My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available! Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680 Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680 Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023 Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495 Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
man i love how this series explains these cases so simply these cases are very important in American history, and it takes a lot to unravel how these cases happened and how they affect us today
Glad to see this series back. I hope it shows up more often. Sticking with the Marshall court, I suggest Laidlaw v Organ. It's an obscure case about contract law, a subject the Supreme Court rarely talks about. I would suggest Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, which is a personal favorite of mine, but I'm afraid it might tank your channel.
I'm absolutely obsessed with your Supreme Court Breifs series. Thank you for making them. Lawrence v. Texas, Lochner v. New York, and Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections would also make interesting videos.
I can't tell you how much I appreciate your videos Mr. Beat. I'm currently working towards being a social studies teacher, currently in my undergraduate degree. My attention span is rather short with books so listening and watching your videos helps me get a basic grasp of a topic and than go into a further deep dive
Thanks for sharing that feedback. I appreciate the kind words. Viewers like you is why I make 'em! Best of luck on your quest to become a social studies teacher. It's an incredibly rewarding profession.
I've been hearing about some important case called Moore v. Harper going on dealing with states rights. Also this is my favorite series! You should do Atkins v. Virginia and US v. Lopez
It's worrying for sure, but based on the oral arguments, it seems like it will be okay. Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett all seem willing to rule against North Carolina.
Moore isn't really about states' rights. It's about different parts of the state legislature and state courts in opposition to each other, not the state as a whole in opposition to the federal government. The former is checks and balances while the later is states' rights.
@@yeezuschrist420 Definitely not in 1792. The founding fathers didn't give SCOTUS much thought when constructing it, at least in comparison to the legislative and executive branches.
While I agree that the infrastructure modifications didn't "take away" any private property that belonged to Barron in this case, it did still result in irreversible damage that could have been avoided if workers were more careful. He still deserved compensation, just not for the reason he argued in court.
Favorite, I want to see more. I’ve seen all your Supreme Court Briefs. This made me interested in legal stuff (even if it’s not what I studied in school)
PBS once had a program called "Connections". A wonderful premise of taking a modern concept or tech, and how it's connected to some obscure ancient tech idea. This was a wonderful example. More of the unknown hidden court cases are needed. Great Channel! Thanks
I would love if you could do Lawrence v. Texas! Ever since Dobbs it's important to know our rights before we lose them. I'm a high school sr going going to college to study constitutional law, and your series has been an amazing and funny help
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The fact that we need the 14th amendment to get this through is crazy.
Other than "Mahanoy Area School District V. B.L.", I would recommend "Northern Securities Co v. United States. The first deals with student free speech on social media, and the other deals with the legality of monopolies in the US. Great video btw.
Enjoyed the video. Always knew the proposition of law Barron stood for, but did not know the facts. Having read a good book on Lochner called Lochner rehabilitated, you should do Lochner next, and then some of the other cases from the Lochner era, like Pierce v Society of Sisters, Adkins, and Meyer v Nebraska. Also of interest would be doing the Coach Kennedy Case from last term, Kennedy v Bremerton School District in part because it's relevant to your students and teachers in terms of free speech and religion rights, and also because it declared the Lemon test abandoned.
"Supreme Court Briefs" are my favorites! Thank you for making another one. Hmmm....I wonder if I have seen all the other 68? Mr. Beat, could you do a video on how the Supreme Court decides which cases it will hear for an upcoming session? I am always curious how they decide which to hear and/or how they prioritize (?) them. Thank You.
Thanks for watching this series! I'm glad you dig it. I do plan on a livestream over the summer again to go over important cases from the latest session.
I absolutely love this series! For your next case, talk about “Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson”, “Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer”, “Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States” or “Abington School District v. Schempp”.
Since you're making longer videos these days you should make a video explaining every amendment. You could also mention the clauses in them and important Supreme Court Cases dealing with them. It could gain lots of views.(I know you don't rally take suggestions from regular subscribers, I'd be a paetron supporter but I'm a broke college student)
I plan on making a course and series on that, as matter of fact! I just need to map up a schedule and maybe even look at getting some help so I don't get overwhelmed.
