The Original Intent of the Constitution | Myths of American History
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 тра 2024
- Want to stream more content like this… and 1,000’s of courses, documentaries & more?
👉 👉 Start Your Free Trial of Wondrium tinyurl.com/2sztzvnz 👈 👈
-------------------------------------------
Learn more about American history and the Constitution at www.wondrium.com/youtube
We often hear talk about the “original intent” of the writers of the
Constitution, but the Founding Fathers did not plan to create
the political system we have today: a democratic republic based
on two national and permanent political parties. Indeed, “democracy” and
“political parties” were dirty words to them. They did realize, however,
that the world was likely to change, which is one reason they included an
amendment process in the Constitution that has allowed this document to
survive as our frame of government for so long.
Presented by Mark Stoler
Learn more about the myths of American history at www.wondrium.com/youtube
0:00 The Intention of the Founders of the Constitution
1:00 Who Were the Founders of the Constitution?
3:24 The Ongoing Process of Historical Interpretation and Reinterpretation
4:05 The Process of Creating Governments Begins
4:30 Balance Government Rejected for Legislative Power
5:30 Articles of Confederation Replaced Second Continental Congress
7:50 Successes of the Articles of Confederation
9:30 Problems with the Articles of Confederation
12:05 What was Shays' Rebellion?
13:00 An Elite Definition of Liberty
15:00 Constitutional Convention of 1787
17:25 What It Means to Create an Empire of Liberty
19:00 How the Constitution Separates Sovereignty from Rule
19:35 What are Checks and Balances?
20:00 Combining Elements of Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy
22:27 The Bill of Rights
26:17 What was the Great Compromise?
28:57 The First Ten Amendments to the Constitution
-------------------------------------------
Welcome to Wondrium on UA-cam.
Here, you can enjoy a carefully curated selection of the history, science, and math videos you’ve come to know and love from brands like The Great Courses, and more.
If you’ve ever wanted to travel back in time, wondered about the science of life, wished for a better understanding of math, or dreamt of exploring the stars … then Wondrium will be your new favorite channel!
If you decide you’d like to learn more about what you love, check out the full experience at wondrium.com/UA-cam
There, you’ll find in-depth answers to everything you’ve ever wondered, with mind-blowing surprises along the way.
Your brain is going to love this place!
-------------------------------------------
You can also read thousands of articles from the smartest experts in their fields at The Great Courses Daily: www.Wondriumdaily.com
And, of course, check us out on all of our social channels:
-Facebook: / wondrium
-Twitter: / wondrium
-Instagram: / wondrium
I came out of High School [1983] with a reasonable understanding of this and the process and context which produced the constitution. It was required class for a year and I had a great teacher. Civics classes seem to have disappeared from school. I talk to people all the time who never got any schooling about civics and government. The fabric that holds society together has been forgotten by most. The lack of understanding leaves room for con men and scoundrels of all kinds to prey on peoples mis-fortune and take advantage. I think the results are clear. My generation has a lot to answer for.
I encountered workers who can't name the three branches of power or how supreme Court justices are elected. How sad and worrisome
As I see it, the scoundrels are those who want to preserve an originalist interpretation of the constitution. As this video reflects, the original intent of the constitution is to preserve the privileges ("liberties") of the aristocracy against democratic impulses. The original intent is a direct repeal of the modern (flawed) liberal democracy.
Bro, in all seriousness your generation is killing the entire world to make rich people richer, like total ecological collapse in like 100 years
@@urbanart7325
Supreme Justices aren't elected, all federal judges are appointed by the president and the Federalist Society has captured the recommended process, just as former Chief Justice Powell intended it to.
There are 5 basic selection methods used through out the states but only 2 are electoral.
You got it right. The 1% doesn’t want us to know our rights. Our education system has defunded and dissolved the parts that help us be knowledgeable, allows us to enjoy life, that helps us see, and be aware of the importance of these rights. The arts, and as you stated civics and government, even home economics, and most importantly, the real history of America and the world.
At college in New England about 30 years ago, some of the students decided to do a survey. They took a copy of the Bill of Rights(the first 10 amendments to the constitution) around to people. They pretended that they were circulating a petition to have them added to the constitution. Most people after reading them refused saying they these were to radical. I would have loved to seen some of those idiots reactions when they told them that it was already part of the constitution.
It is a little overboard to call them idiots when they haven't been taught that in our public school system. I feel sorry for them that don't know how to read or balance a checkbook and buy a home. It is a sadness on the land.
@@timsteinkamp2245 30 years ago, they should have known esp. if they were my age back then and attended school in the 60s-70s & early 80s when civics & learning the constitution was required courses in most schools.
BTW: Personal finance which taught students how to use/balance a checkbook, create a budget, invest in the stock market, how to get & manage a loan so you could buy a car/home on credit were also required courses in most schools until the late 80s-early 90s. Heck every elementary school in the USA my military brat cousins attended required students to take music classes and learn a 'foreign' language.
holy crap, didn't realize how unbearably long this thread is
I'm out - yikes
I bet that means much hasn't changed. Most people would say the same thing.
This comment is suspiciously vague. Which college? And how do you know about it?
I definitely wasn't taught this in school, but I'm glad I discovered this lecture to truly understand the purpose of the Constitution!
Wonderful lecture; clear, direct, nuanced, and open about the fact that, while he’s trying to understand the founding fathers on their own terms, he’s also doing so from the perspectives and problems of his own times. Excellent work!
@Mad Hatter, I disagree with one point. I specifically enjoyed this because the presenter DID NOT present information about his perspective or what it meant to his own time. It was purely academic and dealt with the issues of the time the Constitution was framed in. At this point I really can't tell you what the presenter's view of the Constitution and its impact on today's world is. In today's environment that is absolutely refreshing. We are all human and have our views on a given subject. The fact that the presenter didn't tip his views in this presentation give me reason to believe he may change mine by the time this is all said and done.
When I was in grade school it was a requirement that you pass a constitutional exam before you could graduate onto high school. My exam was 500 questions. I got an A++ for a perfect score plus bonus questions. These poor kids today couldn't answer 10 questions about it.
I was expecting much political spin and found none. Thank you for teaching history and not using history to further a political agenda.
I disagree. It isn't good to trust whatever contemporary historians say, and probably the most incorrect thing he said is that the Framers violated their instructions and basically overthrew the government. This is a MYTH.
The Framers did not violate their instructions. First understand the process of an interstate convention was a common practice and was a very structured way for States to cooperate with one another where each State always had one vote. Also, understand that under international law, any treaties (like the Articles) could not be changed unless every state in the treaty agreed to change it.
1. They held the Annapolis Convention which was called by Virginia to revise the Articles of Confederation. They quickly realized the scope of the convention was too small, and the problem was much bigger. They did not have the authority to do what they needed to do. So on Sept. 14, 1786 the convention passed a resolution calling for another convention.
