consolidation of power, even with the people,_* was anti-American, and dangerous.
It took a British historian a century later to put this sentiment into words with great clarity: *_Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely._*
"Power TO the people" is a *_Communist_* slogan (and LIE). America is NOT based on this, but on "Power FROM the People."
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
@@viverraeven if that was true we hear the term democracy all the time. So to the point of the comment it’s a republic it’s not a democracy. To your point, start using the full term representative democracy. Nobody says representative democracy. They say democracy which is incorrect.
We are technically a Democratic Republic, which is that we describe our country as a democracy, which also means most power resides with the people.
Very good explanation! I had a vague notion of the government works, but this video brought things into focus for me. Thanks!
8:57. The Bill of Right don't give the individual anything. It restricts the power of the government. Inidially Federal, but also State governments under the 14th Amendment.
So the right to a jury trial isn't given to the people? The right to bear arms only pertains to bears? Better go back to school!
@@bullettube9863 You misunderstand.
These natural rights and rights already enumerated in common law are rights we already have.
What the Bill of Rights does is provide a written reminder to lawmakers to not restrict these rights.
Any right 'granted' can be removed, which makes them not 'rights' but 'privileges'.
Even at that, we have to fight for some of these rights that certain governmental powers wish that We the People did not have, simply by being a person.
@@danahansen5427 So according to you, "inalienable rights" means nothing?
@@bullettube9863 Inalienable rights mean a LOT to me. The Bill of Rights was added to essentially guarantee that some shlub doesn't decide to remove an ipso facto 'inalienable' right just because no one was paying attention.
There was much argument that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary because these rights were self-evident. Yet, our government _has_ attempted to infringe on many of our rights despite the presence of the Bill of Rights.
Color me confused; I am unsure how you came to the conclusion that our inalienable rights meant nothing to me.
You wrote: Any right 'granted' can be removed, which makes them not 'rights' but 'privileges'.
Should also discuss amendment 9.
Amendment 10... "or to the people"
It seems people and the government have forgotten what the constitution is.
We the people have granted limited power to the government, rather than the government granting us limited rights.
I appreciate this channel very much. Good work here!
I got a chuckle when he said limited federal government.
This explanation tells me very much. I makes me think about our legislators of our government. How many of them can at least recite the Preamble of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? We need to adjust the requirements to allow a legislators to take our government's offices. 😊
They should be required to take a course in the constitution in order to take office.
Excellent refresher course!
If you ever question the US Constitution, all you have to do is question as to why OTHER countries copied out constitution and also as to WHY out country has been whole for over 200 years when other countries have fragmented and gone thru multiple iterations including Communism, Socialism, Dictatorships and Tyrannies. Our constitution was created to stop those.
We need to enforce section four of article four that says, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...". 😃
With the caveat that "Republican" in this context has nothing to do with the Republican Party, just as the "Bull Moose" party had nothing to do with Moose. It's just a name they adopted. Also remember the Constitution says nothing about political parties, and many of the Founders thought political parties should be avoided.
Spoken like a true fascist
@@letsRegulateSociopaths Yes you have.
@@letsRegulateSociopaths you might start with self regulation.
@mwecker Self regulation?😂😂😂 while the cat's away the rats will play.
This video should be sent to Congress so they can be educated.
You should at least mention the Interstate Commerce Clause as it is the basis for much of the Federal involvement in otherwise State issues.
Which is widely abused. It mostly started during the New Deal era, when FDR blackmailed SCOTUS into upholding his unconstitutional policies.
Much like the Chevron Doctrine, the ICC expansion by SCOTUS is the one doctrine I'd love to see reversed.
The fact that a gun manufacturer uses parts made in different States should not give Congress legal control over gun manufacturers. The fact that an item is made in one State and sold in others should not give Congress control over the regulation of that industry. The fact that a welfare recipient decides to move from a State with low benefits to one with much higher benefits should not give the Courts or Congress the power to dictate how much he should receive in the new State. The fact that pro-sports are played by teams in multiple States should not give Congress the authority to investigate controversies or impose laws in that arena. Anyone else remember the hearings about steroid use when they should have been focused on balancing the budget and a myriad of other matters?
As in the federal government has totally misused and misinterpreted what 'to regulate commerce between the Several States' actually meant. It only meant to keep commerce regular since the states were interfering with commerce with tariffs and taxes. It never meant regulate in our modern understanding of the word.