A worf is the half klingon security officer for the USS Enterprise-D and later the space station Deep Space Nine. So the kids DO actually talk about worf pretty often these days 👉👉
Great review! I wonder if you might review the Olmstead decision (Olmstead v. LC), which decreed that people with disabilities ought to be able to live in their communities, rather than institutions, whenever appropriate.
SCB suggestions: Marcus v. Search Warrant and Quantity of Books v. Kansas. These are a pair of cases dealing with laws regarding obscene materials and, more specifically, established necessary procedures for seizures to not violate the First Amendment. The latter case was an important clarification of the former, despite coming only three years later. In addition to being important and interesting cases, the somewhat humorous names of the cases might help boost viewership on SCB videos. Another option for an important case with a humorous name would be the case One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, which extended Fourth Amendment protections to civil cases as well as criminal ones.
For what the constitution and the United States as a whole was viewed as at the time, the supreme court's view makes total sense. because it was viewed as basically separate countries but united
You mentioned in another comment that these kinds of videos don´t perform that well, but if you ever stop uploading Supreme Court Briefs, I will take you to the highest court in the land! Keep the videos coming semi-regularly, or you will be hearing from my lawyers!
I thought the 5th amendment argument was quite clever and I thought perhaps the Supreme Court would rule on whether it constituted a violation of that amendment. I did not expect at all that they'd say states don't have to respect your constitutional rights. That came outta left field.
Oh, hey! I remember recommending this case. Great job! I'd love to hear what you have to say about Chisholm v. Georgia, which lead up to the 11th amendment
Love your videos ^^ have to mention the DreamBrief: Bob Jones University v. United States. Maybe too specialized to hold general interest (dunno if I'd find compelling had I not been raised in/kicked from Bob x.x)~~
I think that Pennsylvania V. One 1958 Plymouth Sedan would make a great video! Important case (made it so that the Bill of Rights applied to civil law) plus the somewhat ridiculous name and story behind it could get a lot of views and be an interesting discussion.
I read your comment and glanced at your name and thought, "The Onion. Of course. It totally makes sense." It still does. So, basically, if I need therapy, you're way past due.
I doubt it would be too exciting, but a series showing the long and inconsistent history of "incorporation" would at least be instructive. Adamson v. California would be a good one to cover.
Pretty sure there was a SCOTUS case that said the bill of rights applies to State and Local governments too pretty recently. Happened in the Roberts court too.
crazy they would say that, there had to be people who were alive who helped write the bill of rights to tell them otherwise. kills me how horrible the supreme court has been throughout history
This might be a little outside the scope of "supreme court briefs", but could you possibly look at (what might be) important cases that the supreme court turned DOWN? it always interested me when you talked about how the supreme court decides what to take and not take. Are there any examples of this? also, how does the court decide what to take and not to take in the first place?
I'm glad we got an amendment to correct this mistake. It would make the bill of rights pretty toothless for this decision to stand. State government oppression is no better than federal oppression. Not sure I understood what private property was claimed to be taken though...
Hello, does this mean that even today none of the constitutional amendments apply to state laws? I am a bit confused. Could a state disregard for example the right to religious freedom guaranteed in the first amendment and decide to instead make their state mandate a given religion??
No. Like the video says, the 14th amendment had it covered. That's why whenever the a federal court strikes down a state law, they will always use the 14th amendment as well as the bill of rights amendment that's relevant to the case.
@@alonkatz4633 I see, thank you for this, I was confused for a moment. Is this the portion of the 14 amendment which is relevant to this: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”?
@@zurps Actually, not quite. The supreme court gutted (literally and figuratively) this clause of the 14th amendment in the slaughterhouse cases. Since then the courts used the due process ("life, liberty or property...") and equal protection clauses to apply the bill of rights to the states.
@@alonkatz4633 It's strange, I don't even understand how the supreme court came to the decision that was given in this video. The constitution clearly states that it is the supreme law of the land and that if any law conflicts with the constitution or federal law, the constitution/federal law takes precedent. How could the Marshall court have come up with an opinion directly opposite of this?