2. They held the Philadelphia Convention, which was called by the States and endorsed by Congress. This convention was given the authority to "render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of union." These delegates were all given sets of instructions by their States and their actions were consistent with them.
3. On Sept. 28, 1787 the Philadelphia Convention sent its proposals to Congress: the new Constitution and the Ratification process (which required at least nine States to Ratify the Constitution. Congress approved both and the Ratification process was sent to the States for approval. The States unanimously approved the process, allowing them to move forward legally with the consent of only nine States. From Dec. 17, 1787 to July 26, 1788, eleven States Ratified the Constitution in Ratification Conventions.
4. On March 4, 1789 the new government went into effect. And while Rhode Island and North Carolina had some reservations about it and did not Ratify immediately, they did not have to be part of it until they Ratified.
This process was very orderly and 100% legal under Natural Law, international law, and federal law. Historians only say overwise, not because they want to cast the Framers in a bad light, but because they believe the end justifies the means, and by slandering the Framers in this way, they can justify any radical deviation from our Constitution, such as radical reconstruction or unchecked judicial activism as simply necessary.
There is a correct way to fix the Constitution, it is in Article V, and it is a different kind a convention, not a Constitutional Convention, but a convention for proposing amendments without waiting for Congress, and millions of people would like to use it today to end federal overreach. You'll find more information about it here: conventionofstates.com/?ref=37659
@@kingofspades1776 Anonymous and empty accounts bring little credibility to the conversation.
@@OhRonaldo That is an ad hominem. It doesn't matter who I am. You can evaluate what I've said based on whether it is logical and factual. And Daryl is my real name.
@@kingofspades1776 It's only ad hominem if there's a real account. Ad air is more like it.
Good luck who/whatever you are.
I do appreciate the non-bias. It’s a nice change that allows me to come up with my own conclusion instead of them telling me how I should be.
Thank you!
Extremely well done, very through and informative. Well done sir, thank you. I’m 80 years old and had excellent teachers in History and Civics. Don’t believe high school students today have any idea what our Constitution is all about.
I'm 50. I had an excellent civics education and learned most all of this. But I think you're wrong about the modern education system. My children (one now in college and one in high school) have learned these things AND MORE. No longer are they taught basic historical dogmas dressed up in the same happy propaganda. They are taught both the beautiful and ugly characteristics of our country's early history and the good and bad of our founding fathers. They are taught to think for themselves and question the dogmas without falling for propaganda.
The survey in the begining lecture points out that fact. In the LAUSD the students were taught to reply this statement: 'I Have Self Esteem'. This covered their lack of knowledge and the schools failure to teach.
The current Democrats are who he refers to The Tyranny From Below, that constantly pushes for “Democracy” or “Mob Rules.”
They like to use their Gestapo/ Antifa/ BLM to instill fear and get their way.
Democrats/ Liberals are a cancer on our Constitutional Republic! 😏
They Don’t it’s Subliminal
*Neither did high school students in the past 50 years, according to the stats displayed at the beginning.*
I'm the family tree keeper. Listening to this puts the image of my ancestors, during this time period, into a completely new light. They didn't get here until the mid-1800s, but it's still an incredible image.
I perused the history, social science book my sons were using in high school. There were dozens of pages devoted to capitalism and only a page devoted to the Constitution. No wonder people have no knowledge of its meaning and content. The same was true for me when I was in school in the 1950s. Most of my knowledge came from reading books and documentaries later in life. Apparently publishers of school curriculum are purposely withholding this knowledge from young people.
"Publishers". FFS. STATES control the curriculum, kiddo. It's the conservative STATES that are withholding knowledge. Because they found it is easier to control an uneducated and paranoid electorate. It is why it is an unequivocal, inarguable fact that the overwhelming vast majority of red state populations have high confidence but low actual knowledge of the contents of the Constitution or American history in general. They are given slogans instead of educations. Guns instead of unity.
Which book is he using?
Most school books don’t push capitalism they push government which is why they don’t go over our liberties from it.
You may have read the wrong books. In Florida, the details of the Constitution are not covered in either History or Social Studies. It is covered in Civics. Many states require Civics in both middle and high school, but some states are different. Public and private schools can also be different.
A little research into how your child's school's curriculum is structured might be wise.
Where has Capitalism ever been practiced? 19th Century Hong Kong, MAYHAP.
In a time when mentioning the Constitution is used as a kind of ‘discussion quasher’ it is obvious that we need to have a general public that is much more informed on what the Constitution is and its relationship to our democracy and to our Republic.
people oft forget about the Federalist Papers and their intent with reference to the Bill of Rights....
@@Ritzylamma Sadly, a very, very high percentage of people don't even know about the Federalist Papers and even fewer understand the content!! 😟
It would have been nice if 45 had read/followed it. You know, just as a friendly gesture. Boebert certainly doesn't have a clue. She recently told her supporters that the Church is supposed to tell the government what to do. Seems one ought to have to have read it prior to running for Congress. But that's just me.
@@charlesgrey5607 While encouraging churchgoers to get more involved in their local governments to help shape policy, Boebert, who easily won her primary election on Tuesday, said she’s "tired of this separation of church and state junk."
"The reason we had so many overreaching regulations in our nation is because the church complied. The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church," Boebert said. "That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it, and I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk. That’s not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does."
@@charlesgrey5607 look it up on UA-cam it’s real
As a Canadian I appreciate this unbiased overview of the US constitution. It explains a lot that most people have tended to just ignore.
Actually this is somewhat biased
@@greatgallade the truth is worse?
@@candyquahogmarshmallow8257 because I days it was somewhat biased still you day it's truth? Stfu kid
@@greatgallade eh? I'll give you another try, go....
I think our leaders need a refresher course in American History.
This statement is fully dependent on which side you personally lean
@@deemo5245 facts are facts, has nothing to do with sides.
@@michelebriere9569 it didn’t used to have
@@deemo5245 the intent is all laid out in the letters and drafts the writers and fathers of the constitution left behind. People prefer to ignore them, put their own spin on it. Too bad people can't put their personal feelings aside, and simply accept the facts.
@@michelebriere9569 Again, completely depends on what side you lean. One side Is really really wrong
I found this fascinating. I learned these things in the 1960s and 70s in bits and pieces. It was great to have it all put together.
after reading your post I realized I had the exact same experience watching this.
Yep
Sadly, this instructor defines the word democracy as mob rule when the root meaning simply means "the people rule" from the Greek. The people do not rule if they can vote away their own power, which is prevented if the rights of the individual are preserved through a constitution. You cannot form a republic ( the people's thing or affairs from the Latin) if the people do not have their power to rule preserved by a constitution protecting their individual rights.
WE....W. Double You.....E.Equality
(USA Constitution PreAmble)
"A More Perfect Union"
(Love), perfect (Atonement)
(USA Constitution PreAmble)
In the early 90's this was still taught in my grade school. It was the first thing in the class which set the stage for the history behind it starting in the 17th century. We had a pretty good social studies program. Not as complete as a 19th century grade school where it would have plumbed the depths in more detail, but it was pretty good for the '90's.