In my eyes, the Constitution is an AMAZING document. This country hasn't had a competent POTUS, legislative branch or state government worth its weight in salt in well over 50 years, and yet we're still rolling. Admittedly, someone's going to have to grab the steering wheel soon. You can't just blindly rely on autopilot... Thank you for the episode!
Boy have we lost our way.
A while ago.
So much so that even this Lie-infested video seems like an improvement.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
@@RodMartinJr I would put money on it sir and if our founding fathers were around and they would be calling for a revolution and do everything I can to overthrow sickening system that is in place nowadays. Truly believe that with all my heart. I could be wrong and most people would say I'm wrong but I really don't think I am.
@@CD3WD-Project Amen! But with *_humility_* we remain open to learn new things. And I only recently learned that the John Birch Society (JBS) has been fighting the Deep State throughout most of my 74 years. Their video, "Overview of America," turned my head around.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
@@RodMartinJr I've heard about them before but I've never looked into them I will have to find that video and dig into them more.
I've always wanted someone to discuss the problems with the Articles of Confederation. I can see today the tension between various states.
A democracy is essentially or basically a MOB RULE
Yes, and a democratic republic is a government that revolves around the citizenry who uses a democratic process to elect public servants of various kinds. A democracy is a government that revolves around what a minority of individuals representing interests decide by vote or veto. In a republic, only citizens are guaranteed the freedom and liberties assured by the Constitution and Amendments. A democracy makes those things negotiable and may provide them to non citizens for an extended period (talking institutions vs human beings). In a republic, the citizens determine the direction of the nation, and in a democracy, anyone the central government allows to vote can participate in such things (corporations deciding the direction the nation will go in, for example.) A mob rule scenario has no vote, no central power, no agency, and laws really don't exist because one mob or the other will run things their way (chaotically) and will fight for supremacy over another. All that takes is getting groups of people riled up whether what information is used is genuine, true or neither. So, a democracy retains centralized power but reserves it for an elite group, forcing everyone else to abide their rules. That's basically Marxist and will lead to communism and slavery.
That's what Kamala la wants: marxist
Its important to also consider the Declaration of Independence, as well as the Preamble when looking at any of the parts of the Constitution. Everything starts with The People (who have a set of unalienable rights from their "creator")...then the People, through the Constitution grant certain powers to the federal government (its essentially the same at the state level...its starts with the People)...anything not specifically granted (through it, or the various amendments) is reserved for the States and the People. The first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, which were ratified along with the Constitution..place a further set of specific restrictions on the government.
Article 4 is exactly why LTC reciprocity from most states is unconstitutional. Every state should recognize the legal documents of another state such as marriage license drivers license, but they fail to do so of our LTC. As well as they don’t treat others the same in issuing their state license to carry as well… they will issue residents their own license but to those out of state.
One can only hope that we get this to SCOTUS soon…
then the same would apply to abortion laws , and gambling and smoking weed if one state allows it they all should
LOL we have no such problem in NH. No LTCs here, so come on up with your firearms! We'd love to have you visit!
@@lukeasacher nope you don’t, but you know what states I am referring too. NH is sue if Mass because you all have a lot of residents that go into MASs.
@@williamwofford2503 problem is, those items aren’t being issued licenses… or legal documents. The constitution just said they have to recognize legal documents.
Worth mentioning article 4, 10th amendment and 14th.. which many use to wheel back State authority over citizen rights some.
Read the book no treason constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner.
we the people trust in God no government to give freedom no cops to hand out justice in God we trust no politicians to tell the truth or do there jobs exactly your jobs and duty as we the people we make them freedom isn't free justice isn't given we trust in God here and police government it doesn't police the people or it becomes the injust system dollars on your heads and they couldn't build prisons fast enough and would fall into civil war destroying itself from within without my right this country's foundation and only protection from the enemy within since day one government and the unbais unopinionated fact checked news we understand exactly how to find truth and make politicians tell the truth and do there jobs exactly your jobs as we the people we fact check news and sheriff interprets law we interpret justice following no law decide guilt on injust no injust not guilty and the state can't be the victim or it becomes the injust system dollars on your heads and they couldn't build prisons fast enough and would fall into civil war destroying itself from within without my right this country's foundation and only protection from the enemy within since day one government and the unbais unopinionated fact checked news we fact check news and interpret justice following no law is out job and duty as we the people freedom isn't free justice isn't given.
The best. :)
Also, “Essay on Trial by Jury” also written by Lysander Spooner.
We, the people were the fourth check and balance of our system.
Thanks, very good video and easily understood.