I'd like to see United States v. Xavier Alvarez, No. 11-210 - Is Lying about receiving War Medals considered free speech, and does the Stolen Valour Act 2006 violate the 1st amendment?
My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!
Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS
Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680
Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680
Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss
Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b
Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023
Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495
Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
This is EPISODE 69.
Nice.
Which Supreme Court case should I cover for this series next?
United States v. Lopez
Ex Parte Young, the reason why most cases involve suing the state, like Mr. Hodges, Mr. Dobbs and Mr. Wade
Illinois vs allen
Thats a nice number
NCAA vs Alston
My favorite series
Glad to hear it!
Same here
Same I love these
True
IKR
man i love how this series explains these cases so simply
these cases are very important in American history, and it takes a lot to unravel how these cases happened and how they affect us today
I appreciate this comment a lot. I am continuing to attempt to get better at translating legalese!
Glad to see this series back. I hope it shows up more often.
Sticking with the Marshall court, I suggest Laidlaw v Organ. It's an obscure case about contract law, a subject the Supreme Court rarely talks about.
I would suggest Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, which is a personal favorite of mine, but I'm afraid it might tank your channel.
Thanks for the suggestion. This video is already my worst performing video in months, but this comment makes me happy. :)
@@iammrbeat this sucks. But if enjoying Supreme Court Briefs means I'm in the minority, then so be it.
@@alonkatz4633 Agree. My favorite playlist!!!!
Mr. Beat, you should tackle the recent Supreme Court Case, in which a girl was suspended from her school, after making a Snapchat post criticizing it.
That one's on my list! Thanks for recommending it.
I'm absolutely obsessed with your Supreme Court Breifs series. Thank you for making them. Lawrence v. Texas, Lochner v. New York, and Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections would also make interesting videos.
I can't tell you how much I appreciate your videos Mr. Beat. I'm currently working towards being a social studies teacher, currently in my undergraduate degree. My attention span is rather short with books so listening and watching your videos helps me get a basic grasp of a topic and than go into a further deep dive
Thanks for sharing that feedback. I appreciate the kind words. Viewers like you is why I make 'em! Best of luck on your quest to become a social studies teacher. It's an incredibly rewarding profession.
@@iammrbeat Thank you so much!
Yes, my favorite series. Another underrated case was brought to life by the talented Mr. Beat.
Also early congrats to 700k subs
Thank you so much, Jacob. I have many more episodes planned for 2023!
I've been hearing about some important case called Moore v. Harper going on dealing with states rights. Also this is my favorite series! You should do Atkins v. Virginia and US v. Lopez
It's worrying for sure, but based on the oral arguments, it seems like it will be okay. Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett all seem willing to rule against North Carolina.
Moore v. Harper will be quite a doozy. I am nervous as heck about that decision. Thanks for the suggestions!
Moore isn't really about states' rights. It's about different parts of the state legislature and state courts in opposition to each other, not the state as a whole in opposition to the federal government. The former is checks and balances while the later is states' rights.
With Moore v. Harper happening, Mr. Beat should do a video on Smiley v. Holm (1932), which would be overturned if the conservatives win Moore.
I love your Supreme Court briefs, Mr. Beat! Also you are so close to 700,000 subscribers!
Thank you, Mr. Lincoln. And yes, so close indeed!
@@iammrbeat No problem!
Me beast can money
In 1792, Aaron Burr was offered a seat on the New York Supreme Court, but declined the appointment.
Why did he decline? Dang I learn so much from you. :)
@@iammrbeat He declined it because he didn't want to leave the senate.
Can't blame him. The court wasn't what it is today.
@@aaronburrhistory2938scotus is more important than congress tho, right?
@@yeezuschrist420 Definitely not in 1792. The founding fathers didn't give SCOTUS much thought when constructing it, at least in comparison to the legislative and executive branches.
Got a Politics exam in a few days, this is going to come in handy! Love your videos, keep it up Mr Beat 👌
Please do West Coast Hotel Co. v Parrish
The switch in time that saved nine is prime for this series! Thanks Mr. Beat!
That case might just be the most important one that I haven't covered yet!
This is genuinely amazing. What a problem for the supreme court to wrestle with.