American history has always been poltiticized and turned into legend not fact. There are 10s of millions of people today who reject the facts in favored of a highly sanitized view of America.
Nowdays they just put up pictures of the founding fathers and shout "racist!" and "dead white men!" at them.
If the executive branch is not enforcing laws and the Congress/legislative is not impeaching, does the judicial have a power to balance this?
The lack of knowledge and understanding of our founding documents is both sad and frightening. I credit my years in the boy scouts working towards Eagle, where civics was drilled into us, with both my knowledge and deep admiration of them.
I thought this presentation was extremely well done and fair. It was as unbiased as I could have hoped for. Kudos to the professor for a fine presentation, full of essential information, and clearly presented. Thank you very much.
Study more, from older sources.
The left doesn't like our constitution
@Tommy T THEY WARNED US. THEY TOLD US. THEY KNEW.
@Tommy T Not Quite !
@Tommy T Numerous Founding Fathers were freemasons; even George, for a period of time. They swear allegiance "to a higher power", not our heavenly Father.
Listen to the Queen' s speeches for insight. Attorneys are mbrs of the BAR (BRITISH Accredited REGISTRY), for a Reason.
Excellent presentation, but sadly at 22:27 the discussion omits the last phrase of the Tenth Amendment's discussion of powers, "or to the people." The Ninth Amendment deals with the parallel idea that the rights of the people are not limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. Dr. Stoler's focus is on state-federal relations, but there is a general neglect of these elements relating to "the people" in jurisprudence and political discourse.
Very good, we are being controlled by the Barrister class.
I agree. Further, I think that was omitted on purpose. One of the things that did lasting damage to the US Constitution was a direct result of Marbury v. Madison. This case by itself is basically innocuous, but over time starting generally in the latter part of the 19th century the destruction of the 10th amendment started. Why did I start with the Marbury v. Madison case? Because the Constitution establishes that court as its primary protector. Sadly over time men started adding things via court precedent that is not there, and making exceptions to some of the protections. It was Marbury v. Madison that started this. My next comment might get me investigated by the FBI, but it is how I feel. The framers of that Constitution NEVER intended the Federal Government to become what it is today. This was why they added the 10th Amendment. I blame this on several things. The people by the latter part of the 19th century were not taught the Constitution, then you have politicitions of that era like TR who used that ignorance sadly with the blessings of the Federal Courts to start using the 10th as toilet paper! I'm in my 60s, and I have no children. I think our entire society and the rule of law are about to cave in on itself.
@@THE-michaelmyers I don't see how not caving in or at least a change. The people really seem brainwashed or purposely don't like America. You know the Bible talks of Moses giving the people Judges and they rejected that and wanted a King. Of course the Bible also says eventually we will have a King. I'm 60s WNK. Didn't feel it right to give them up to the government to kill and be killed.
@@THE-michaelmyers I am only a bit younger than you; I know very little compared to what I should, but I often feel like a one-eyed man in the land of the blind.
There is much to be sad about, but also many consolations. Before McDonalds went global, the idea of freedom, individual freedom and rights, was one of America's chief exports. The seeds have been planted across the globe with few places left completely baren.
The universities, the fake news, and big tech don't want us to think about how American freedom has transformed the world.
Yes we are losing it here at home. We got lazy, took it for granted, focused on external threats (rightly so imo), but left out back open to domestic silocialism, and so on and so forth.
Did our founding fathers risk less than what we as individuals might lose in continuing to fight for freedom? Are we going to ignore the obvious lesson of today that comfort and luxury don't provide for a truely meaningful life?
At the very least, you and I can educate a few younger minds so that some in a new generation of Americans will continue the fight, because at the end of the day, no freedom is ever maintained that isn't at odds with someone trying to take it away, who will take it away if there isn't a present will to fight for it.
THE BEST AMENDMENT, NOW HIDDEN FROM AMERICANS, AND NEVER REPEALED WAS THE 13th AMENDMENT! (NOT THE SLAVERY AMENDMENT)! THE ORIGINAL 13TH AMENDMENT WAS NO ONE WITH ANY TITLES OF NOBILITY SHALL BE ELECTED TO CONGRESS! THINK AN ESQUIRE IS A TITLE OF NOBILITY? IMO ESQUIRES/LAWYERS/BARRISTERS WERE DEEMED BEING A TITLE’S OF NOBILITY AT ONE TIME IN U.S. HISTORY, AS WELL AS THOSE IN THE ADMINISTRATION WHO HAVE BEEN KNIGHTED BY THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND, AND VARIOUS OTHER COUNTRIES, AS WELL AS ENTITIES CREATED IN THE USA! THUS, LAWYERS OR ANYONE HOLDING ANY TYPE OF NOBLE TITLE SHOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO BECOME MEMBERS OF CONGRESS!
ALSO, GO DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE DEEP ENOUGH AND YOU WILL FIND CONSTITUTIONS (3) HAVE CHANGED COVERTLY OVER TIME! LOOK IN OLD BOOKS, LIBRARIES AND STATE LEGISLATURE LIBRARIES IN DIFFERENT STATES. IT WILL SHOCK YOUR CONSCIENCE!
What a great lecturer; precise, articulate and easy to follow. Bravo!
I had much of this content in my AP history course in 1998. I had an excellent teacher, who although extremely liberal, was also committed to teaching a proper curriculum and encouraging thought from her students. Frequently I am reminded how lucky I am to have studied under her when I see so many people who are totally ignorant of this kind of basic foundational history of our country. This is the kind of thing that absolutely must be understood by citizens. It is remarkable how radical this solution was at the time, and how easily it could have fallen. The various colonies rebelling from Spain all proved this time and again when they found themselves unable to unify behind a national vision, and their resulting countries fell into long series of revolts and bloody conflicts - and still today 250 years later, we see the consequences of revolution without the kind of vision and compromise that was necessary to create our nation.
Republicans like Meatball Ron are doing everything in their power to prevent people from learning as you did. They want small minded and obediant robots to control.
The end of government education in schools was the beginning of the government telling us what our rights are and don't think about it. Absolute control of people with busy lives entangled in electronic entertainment. My sources say this. Forget the easy sources , I use my instinct to look further at old books.
Interesting interpretation. However, "government education" in the US has not ended, but has gained plenty of control over our children & resources - and it continues to grow. I assert the quality of my experience as both an active voter & a public school teacher, and actual observations with my own eyes, ears, and cognition.
@@darktimesatrockymountainhi4046 I will retract my assertion a bit, saying it is not the absolute but prevalent in many larger city schools of blue tint. Some public school teachers have moved to different employment because of demanded material presentation and lack of authority to discipline students effectively. I am not a teacher , my sister was , I did other work in the public school system. Maybe you agree . ?