Lets be clear, there are NO unimportant parts of constitution
When you're granted a bail request one of the conditions is you waive your Fourth amendment
That means wherever you are the police can come in and search the house It doesn't have to be your residence the only restrictions would you have to prove that you weren't in other rooms of the home therefore they would restrict how far they could search. Remember any argument you make in court is billable hours for your attorney including preparing for the court appearance
Too bad the Federal Government is ignoring this part of the Constitution.
this part?
the entire thing really
Excellent and simple in a matter of minutes!
What about something list a Carry Permit? Why is that not considered to be like a drivers license where it is recognized by all states?
An individual keeping and bearing arms (as in knives, swords, armor, pole arms and firearms) is, under the 2nd Amendment, a right, while driving a car on public roads is considered by the state governments to be a privilege, regulated by law.
To be perfectly honest, the Second Amendment does not require carry permits (concealed or open) and the 'shall not be infringed' portion of the Second applies to all the States. So technically, all US citizens should be able to carry across State lines with whatever arms they choose without any piece of paper issued by a State. We're not there yet, but it's looking like SCOTUS will be addressing the issue in varying degrees during this upcoming term. Hopefully, one day, we'll be able to carry as the Second Amendment intended without fear of prosecution in any State.
@@libertycosworth8675 A license to carry issued by one State should be honored by all States. And all States should have to issue licenses to carry under the same terms and conditions to an out-of-state applicant as they do to their own residents.
@@brennaballen9783 Ultimately, because of the NSRPA v Bruen and DC v Heller decisions, a license to carry (concealed or otherwise) may end up being determined as unnecessary since you can't require a license for a right which applies to the people, and keeping and bearing arms entails allowing carry in any venue where the government is unable to completely ensure the safety of the people present. Failing that, they may rule that, any state LTC would be facially valid in all states.
@dianagross8784 kinda like when the government was mandating, I get a jab?
So what is the punishment for states VIOLATING article 4 , section 2, paragraph 1 ; is it act of treason
That depends what party is in office, selective prosecution. Hillary and Biden no charges, Trump gets charged. DOJ says Hillary didn't mean to, and Joe is just to old, but Trump is a threat to democracy. See how that works?
There is a lot of intermixing of rights and responsibilities between the two and we need to adjust the rules to justify that. Educational standards is one that should be the same across all states. You should not have to figure out what the standard is of another state when trying to hire an out of stater. Just my thoughts in that but really you can't have a high school education be more if a middle school standard from another state. I'm sure there are other issues that need fed and state cooperation such as transportation and environment, just to name two.
A democracy doesn't even come close to a constitutional republic.
Too bad we are neither!
we the people trust in God no government to give freedom no cops to hand out justice in God we trust no politicians to tell the truth or do there jobs exactly your jobs and duty as we the people we make them freedom isn't free justice isn't given we trust in God here and police government it doesn't police the people or it becomes the injust system dollars on your heads and they couldn't build prisons fast enough and would fall into civil war destroying itself from within without my right this country's foundation and only protection from the enemy within since day one government and the unbais unopinionated fact checked news we understand exactly how to find truth and make politicians tell the truth and do there jobs exactly your jobs as we the people we fact check news and sheriff interprets law we interpret justice following no law decide guilt on injust no injust not guilty and the state can't be the victim or it becomes the injust system dollars on your heads and they couldn't build prisons fast enough and would fall into civil war destroying itself from within without my right this country's foundation and only protection from the enemy within since day one government and the unbais unopinionated fact checked news we fact check news and interpret justice following no law is out job and duty as we the people freedom isn't free justice isn't given.
Worms done playing learned
If you mean a direct town-meeting type of democracy, yes. But on the level of nation-states, and also of sub-national states, “democracy” is understood to mean “representative democracy.” A “constitutional republic” could be a dictatorship with unlimited power given (by the constitution) to the dictator and NO representation of the people’s will, or a republic with majority vote to choose representatives, defined terms and defined procedures for exceptional circumstances (e.g. American style impeachment, or parliamentary style no confidence votes and snap elections), with the stipulation that when power is removed by those limits, the incumbent MUST accede to the peaceful transfer of power.
Thus, the United States is, in theory, a DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, and some dictatorships such as Russia are UNDEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLICS.
I love how a republic is just what representative democracy is.
Great vid man can’t wait to see more 🙌
3:20 You mean like now?
Oh, PLEASE, just cut it out!!
Thanks for this video. Education is GOOD !!!
The speaker says that Article IV maintains order and democracy. Out country is not a democracy, thank God and the forefathers, and no where in the Constitution is the word democracy used. Democracy ia a majority of 1.