They have difficult jobs.
as a Canadian, i must say, y'alls Supreme Court sure does do some interesting things
I'm glad you think so!
You should do Lochner v. New York to talk about substantive due process
I agree. To me, this is the prime example of an "OMG, what the heck were they thinking" case.
I reckon I will definitely make that one later this year. It's pretty freaking important.
While I agree that the infrastructure modifications didn't "take away" any private property that belonged to Barron in this case, it did still result in irreversible damage that could have been avoided if workers were more careful. He still deserved compensation, just not for the reason he argued in court.
I agree with you
@@iammrbeat Not a terrible decision except he did deserve compensation.
Favorite, I want to see more. I’ve seen all your Supreme Court Briefs. This made me interested in legal stuff (even if it’s not what I studied in school)
That's amazing to hear! It's my worst performing video in months, but this comment makes me happy. :)
@@iammrbeat Sorry, I meant my favorite series to follow. I still find it intriguing of a Supreme Court case that expands states rights.
PBS once had a program called "Connections".
A wonderful premise of taking a modern concept or tech, and how it's connected to some obscure ancient tech idea.
This was a wonderful example. More of the unknown hidden court cases are needed.
Great Channel! Thanks
Great to see more Supreme Court briefs!
Merch idea: ACTUAL Supreme Court briefs
We actually already considered this! lol
One of the best series on UA-cam has continued for another episode!
I would love if you could do Lawrence v. Texas! Ever since Dobbs it's important to know our rights before we lose them. I'm a high school sr going going to college to study constitutional law, and your series has been an amazing and funny help
My favorite series on this channel is back 🎉🎉🎉
yes!
It's my worst performing video in months, but comments like these make me happy. :)
@@iammrbeat well I'm glad they do! :)
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The fact that we need the 14th amendment to get this through is crazy.
Other than "Mahanoy Area School District V. B.L.", I would recommend "Northern Securities Co v. United States. The first deals with student free speech on social media, and the other deals with the legality of monopolies in the US. Great video btw.
This is an amazing series. Cait, wait for more.
Many more to come this year, I promise you!
Have you ever thought about covering the Jones Act and how it affects American shipping?
Absolutely. It's been on my list for awhile.
Look, I love all your videos, but I especially look forward to these briefs.
Enjoyed the video. Always knew the proposition of law Barron stood for, but did not know the facts. Having read a good book on Lochner called Lochner rehabilitated, you should do Lochner next, and then some of the other cases from the Lochner era, like Pierce v Society of Sisters, Adkins, and Meyer v Nebraska. Also of interest would be doing the Coach Kennedy Case from last term, Kennedy v Bremerton School District in part because it's relevant to your students and teachers in terms of free speech and religion rights, and also because it declared the Lemon test abandoned.
Well done. Enjoyed the video. I'd like to see you cover Marbury v. Madison if you haven't already done so.
Hello Mr.Beat! love this series from Egypt!!
Underrated Supreme Court case.
Mos def
@@iammrbeat speaking of underrated, John Adams and Calvin Coolidge are underrated presidents.
Mr. Beat are you still writing a book based on your Supreme Court Briefs series?
Why yes I am! I'm almost halfway done with it, as matter of fact. :)
@@iammrbeat Can't wait to buy it!
"Supreme Court Briefs" are my favorites! Thank you for making another one. Hmmm....I wonder if I have seen all the other 68? Mr. Beat, could you do a video on how the Supreme Court decides which cases it will hear for an upcoming session? I am always curious how they decide which to hear and/or how they prioritize (?) them. Thank You.
Thanks for watching this series! I'm glad you dig it. I do plan on a livestream over the summer again to go over important cases from the latest session.
I love supreme court briefs you really need to do more of these including setting up a different youtube channel for this series.
Why did it take you so long to post another case:((. This made my day
Crazy to think that John Marshall was still sitting on the Supreme Court, for reference Abe Lincoln was 26 years old during this time
He was pretty old by this time 🙂
Love your shirt at the end, Rock Chalk Jayhawk!
“You can scrap the S cause I’ve never missed a beat”
Just took a test with this case on it earlier today
WOAHNESS
Your accent is the best for story telling, unironically.