“Teachers, leave them kids alone
Hey, teachers, leave those kids alone”
It is the elimination of teaching ABOUT government in public schools that has enabled the threat of tyranny. Without an understanding of how local, state and national governments SHOULD work and how they do in fact work has enabled dishonest people to convince large groups to trust and distrust the wrong things - in fact, to get the things that are most and least trusted agents of government (and sources of information) essentially backwards.
Amen
For the last forty or so years I've always maintained, close at hand, a well thumbed copy of the US Constitution and a well loved copy of "Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union". Your well written and highly enjoyable presentation has made me remember it's time to re-evaluate the Federalist Papers. Thank you very much.
What about where it says 1 per 30,000?
They are being re-evaluated by tyrannic judges
What's important is not the notions of Hamilton, et al., but instead the understandings held by those in state conventions who made the document law. What were their intentions?
You'd have done better to keep a well oiled firearm, it's going to be needed next year to defend that well thumbed copy of the constitution you keep, wait and see...
while you're at it, check if it's permitted to change a country, all states & all "gov" agensees & depts into for-profit corps.
I'm still looking.
1871 was not a good year, and neither was 1933....er, I mean for citizens of the once "free" world.
Fantastic presentation, and top quality teacher! I learned so much, and it was a real joy to just keep listening because the teacher was so enthusiastic about the topic. Thanks!
Thank you, Mark. I haven’t herd these points since grade school. This video should be required in public school.
Absolutely Excellent, sent it to everyone I could. Back in 1987 at a trade school during a lunch break, perfect timing to catch Paul Harvey report.
Paul stated that Harvard Law School just posted there results of the finals... 94% failures. 3% receive a passing grade 3% max out.
Students went to visit the Dean, Dean had a mandatory meeting with the Facility,
A professor stood his ground refuse to lower the testing curve... "Rest of the Story"
The test that was given to the graduation class from Harvard Law School was on the US Constitution,with the bill of Right.
Same identical test that was given to the graduation class of 1909.
@Dale Slover I miss Paul Harvey! We must be dinosaurs!
@@aliseegenuine6414Paul Harvey was a legend, if you or anybody else grew up listen to him.Well your a fortunate person.I couldn't not wouldn't trade the last 50 years for anything..
@@daleslover2771 my grandfolks always had him on the radio.
his delivery.. slowing down at the embarassing part. and then just leaving it at that, a pause to let it sink in, but not commenting any further. so understated and classy by modern standards.
I believe it! I've taken tests of students of the 1800s, too -- extremely challenging -- and impossible for the Majority of today who Ignore learning on their own (that creates an Ignoramous).
@@aliseegenuine6414 HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ... We are the last unmonitored generation, the fully literate, the barely innoculated, and only somewhat indoctrinated WISE ones. Largely free-thinking, too, perhaps.
How fortunate am I, that I happened upon this episode, purely by chance? Some of these facts were known to me. Some of the dates were familiar to me as well. My children on the other hand, being 11 and 13, have not yet heard many of these facts, nor did they understand the importance of the information here in contained. Great lecture. I look forward to sharing the remainder with my younglings, by coercion, if necessary.
@Patrick Donaldson context?
It is great to see videos like this getting close to millions of views cuz it means ppl care or least someone does
In HS Civics class in 61, the teacher gave the assignment of learning and memorizing an article of the bill of rights each week for 10 weeks. then a discussion on the need, purpose and impact of the article. I sure did not like this class at the time. today i am glad i had that class and carry a pocket booklet of the Constitution frequently.
I loved how you took the time to put all this history in one presentation. I knew the original founders were younger at the time of the constitution, but this presentation really put it all together in a better perspective. It makes me more greatful for what we have and more thankful for what the original founders had done for our future as a nation.
They were younger in years, but they were no children. They were at 28 old enough to set 35 as the age of electability for primary offices. Also 28 then was much older then the 28 year olds of today.
The first governor of the colony of Connecticut in 1650 was one of my grandfathers. God bless America.
Average life expectancy then was 35 years. Its why life time appointments to the Supreme Court was a non issue. No one was expected to live very long.
@@richardleetbluesharmonicac7192 "... 1650 was one of my grandfathers"? Come on dude, there has got to be 2 or 3 maybe 5 greats in front of that. After all, 373 years is a long time ago.
2 minutes in and I am shocked at the ignorance in this country. The education system is broken.
You think? 21 years, this doesn't surprise me at all. You have any idea how much I debunk on FB? LMFAO, both right and left, mostly right.
@@xXPlumpkinXx Honestly, I'm exaggerating. I'm not surprised at all how stupid people can be. This really should be taught early on. The only way people find this stuff out is by actively searching it, it seems.
@@AfricanLionBat Exactly but what's happening today? The people that are the most compassionate are part of established academia. This man has a Ph.D. We would call him elitist. Now I myself have no qualifications. I do my research out of a will to learn. Opposite of apathy. But I would never lecture someone on something I did not clearly understand. For instance I remember in the old days people used to criticize President Obama all the time about not knowing the Constitution. This man taught constitutional law at Harvard. The criticisms came from people who couldn't even spell casual words in the English language. I guess besides the education system it just amazes me how confident people can be in this country when they have no idea what they are talking about. I didn't mean to get political per say I was just giving some examples. 🤣
@@xXPlumpkinXx you're exactly right. Apathy is also a big part of the problem. People are more interested in TV drama than the real life drama of real life. I believe much of the criticism of Obama was not a lack of understanding but a willful violation of the constitutional. I can't attest to any truthfulness to that. The only thing that I can think of off hand is the lack of senate approval for the Paris climate accord but I think there's loopholes etc because like you said, he understands the constitution.
@@AfricanLionBat Pretty sure its how we avoid accountability congressionally in foreign policy? Its not a war, its just a "Police action"? But my father served in Vietnam. He's pretty sure it was a war. I can't comment on the constitutionality of that myself, not something I reviewed in great detail at the time. Wasn't even a common critique I heard. But I did want to be sure vaccinations were. And so far, seems legit from what I can tell.
Nice summation of the Constitutional foundation. As we see today, legislators continue to kick the can down the road. And we continue to have the argument of who is right and who’s wrong.
If you look at the tone of how the U.S. Constitution was written, it’s tone is spoken towards the Government to protect the rights of American Citizens.
I am very familiar with the Constitution, including the founding documents & it’s background.
Currently I am very troubled by the ignorance of vast swaths of people to understand even basic Jr High Civics.
People often will try to explain what the “plain meaning” of the text on the page- and whatever snippet they want to quote.
They take three sentences out of their context and relative to the entire document and the SCOTUS decisions which modify the meaning; however to understand what the TRUE MEANING of the Constitution you have to read that text relative to its purpose.
The Constitution and it’s preamble does a great job claiming the purpose of ALL THAT FOLLOWS.
So, when trying to imagine what the founders truly intended / they told you in the
PREAMBLE,
So you must look at everything you read and ask how does it achieve what the PREAMBLE says it was done for.