The 10th Amendment is never cited to shut the pie holes of abortion rights activists yet it should be. Abortion rights is not an enumerated power and it is not a "big picture" such as declaring war, miinting currency, etc. so overturning Roe vs. Wade going back to state control is the correct thing to do.
@4speed3pedals the ninth amendment says there are unenumerated rights retained by the people. So, not everything needs to be written in the constitution.
The 9th amendment says that just because a right was not listed in the first 8 amendments does not mean a right doesn't exist. Federal law always transcends state law, and the Roe vs Wade decision said the government has to respect a women's right to privacy pertaining to abortion. The right to privacy is in the 4th amendment, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses etc". This amendment over ruled any state law for thirty years until the SCOTUS over ruled it. Our country is a Democratic Republic, ie a democracy, and don't you ever forget it!
@@bullettube9863We are not a democracy. Go weep.
@@leejansen5729 I'm weeping at the thought that someone could be so stupid to think we are not.
@@leejansen5729you are correct. We are a corporate owned kleptocracy and being drained dry of our rights and property. Yay! Go you!
Thank you for this! They really don't teach this in school anymore....
The Constitution establishes a federal democratic republic form of government. That is, we have an indivisible union of 50 sovereign States. It is a democracy because people govern themselves. It is representative because people choose elected officials by free and secret ballot.
did you read the Constitution of the United States of America complete? then Amendment XIV?
‘democracy’ is not establish any where in the Constitution where as military office is;
Actually, it's a representative federated Republic.
Very Helpful. Thank you.
Many of the comments here are people selectively extracting and interpreting sentences and paragraphs to emphasize their preconceived ideas (which are often preconceived idiocy in reality).
It is worthwhile to have some basic civics addressed on UA-cam. This was my first video on this channel, so I'll withhold criticism and commentary of the video directly.
And I will look to see if the Preamble is covered, as it ought to be.
The Preamble is the guidepost of the Constitution. It is what We The People wish to achieve, and the whole body of the Constitution should be viewed through the lens of the Preamble.
It is fairly short, and fairly clear.
We're a union trying to be more perfect.
We share the burdens of effort to Establish Justice. Ensure Domestic Tranquility, Provide for the Common Defense, Promote the General Welfare, and Secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
The states have no right to work against this. They must have governments that do not differ from these ideals.
Except that the federal government was actually supposed to be very limited in their powers. "General Welfare" is a great example of Congress, having violated their oaths of office for nearly 120 years now. "General welfare", according to James Madison's own comments in the 1792 Cod Fishery bill, was never supposed to allow the Federal government to control redistribution of wealth, nor to "be benevolent from the general treasury".
"Was actually" statements are only as good as the argument behind it.
The countless challenges to the laws regarding federal spending have thus far failed to show that they violate the Constitution.
Your interpretation that Congress is violating their oath because they have been passing laws and spending money in ways you think don't align with the Constitution, is only valid in your mind.
The Constitution was Amended 17 times since Madison wrote those words. Included was the 16th, which allows taxing income. This sounds like the Constitution authorizing the redistribution of wealth, at least according to how you seem to mean that phrase.
The Constitution has a built in mechanism for change over time to meet the needs of the People, who collectively hold power.
@@jacobew2000 "Except that the federal government was actually supposed to be very limited in their powers"
Baloney. Madison can say whatever he wants, he's one of many founders and was outvoted. The constitution states quite clearly that most power is to be held by the Congress but that the other two branches were to be restricted. The exec was to be limited because they didn't want a king, and the judiciary was to be limited because they didn't want unelected politicians cosplaying "justice" in black robes becoming dictators. You won't find the phrase "co-equal branches" anywhere in the constitution. The Congress was given the power to pass whatever laws it saw fit. If they passed a bad law, the constitutional remedy was to have a new law written to replace it. Instead, we now have the Court meddling with the Congress which is the branch closes to the people and the only branch the founders gave real power to.
@@havable I can say baloney on that, based on what the founding fathers actually passed into law with the Constitution. It took the 14th Amendment to apply the Federal Constitution upon the states. There was a clear separation of powers until then.
No, Congress does not have unlimited powers. They have only the powers enumerated in Article 1. Nothing in those powers lists things like the EPA, nor the Department of Education.
There is no "limiting powers", only DESIGNATED POWERS. Justices are not "becoming dictators" by striking down clearly unconstitutional laws that the Congress has passed. The Judiciary decides what is Constitutional.