I absolutely love this series! For your next case, talk about “Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson”, “Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer”, “Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States” or “Abington School District v. Schempp”.
Very interesting, I really enjoy your videos (especially enjoyed your oregon trail vid).
I appreciate you, thank you for making content.
Since you're making longer videos these days you should make a video explaining every amendment. You could also mention the clauses in them and important Supreme Court Cases dealing with them. It could gain lots of views.(I know you don't rally take suggestions from regular subscribers, I'd be a paetron supporter but I'm a broke college student)
I plan on making a course and series on that, as matter of fact! I just need to map up a schedule and maybe even look at getting some help so I don't get overwhelmed.
@@iammrbeat You should do a Supreme Court Briefs video on United States v. Paramount Pictures. Would you mind covering that, Mr. Beat?
HELL YEA THE SERIES IS BACK
A worf is the half klingon security officer for the USS Enterprise-D and later the space station Deep Space Nine.
So the kids DO actually talk about worf pretty often these days
👉👉
Top comment
Great review! I wonder if you might review the Olmstead decision (Olmstead v. LC), which decreed that people with disabilities ought to be able to live in their communities, rather than institutions, whenever appropriate.
Thanks Sam!
Congratulations on the 700k subscribers
I'll take that dare! I've only got like two to go but I'm saving them
Glad you took the dare. mwhahahahahahahaha
Great work as always. Wonder would you have a video planned about the Whiskey Rebellion or any other uprisings planned?
Eventually I hope so, and thank you!
SCB suggestions: Marcus v. Search Warrant and Quantity of Books v. Kansas. These are a pair of cases dealing with laws regarding obscene materials and, more specifically, established necessary procedures for seizures to not violate the First Amendment. The latter case was an important clarification of the former, despite coming only three years later. In addition to being important and interesting cases, the somewhat humorous names of the cases might help boost viewership on SCB videos. Another option for an important case with a humorous name would be the case One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, which extended Fourth Amendment protections to civil cases as well as criminal ones.
Being from Baltimore I can confirm no one cares if you're from Baltimore or what happens to you while you're in Baltimore
Yesssss another episode
Amazing video
Thank you!
For what the constitution and the United States as a whole was viewed as at the time, the supreme court's view makes total sense. because it was viewed as basically separate countries but united
You mentioned in another comment that these kinds of videos don´t perform that well, but if you ever stop uploading Supreme Court Briefs, I will take you to the highest court in the land! Keep the videos coming semi-regularly, or you will be hearing from my lawyers!
Thanks buddy. I'll keep making them.
GOAT series 🐐
Glad you dig it!
This stuff used to be my government homework but these vids are so good that I just watch them because I want to now
I vaguely remember my middle school US History teacher talk about a similar or same event.
If you learned about this case in middle school, I would be super impressed.
Great Video!
Glad you enjoyed it
feels illegal to be seconds early, *in a Mr beat vid*
You're good. You didn't break any law that I could tell.
n3rd v. youtube speed police 😂😂
I love this series!
I appreciate that Luis!
United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians is a rather important case that I think would be interesting to have covered.
The double meaning of "briefs" as a joke was used in the Black Adder TV series in the 1980s. Lol
Never heard of that show, but now it's my favorite show. :)
I thought the 5th amendment argument was quite clever and I thought perhaps the Supreme Court would rule on whether it constituted a violation of that amendment. I did not expect at all that they'd say states don't have to respect your constitutional rights. That came outta left field.
Thank you so much.
It is a useful series
Oh, hey! I remember recommending this case. Great job!
I'd love to hear what you have to say about Chisholm v. Georgia, which lead up to the 11th amendment
That sand covering the screen was smooth starting at 0:52
Love your videos ^^ have to mention the DreamBrief: Bob Jones University v. United States. Maybe too specialized to hold general interest (dunno if I'd find compelling had I not been raised in/kicked from Bob x.x)~~
Mr. Beast! Please give me money!
Bro, your lung is good?