If you try any interpretation of constitutional text without asking how it achieves in the PREAMBLE, your not getting an accurate idea of what it SHOULD mean,
OR...let the Founding Fathers speak for themselves in context. Most people fantasy of America is not in line with the FF feelings that are well documented. Just as Confederate supporter not don't seem to know or care what the secessionist intended and their rational for leaving the union. Conversely, people on either side of the Civil War total misrepresent the North's office position on enslaved Africans and the benefits of free labor from Southern plantations.
🔥🔥🔥🚒
Any familiarity with the generational, Progressive (incremental) irrelevance & "legal" obfuscation of such?
constitution says its to be determined by the people dork
@@anothercomment3451 Ha, they simply ignore it 50% of the time. That old chestnut. 🌰
As a Canadian I found this lecture very educational. In Canada we are a confederation which did not get a constitution untill 1983. The province of Quebec still has not ratified it. In Canada provinces can opt out of National laws which impact provincial jurisdiction as well as vote to leave the confederation. Canada is a work in progressive
The context of the repatriation of the constitution for Québec was such a collective backstabbing by the rest of Canada that the unwillingness to ratify runs across parties wether they are federalists or not. I suspect that, as history repeats itself, that someone will eventually accept the 30 shekels.
more so... a work of ---
edited for community guidelines
@@noretreat151 trump got right up in your arse huh pal? Maybe wake up to the real world.
We all are "works in progress." Unless the government is dead, lifeless, and a huge burden. Some principles of governing must remain constant for stability, but others must adapt and change with the people and the times. Too much of either can destroy all that has previously been built up.
Nonsense op
Let me start by saying when this title popped up on UA-cam I was SKEPTICAL. Wondering who's ideas these would be. As soon as I heard the voice I knew.
I was fortunate enough to come across this course at the library several years ago. It is unbelievable the amount of content covered.
I had to learn this in school and I am proud to say it's was truly amazing to know. Young people need to learn it now, knowing the constitution is a fundamental part of your everyday life
This is one of the better, more non-partisan/unbiased assessments I have seen in recent years. He did add a couple things in that I don’t agree with (which is going to happen even with those who share a similar perspective or worldview as yourself) but he did a good job, by and large!
@@rachelpickens6025first, let me say he gives a far more balanced perspective than most. However, he talked at the end about how slaves were viewed as 3/5 a person…that is skewed because slave owners took their slaves’ votes along with their own which hurt the slave. So to weaken the control the slave owner held over the slave politically, they made each vote count as 3/5th the vote. That actually helped the slave in the long run and, of course, once slavery was abolished, they were given the same full vote as freed men.
If a slave owner had 10 slaves and his own, he actually would have gotten 11 full votes for whatever he wanted had they not done the 3/5ths compromise. However, with the 3/5ths compromise, they the slave owner would receive 4 less votes. And, while it wasn’t the best policy, it was definitely better for the slaves than had it not been in place.
The two other major issues I had go hand in hand. He talked about the “separation of church and state” and made it sound like our modern understanding was what was wanted by all our founders but it wasn’t even the intent of Thomas Jefferson (who was the origin for that phrase)…and he was the only founder who wasn’t overtly religious. When we use the term “religion” today we are referring to whether you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. However, when they used that tern, they used it instead of the term “denomination” which we would use today. Reading through the Founders’ writings makes this clear.
Further, Thomas Jefferson received a letter from the Dansbury Baptists wanting him to push for Baptists to be the official religion/denomination of the US. Once again, reading through the letter to Jefferson as well as the response from Jefferson, that is clear. We have to remember why Europeans came to America in the first place…they wanted freedom of religion and had been unable to have that in Europe.
Each state set up an official religion/denomination which was perfectly fine and nobody, including Jefferson, had any issue with that. However, they ALL had huge qualms with the idea of their being a government-mandated religion as that would have defeated the very reason they came here in the first place…Slowly, that phrase, that exists in NO founding documents and is ONLY found in Jefferson’s private letter in response to the Danbury Baptists, has been twisted to mean something that it was never intended.
The way the narrator used the phrase “separation of church and state” was from that modern understanding that is lacking historical context making it revisionist and I have an issue with that.
@@rachelpickens6025sorry for the “book” I wrote in response.
While this was pretty good he is off track on the compromise of counting 3/5ths in regards to slavery. At no time was a slave only considered to be 3/5th of a person. The historical fact was that the slave holding states insisted on counting all of the slaves as full citizens to get more representation in congress and therefore more power while also denying all the rights of citizenship to those same slaves. So the compromise was that they would count 3/5th of the slave population for the purpose of representation to congress thereby limiting the power of the slave holding states. This was an attempt to lay the foundation for eliminating slavery from the country.
Additionally many people scream about the concept of slavery without fully understanding that the sole reason slavery existed in what became the USA was because it was allowed under Royal Decree by the King of England. Until the Revolutionary War was won, everything done in this nation was done under British Law as set forth by Parliament. The Founding Fathers grew up in a slave holding society because England wanted and allowed it. In the first draft of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson attempted to highlight this in his list of grievances but 2 slave holding states, Georgia and South Carolina, refused to sign the declaration with that included. Because it had to be unanimous that part was scrubbed but if you do a google search you can find it.
omfg dude--STOP. JUST STOP WITH THE RACIST AP[OLOGETICS. ENOUGH OG THE KKK PROPOGANDA--GTFOH
It's the old story of gas-lighting. Using the compromise to denigrate the ones actually opposed to slavery. Even to this day.
Slavery existed among African and Indian tribes. Some say it still exists.
@@rogersmith7396
Give us an evidentiary lecture on that
Those Good little deists and their slavery
29-35 years old was a much more mature age than now. They had great wisdom for their age. Most of these guys were men at 12-14 as per their responsibilities. Can’t compare that. They were older than their ages because of the times. ⚔️🇺🇸⚔️
I feel like a lot of 29-year-olds today are less mature than I was when I was 12 or 14.
Yeah you can't be educated without knowing Latin. Most people were illiterate.
Oh yeah, all them responsibilities on their slave ran plantations.
Of the 85 Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote 51, James Madison wrote 29, John Jay wrote 5.
John Jay😊
Great lecture! As a historian it always irks me when people interpret these kinds of documents as if they were written with the 21st century in mind...
Depends on what you/people mean by "written with the 21st century in mind".
Of course, the framers could not foresee even most of the 19th century. Still, the Constitution doesn't need to have the 21st century in mind as it only provides the framework, the rules under which government works and, after the Bill of Rights, a few key principles.
The Constitution doesn't to be prophetic because it can be amended and in any case most of the time constitutional changes are not needed for government to work.
It irks me that people today aren't writing laws with the 23rd century in mind.
They were looking back at 2000 years of power being concentrated and abused and tried to prevent it. But guess what, you have an elected king and his standing army.