That is the power invested into the judiciary, by the Constitution. Congress is limited in their powers, as designated in article 1.
Congress has the power to override with a Constitutional Amendment process, or the states can grab back all their powers, with an Article 5 convention of states. Ultimately, the states have the final say over EVERYTHING THAT CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENT, or COURTS do.
What you are describing, of Congress having "unlimited powers", is not in our Constitution. What you describe is what is called a "Banana Republic". Where only the legislative and executive branches have any say in the government. Sorry, but the Courts have say in what is Constitutional or not. That is a check upon the Congress going amok, and becoming tyrannical.
What's interesting about The United States Constitution is that there is no EXPLICIT protection of bodily autonomy. Which means it's kicked down to the states. I'm not just talking slavery (which was abolished via constitutional amendment) or abortion rights (which now recently isn't). It means the right to do drugs, engage in sex work, or to perform suicide and/or euthanasia is a states issue rather than a federal one. That's why there are small areas in Nevada that have legal sex work and no where else in the country. Or the use of marijuana is state by state. And now abortion is not a nationally protected right anymore. Oh, and the ages of sexual consent is also state by state (gross). The history of America would be completely different if bodily autonomy was part of the Bill of Rights. (But, hey, we got the post office and copyright laws in there.)
The right to privacy is in the 4th amendment, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses etc". Roe Vs Wade was about the right of a woman to keep her abortion private from the government. On the other issues, since the founders couldn't know everything in advance they included the 9th and 10th amendments.
@@bullettube9863fine, but right to privacy is not the same as a right to perform a specific act. That is the monumental flaw in trying to connect abortion rights to privacy. Privacy is about protection from others knowing what you're doing, NOT a planet protection that anything you do in private is legal.
@@Mst-bh9ti Go back and read the Roe vs Wade judgement.
@@bullettube9863 why go back and read (again) an extremely flawed judgement, that even leftist jurist felt was terrible vis-a-vis actually passing constitutional muster. I would also point out, you did virtually nothing to refute the substance and logic of my post. Here endeth the lesson.
@@Mst-bh9ti Sorry, but as I said if you read the court's final answer they cited the 9th and 14th amendments as protecting the right to abortion. The present court disagreed with this on flimsy grounds because they are conservative and more interested in lining their pockets.
Very good and clear lecture… thank you
Good Job! A few points of clarification: Citizens are NOT a party to the US CONstitution. See Paddelford case. Those with an oath of office or contract to perform public services SHALL perform such services accordingly, ie Constitution, statutes, etc. The government has a LAWFUL fiduciary duty to protect the people and their property. The People have unalienable rights, ie the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, WITH THE unlimited right to contract or NOT contract. If the People CONSENT to accept a "benefit from government, ie civil liberties, TOO, accept the liability that goes with such benefit". Unalienable rights are superior and are Creator freely given, while civil rights are rights that are here today, and gone tomorrow and are political in nature in order to obtain votes and further enslavement of the People. Consent makes the law. With this stated, keep in mind, WE DO NOT have government today. We have an infiltrated criminal cartel APPEARING as government whereas TODAY, it is the people's duty to protect the financial benefit of those IN government rather than the intent and fiduciary duty of the government to protect the people. It's flipped around. In other words, we the People are nothing more, legally, than chattel sh*t for the government. The fact that CONgress CONSENTS to operate the US under a perpetual bankruptcy, THUS the fact that Federal Reserve Notes are still in USE TODAY MEANS, the People are helpless enslave to a private central private bank cartel. One can NOT own ANY property located within the US since it has not been PAID for ONLY purchased with USE RIGHTS rather than ownership rights. Do you get it?
Wait til you hear about what the Nato/EU/UN want to do. google this statement and it should take you right to it: "World leaders today adopted a Pact for the Future that includes a Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future Generations. This Pact is the culmination of an inclusive, years-long process to adapt international ... "
You sound like one of those looney, so-called sovereign citizens.
You're one of the people?
Doesn't read that way.
@@PanglossDr
The mere fact you use that term suggests you are clueless, ignorant and voting for Kommie Kamala.
@@Au_Ag_ratio5021 Person, people or any other "term" is meaningless in regard to THEIR obligations. Bottom line, THEY have an oath of office, THEY have a duty, THEY have to perform, THEY are the trustees. THEIR RULES, their laws, their duty - NOT me. I have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness CONDITIONED upon no harm to others in order to trigger them to "perform" a duty. See? We have the unlimited right and free will to join their sandbox profit system, but it will cost us.