Wrong guy
I think that Pennsylvania V. One 1958 Plymouth Sedan would make a great video! Important case (made it so that the Bill of Rights applied to civil law) plus the somewhat ridiculous name and story behind it could get a lot of views and be an interesting discussion.
MRBEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAASST!!!!
Maybe we should cover a recent Supreme Court case like West Virginia v EPA
Bro i thought you were mrbeast😭😭😭
you are still a cool youtuber tho
John Barron sure has a lot in common with Anakin Skywalker. Both see sand as an issue because it gets everywhere
I read your comment and glanced at your name and thought, "The Onion. Of course. It totally makes sense." It still does. So, basically, if I need therapy, you're way past due.
I love you Mr. Breast
Wait how is an infrastructure project somehow taking away private property? Can individuals own harbors in the USA?
Not a harbor...a wharf
Mr beat, got a question. Do you think the SAFE T act will pass in Illinois or not? Live here in Chicago and honestly just wanted to know.
I think at least parts of it will pass, but I don't have a deep understanding of Illinois politics.
@@iammrbeat Alr 👍
I doubt it would be too exciting, but a series showing the long and inconsistent history of "incorporation" would at least be instructive. Adamson v. California would be a good one to cover.
What happened to John Barron? Did he repurpose his wharf, did he build another wharf, did he move to another business altogether?
We don't know
Yes my favorite series Another Supreme Court Vids
Pretty sure there was a SCOTUS case that said the bill of rights applies to State and Local governments too pretty recently. Happened in the Roberts court too.
My main takeaway from this episode was that Wonder Wharf from Bob's Burgers is not actually a wharf.
Can you make a court case call "Roper v Simmons"?
Great suggestion!
Ya gotta do a video about Marsh v. Alabama!
crazy they would say that, there had to be people who were alive who helped write the bill of rights to tell them otherwise. kills me how horrible the supreme court has been throughout history
Only reason I know the word "Wharf" is Kingdom Hearts II.
Niiiccceeee
Have you thought about Youngstown Sheet and Tube vs Sawyer 1952?
IS THAT......
MR BEAST?!?!!?!
This might be a little outside the scope of "supreme court briefs", but could you possibly look at (what might be) important cases that the supreme court turned DOWN? it always interested me when you talked about how the supreme court decides what to take and not take. Are there any examples of this? also, how does the court decide what to take and not to take in the first place?
Mr. Beat, can you please cover a Supreme Court case on United States v. Paramount Pictures in a future video?
I really love Supreme Court Briefs
Over a freaking wharf
A wharf that made a man LOTS of money
I'm glad we got an amendment to correct this mistake. It would make the bill of rights pretty toothless for this decision to stand. State government oppression is no better than federal oppression.
Not sure I understood what private property was claimed to be taken though...
Long live the 14th!
Hello, does this mean that even today none of the constitutional amendments apply to state laws? I am a bit confused. Could a state disregard for example the right to religious freedom guaranteed in the first amendment and decide to instead make their state mandate a given religion??
No. Like the video says, the 14th amendment had it covered. That's why whenever the a federal court strikes down a state law, they will always use the 14th amendment as well as the bill of rights amendment that's relevant to the case.
@@alonkatz4633 I see, thank you for this, I was confused for a moment. Is this the portion of the 14 amendment which is relevant to this: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”?
@@zurps Actually, not quite. The supreme court gutted (literally and figuratively) this clause of the 14th amendment in the slaughterhouse cases. Since then the courts used the due process ("life, liberty or property...") and equal protection clauses to apply the bill of rights to the states.
It would if the 14th weren’t a thing
@@alonkatz4633 It's strange, I don't even understand how the supreme court came to the decision that was given in this video. The constitution clearly states that it is the supreme law of the land and that if any law conflicts with the constitution or federal law, the constitution/federal law takes precedent. How could the Marshall court have come up with an opinion directly opposite of this?
Can you please do Brady v Betts
Well I did Gideon already, so I'm not that motivated to cover this case, to be honest
I'd like to see United States v. Xavier Alvarez, No. 11-210 - Is Lying about receiving War Medals considered free speech, and does the Stolen Valour Act 2006 violate the 1st amendment?
Mr beat il love your videos