@@str.77yeah good luck changing the constitution in this day and age
@@tesladrew2608 Why should I? Constitutions shouldn't be changed IMO. In any case, it shouldn't be easy.
What a great video. Glued together the things I learned ages ago, and implicitly lets me know how much I have forgotten and how much there’s still to learn / comprehend.
Loved the quote “I love liberty but hate equality.”
That was because, as upper class, democracy is to his disadvantage. Democracy is not liberty. As libertarians like to complain, "Democracy is tyranny of the majority!"
I love this video just finished a history course And what you said and what I learned both matched up perfectly.
Well I suppose it's time to learn current events. Organic act 1871 established a government for UNITED STATES which is located in Washington DC known as a democracy, no authority to do so, 1933 maybe 35 government devolved chapter 11 bankruptcy. UNITED STATES is a corporation definition in US code and quick company search on Dunn and Bradstreet proves it. The law being enforced is evidence also. ua-cam.com/video/AO4n0eqSx84/v-deo.html
As good as this lecture was, I cringed inside when he mentioned the 3 Fifths Compromise as “counting slaves as 3/5 of a person”. The 3/5 compromise was about counting slaves in the legislature via population. If the compromise didn’t happen, the southern, slave owning states would have had a lot more representation in Congress. It’s disheartening that most people don’t understand this.
No, by counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person the slave owning states could count slaves as persons which gave them more power not less power in the federal government it also made them pay more taxes. Without the 3/5ths compromise slaves would not have counted as persons at all but rather as chattel.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise
Strangle The Gangs:
Legalize All Drugs
Legalize All Guns
Legalize Prostitution
End Welfare Now
@@juanmccoy3066 I would be a DemocRat but the mental gymnastics is just to much, so I go with Tom.
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. Thomas Jefferson
@@juanmccoy3066 Neither one is ok. But it's important to understand the effects of the 3/5 compromise. The Southern states wanted slaves to count as full people for representation, but not at all for taxation. The Northern states wanted the reverse. The 3/5 compromise specifically reduced the amount of representation Southern slaveholders had in the House of Representatives, as well as the electoral votes they contributed toward the presidential election, and thus reduced the power of southern slaveholders to exercise political power in pursuit of the preservation of slavery.
Well this is when you realize that when they talked all the right liberty happiness.. They only meant for themselves.. Freedom was a lie from the get go.. It only meant for white wealthy men
@@hollichamblee141 On the contrary, there were free black men who were able to vote. Not only that, but the Constitution set the groundwork for the gradual and sustained march of enfranchising more and more people with the ability to vote... first non-land-owners, then male slaves, then all women. It's not an accident that that happened... the structure of the Constitution and the ideals laid out in the Declaration of Independence made that extension of voting rights more or less inevitable.
Thank you, Dr. Stoler. Many of my beliefs about the Constitution were affirmed, and many more were challenged. This was time well-spent.
Same!
This was in our middle school and high school curriculum. It is standard in NJ. When someone tells me they were never taught this, if they are from nj, bs. Kids frequently dont like history class and dont pay attention. Some of the finer details werent covered, but the articles, the disputes, all of that was covered in hs. It was also literally in the text books. Kids dont bother reading things they arent told to. Maybe if we stopped making high school about sports teams and extracurriculars and focused on...i dont know, education, we would have a more informed electorate. People complain about taxes (which fund schools), but try telling them you want to cut all sports teams so you can fund smaller class sizes without raising taxes and they melt down.
This is absolutely brilliant. Well done well done
I began first grade in school in 1938. From that time on, the principles of the Constitution were simply part of our learning. Every classroom had a Stars and Stripes and a picture of George Washington on the wall. Every morning we began class standing, putting out hands over our hearts and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. At least one semester of civics was a requirement in order to graduate from high school. Those who preceded my age group by just several years, their older siblings, went on to win WWII. Could we do something like that again?
Indoctrinated from first grade? Pledges, flags and pictures of rulers? These sound no different from Nazi Germany or Hitler youth. It may not have been that bad but Nazi Germany, North Korea, Soviet Union, China all do this kind of stuff. What hope do you have?
Requiring children to pledge allegiance to the flag is idolatry and Indoctrination.
Not that happy with the elitist, slave owning, social climbing, incompetent general Washington.
Probably not considering most younger people including myself aren’t very big fans of the current us government and it’s lack of social programs and aptitude to increasing disparity between those with wealth versus those without
The average person has no idea what is in the constitution other than the elitist propaganda they were taught. If they did they would demand its dissolution.@@markvickery5894
Excellent!!! I intend to find all the lectures in this series. Wonderful control of the subject and the language.
Excellent lecture. Federalist Papers was a required reading for my BA Political Science Florida International University (FIU) @ Miami, Florida 1981 MUST READ!
Investing time into this lecture allowed me to leap frog into a Constitutional refresher. Highly recommended!
A good time for everyone to dig back into the Constitution and understand how this framework of government addresses both basic human nature and an organization enabling people to thrive within their own sphere of influence. It is not perfect, as it is a product of imperfect humans, but it offers an opportunity to exercise personal freedom and liberty in a world where these features are exceedingly rare.
jefferson advocated that it expire in 20 years. bc he thought it was insane that people in the future would be clinging to what dead guys (not how he put it) thought.
You can’t own slaves, be a rapist, and somehow only be “imperfect” the founders were mostly horrible criminals who systemically wiped out over 50+ million people living in advanced agricultural communities in harmony with nature. AmeriKKKA is collapsing anyway thankfully. Back to sanity
@@r3b3lvegan89 the genocide was AFTER 1789. it's weird/TELLING that you're lying about it.
@@op3129 Columbus wasn't 1789 genius, Columbus started the genocide against native Americans starting in Haiti El Salvador and then moved up to Florida and began wiping them out. there's always the Native American Museum in DC that 100% backs this up, along with literally hundreds of verified sources including journals from Bartolemu Dela Casas as well as Frank James (Indian who's grandfather was murdered by the pilgrims) its been featured on ABC even back in 2014. I'm sorry you have been indoctrinated with white washed crap, dig deeper.
@@op3129 I wish YT would allow me to see the reply
Thank you Professor. I learned many things from this lecture. But it also reinforces my belief that the Constitution is a pragmatic document. The ideals are in the Preamble, but the rest of the document was an attempt to come up with solutions that had a chance of working. In that they were successful, and we have corrected some of the problems in the original. Your comments and their concerns about the excesses of revolutionaries was what occurred after the French Revolution that was inspired by ours. I look forward to seeing your other videos.
The Constitution is an ideological defense of individual rights, not a method of achieving arbitrary, short-range compromised goals.
Well, yes and no. The political system as envisioned in the Constitution really didn't last past the first national election. The authors of the Constitution were naïve in their belief that their new government would be free of the factionalization that was present in the British Parliament. American political parties emerged rapidly and transformed the electoral college, the vice presidency and and the Senate away from the aristocratic vision. In this regard, they were being very idealistic.