Artus- joint
Articulus- small connecting part
Article- diminutive, from French, originally pertaining to Apostles Creed
Thank you for this
I never learned this kind of thing in school
Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 makes all gun control laws, speech laws, religious laws, assembly laws illegal and void.
Well done. This should be required viewing for all elected officials, and add local & county also. And also for all government drones, I mean tyrants, n I nean employees. At all levels.
Fun Fact: The word "democracy" is never mentioned in the Constitution.
That's because Tom Jefferson made up a smear about democracy. He said it was two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch. But the reality is that its 99 sheep telling one wolf that nobody is going to eat anyone. Jefferson was that wolf. He was the top 1% enslaver, telling the sheep that they should vote to have wolves eat them. Our current set-up is we have two judges who represent wolves for every judge who represents sheep (forget congress, our laws are all written by the Supreme Court now). Jefferson's vision finally came to pass, and its only possible through a "republic" which means, these days, "rule by the rich." Back when Franklin called us a "republic" all republic meant was "we don't have a king." That's still what it means in Europe.
Article 1 States " the Peoples of the Americas have a Right to Democracy and the Government has an obligation to promote and defend it ,"......!!!!!
Wat are you talking about,........?
the words God or Christian do not appear in the Constitution so are you saying GOD does not exist ???
@@williamwofford2503 Stop. Just stop. We have Freedom of Religion. We the People get to decide on that topic for ourselves.
@@tboned70 The Peoples of Americas? I'm afraid that is not a real quote. Please do a word search within a free copy of the US Constitution. It never mentions "democracy".
Then ‘open : no borders’ was clearly against article 4 🙌🏻🙀
How about the enumerated powers of the Departments of Education, Health & Human Services, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior (which steps directly on states rights).
Probably all unconstitutional and should be done away with. If anything, the states should send representatives for each department for a advisor position. Basically they compare notes with suggestions, and each state has the final say.
Weird..the constitution can change…amendments. Weird. What are your thoughts on a well organized militia?
@@AJ-vm8ft There has been no amendment that stripped the states of thier power control education, and gave it to the federal government.
As far as a well organized militia, yes it is a good idea. What was your question specifically about?
@@williamallen7836 13th 14th 18th 21st. All took away or gave rights. So shut the fuck up
@@williamallen7836 13th, 14th, 18th, 21st
7:20 - it is more like that the Constitution gives the authorities & responsibilities to the Federal Govmt, and that anything not specifically given to the Federal Govmt belongs to the States; rather than the Federal Govmt ‘gives’ to the States (being a little picky on language, but it does have importance on how powers are seen & from where they originate.
A democratic Republic
A Constitutional Republic. The founding fathers LOATHED anything that had to do with "democracy".
A Constitutional Republic. Rules with supposed checks and balances set forth.
Yes, a Democratic Republic,.....
Like the Democratic Republic of North Korea?
@@tboned70 Where in the Constitution does it say that we are a democracy? Article 4, section 4 says that we are a Republic.
"the Republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind". Thomas Jefferson letter to William Hunter 1790
Very well produced sir
Sorry. You lost me before 2:00. The Articles of Confederation were vastly superior to the vaunted Constitution. Too bad well-enough had not been left alone. Sigh!
The Articles of Confederation were a mess. The states were acting like countries upon themselves. There was absolute chaos for that 12 years.
The articles of confederation did not define how to execute law. The ideas were there, but in the form of a document that would never hold water today. A small bit of understanding of our court systems would change your mind.
The articles of Confederation were mob rule of the states. Basically, it would had destroyed the states themselves if that had been allowed to stand. There was no ability for the Federal government to regulate trade, especially between the states. Could not tax to provide for the common defense. Could not conduct foreign agreements without states overriding each other, or even having separate trade agreements. The Federal government could not enforce requests for an Army in an invasion. It would had resulted in splittering of the states into factions against each other. The Civil war would had happened by the 1810s if Britain had succeeded in their invasion. The reason why Britain was unable to win, was because of the Federal government was able to quickly raise troops, even from states that refused at first to send their militias.
Thanks very informative.
States may still coin their own currency. Many issue gold backs, which are usable as a currency within their own boarders for the ones that have them.
The chart at 9:29 is missing the “Proxy Wars” category.
The Welfare clause of the Constitution does not define an addition power of the central government but serves as a limiting qualifier on the explicitly enumerated powers of the central government. This was explained by the author of that clause, James Madison, in the "Federalist Papers.