@@TeaParty1776 Maybe you didn't listen to the lecture in the video. The problems faced by a very young US of A included the fact that the new country was made up of 13 previously independent English colonies. The main problem was to come up with a constitution that would be accepted by all the colonies. That goal was the pragmatic part of the process. I would note also that individual rights are not in the original Constitution. They only became part of it when the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments, were ratified. Subsequent amendments have further expanded individual rights.
@@garygreen7552 Individual rights is the implicit context of the Enlightenment era Constitution. The Enlightenment is the ONLY basically individualist culture in history. The fact that the words, "individual rights," is not in the Constitution is irrelevant except to anti-intellectual concrete-bound conservative meatheads who memorize a chaos of isolated facts, call it tradition, and never ever integrate them into a category as a guide to mans life. Man is not a brute animal knowing only concretes, this tree this prey, this mate. Man generalizes or dies. Man mentally makes One out of Many. Man knows the category, tree, and uses that knowledge for every tree he encounters. The Constitution is a principled grant of power to the govt for the purpose of protecting individual rights that exist because man must know his freedom of action in society. Unlike conservative meatheads, Enlightenment culture had a basic respect for mans mind, mans independent mind. They wanted a politics to protect the minds guidance of ,mans life. The practical, political concrete situations they faced were not basic. They put those situations into an intellectual context best called rational individualism. That context is virtually missing from our current culture and your mind. All you know is a chaos of concrete facts viewed from arbitrary tradition. Leftists, of course, w/their heads in the clouds of mystical ideals, also hate and evade mans independent mind, but for equality. We are headed for a Leftist/conservative dictatorship without the slightest concern or knowledge of individual rights, just two mindless, hate-filled tribes screaming for blood. Both hate America altho only Leftists are honest about it. Nationalism is not rational patriotism that respects individual rights. Americans have rejected independent thought for Trump and Biden.
Atlas Shrugged-Ayn Rand
@@garygreen7552 The main problem was to protect individual rights in their concrete situation.
A good advertisement for The Great Courses history of the early days of the post-independence US and The Constitution. Good points about the inevitable compromises and balancing of political opposites.
Accurate. Avgoid reason for 2023-25 would do well to review the Constitution and present proposals to all states and go forward, not backward as we are now. Thank you for this lesson.
i have been braying from the hilltops for several decades that we need to return to teaching, proactively, Civics.
The reason people are uneducated on this topic is because it's not considered a core subject in any state. Our federal Department of Education has decided that American government and basic civics are not worthy of being included in the core curriculum.
I disagree. The reason is that most people don't use their free time to pursue personal education outside of schools and diplomas. You aren't done studying until you are dead in my opinion. That is why I know more than average. Not because I am smart, but because I use my own time to learn more.
That’s incorrect. I’ve learned civics in high school
@@jtgd as an elective course, yes. My point was that it should be a core subject at every school in the nation
The Department of Education does not determine curriculum. In the US, education is highly decentralized with individual States, local govt., boards of ed, and teachers determining individual requirements and curriculum. You need to do some research because you are misinformed.
@@amydolego7052 There is *some* allowance for each state but to call it highly decentralized is just wrong. Every state is beholden to federal department of education policy from the top down. You are the misinformed one.
Amazing how our fore fathers knew what could or would happen without our Constitution.
onstitution = A joke on all the people who choose to live by it. This is the 21st Century a far cry from the writers of the Constitution the Primary writer owned slaves. Go figure
“The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson
Its long past due.
@@FreeSpeechAbsolutist1776 get ready to bleed then. though why youd prefer that to ballot box I cant imagine.
We are missing blood of tyrants. We have AMPLE blood of patriots
The words of a coward doesn't mean much, he was one of the youngest members of the Continental Congress and only one of a few who refused to serve.
This was awesome! I just learned at least 10 things I never knew that completely cleared up at least 20 things I never really understood! Bravo and thank you! :)
The people get representation of 1 per 30,000.
The Great Courses is one of the best groups for college level content. Their coverage on classical music spurred my current deep love for Brahms.
I taught Constitutional Law at the college level for many years. With all due respect for the speaker and several of those who have submitted comments, I assert the lack of knowledge of the Constitution is much worst than depicted. My practice was to ask the class, at its first meeting, about the Bill of Rights. My question was “What is the Bill of Rights?” I NEVER got a correct answer to this simple question. That was very disheartening but it let me know where I needed to start. Eventually I started providing a pocket Constitution to all of my students at my own expense with the only requirement being that they read it and bring it to every class session.
Like one commenter, I decry the lack of civic classes at the high school level. I’m older but not ancient and my high school (in the 1960s) did offer a one semester civics course. That course was one of the reasons I decided to make law my career. I was also called to teach law and, even with the concern I am voicing here, I found it to be gratifying. Hang in there law professors. Our world is so messed up now, we need you more than ever. Frank J Taylor
One of the greatest mistakes we have made is the 17th Amendment. The 17th changed Senators from the servants of, and answerable to, the State Legislatures into what is the equivalent of Petty Barons. Instead of coming to the State Legislatures with shaking knees and hat in hand modern Senators come in and boss around the State Legislatures, telling them what they will and will not do. It also changed the Senate into the lifetime appointment and retirement home we have today. If appointed by the State Legislatures Senators would be changed every time those Legislators changed party control. Politicians are like diapers, they are best changed often and for the same reason.
Absolutely! Also 16
Absolutely agree. People don’t ever mention that but it would be such a huge power back to the people move. That and repeal the 16th, disband the IRS and replace it with the FairTax.
The problem with your logic, Dutchboy, is that state legislatures are often corrupt with no oversight. The gerrymander allows them to choose their constituents not vice versa. This renders tmany undemocratic and illegitimate. They represent the will of the highest bidder, not the people.
I would support term limits on Senators and Supreme Court Justices ...and independent nonpartisan district designation.
@@jv-lk7bc "often corrupt with no oversight. The gerrymander(ing) allows them...". Sure you are not thinking of Congress? State Legislatures are at least closer to home and thus more accountable to voters. This provides a measure of oversight. Much more so than with the Congress. I see my State Rep at least three or four times a year and usually only see the Congress Critters every four years. On average local control is better than long distance. Plus it is a check and balance originally put in the Constitution, one sorely needed today.
@@dutchboy9273 Are you even an American? To suggest taking the vote away from the people and handing it to the already privileged is disgusting. The 17th wipes away one more lingering festering anachronism of monarchy polluting the American system. nonsense.
I understood a lot of the basics of this when I was in grade school. Most of it in history class 3rd-7th grade, 1963-1967. In 8th grade history class the teacher said the USA government was going to fall apart in about 50 years...pretty close to the truth I would say
Excellent. The Great Courses/Wondrium course in the Federalist Papers is great for learning more about the Constitution, also.
Thank you for the nice feedback, Kimberly!
What about the anti-federalists? They insisted on a Bill of Rights, or we wouldn't have one.
ua-cam.com/users/waypasthadenoughabout
Liked and subbed. Excellent presentation of content, and, may I say, your set is gorgeous. What a beautiful room!
Thanks for changing up camera angles throughout, it helped keep my attention as intended. 👍🏽
That was great! I think I just learned more in that segment then all my years of high school but together. And that's not saying too much for government education
Should have gone to church school. At least you would know something of the bible and that the earth is only 6000 years old and that humans and dinosauers existed at the same time.
Thank you. I am Dutch, and never had the opportunity to understand the American set up of state. Dealing with our own Dutch system was already quite involved at the time I obtained my education.
Thanks for ending this presentation on a positive note, full of hope. 🙄
Seriously, excellent piece this. Breaks it down in a way that I've not heard before. Requires multiple listens.
Was there any follow up video afterward?
As a Canadian, I still think that no better examples of documents that define a nation exist than the U.S. Constitution and declaration if independence
23:45 Factions as the key problem. "...willing to ride roughshod over the rights of others to ensure its own interests." Madison described the current situation over 230 years ago. Funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Wow this was pretty cool to listen too. This is the approach/information we need in our public schools
"Just some old white guy going yada, yada, yada..."
I agree it was informative, but this is not how children learn ANYTHING today
@@kendallsmith1458 You are part of the problem that is tearing apart our country.
The problem today is that many who want change do not want to utilize the built-in change option in the constitution, which is the amendment process. They usually want instant change, but it doesn't work that way.
Very clear and well structured lecture. Thank you for work.
Since No Child Left Behind was passed, civics courses in public schools has taken a beating....Nat Hentoff wrote years ago that in many high schools, the number of civics courses went from 3 offered, to 1.
Bush 2 was definitely a part of the Uniparty.
True that. I remember my Civics classes. Neither my stepson nor grandson had any such classes and it’s terrifying. I’m in a very Trumpian red state and these people are crazy
@@SaraRiley91958 it's not a red state thing and has jack to do with Trump. In fact the Republicans want to fix this problem and Trump is against common core and no child left behind which was passed by Obama and Clinton at the federal level respectively. I live in a very blue state, I can confirm our education is not better. Education is managed from the highest levels of the federal government. And let's face it, democrats aren't exactly staunch constitutionalists and more often than not demonstrate not only a lack of understanding about it but they often demonstrate they don't care about it unless it suits them.
Republicans keeping the populace ignorant about how the government works on purpose? No way, consider me truly shocked.
@@themightymcb7310 >> Kindly don’t clump most of us with the likes of Bush 2. I’d like nothing more than better civics courses…I even think we should have critical thinking courses.
One of the problems with education is that counting slaves as 3/5 th of person was the idea of southern state delegates but in reality it was a northern action in order to keep the US house of representatives more balanced between north versus south if the slaves had been counted a full person most of the southern states would have had more representatives....
The Southern economic system was based around slavery. If the Civil war is a clash between a slave-based Southern economic system and an industrial capitalist Northern one, than it is essentially also a clash over slavery. And, as slavery is the core reason for the divergence of economic systems, the economic aspect of the Civil War is derrivative of the question of slavery. Hence, it is slavery that is the central cause of the Civil War.
I want to give thanks to my friend Jack Sawyer for taking a young man under his wing 40 years ago and teaching him the true nature of the government, our monetary system, and women. Thanks Jack. You saved me many years of misery and the people who mocked you back then talk about you now with respect because of your foresight. I will see you at the end of the trail pardner.
So women are always kind, gentle, and supportive right?
@@rogersmith7396
Far from it. Most are predators.
@@wutntarnation "Its a mans world".
Thank you for this information. I didn’t learn this in school for one reason or another. I appreciate learning it now. ❤
Excellent clear, succinct and well spoken lecture🤗🤗
Appropriately adopting amendments that reflect the times is very reasonable. Not ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment ended up being catastrophic, resulting in much of the social ills we know and suffer from today.
Liberty in the United States is being taken over, step by step, by so-called "Christian Nationalis, which is one reason the ERA was not ratified. You should read the anti-religious comments by many of the Founding Father's. They had zero intent on this becoming a Christian nation. Read the First Amendment. No establishment of religion. If you wanted to believe in some religion, fine. But keep your religious ideas out of government . This also applies to state governments via the 14th Amendment.
Laws should be written for the living.
The ERA was to vague and allowed for an infinite number of interpretations. Men and women are different and have different legal needs to protect them.
Seperate bathrooms, seperate clothing requirements, seperate health-care needs.
@@stewiesaidthat All current amendments are vague then.
@@michaelreidperry3256...
the majority of children will reason and not ‘touch a hot stove 🔥 burner’... a few will touch.
What a fantastic and educational 30 minutes.
Thanks for producing such an awesome video.
Thank YOU for watching, Malcolm!
I haven't had the federalist papers explained as well as here. Even though they weren't mentioned exclusively. I appreciate this video, it gives me a lot to think about.
The Constitution passed by offering the vision of a large powerful dynamic nation instead of small, poweless moribund states. We should have that in mind today. Most states are bankrupt without their annual Federal dole.
Make sure you read both Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers
Very informative. Nice to see him be honest about how the founding fathers were terrified of the average person voting
The terrifying factor was the uneducated mob influenced by corrupt means :. Intimidations, alcohol, and money.
Not entirely unlike the masses today. Should we fear the masses today?
@@mikedickison5003 no
Then it was about either just paying off the voters in cash, free rum on election day, or flat out beating one up if they voted wrong.
Now days it's handing out "free" social programs by the billions of dollars, legalized marijuana and and other modern pharmacopeia, and being dismissed on social media to actual arrest for politician or religious non conforming views.
Don't you dare support pro- life, anti LGBTQ lifestyles, law enforcement, voting reforms, tough immigrant policies these days or they'll burn down your businesses, harass you in the streets and throw you in jail.
Not much different, really.
Not really. In that time, a lot of people were ignorant and couldn't read or communicate like we can today. You couldn't simply click on a button and 20 minutes later have a decent working knowledge of the Constitution like you can right here. They were afraid of ignorant people voting and destroying all of the work that they put in to the foundations of this nation.
@@TNCelt1 this is why they pushed a republic rather than a democracy. It's about law rather than popularity of the moment.
An excellent talk. I wish they could have explained things so clearly in School.
US Constitution's 14th Amendment Section 3:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Like doing dealings with our foreign adversaries or those to whom we owe great debt?
The first and most important reads to understand the origins of the reasoning behind the Founders decisions and makeup of the Constitution are The Federalist Papers and The 5000 Year Leap.
How far we have fallen from the Founding Father's original intent for this country. 😕
Fallen as far as from North Pole to South Pole .
This isn't 1776 anymore. Grow up.
@@sr2291 Get back under your bridge, troll.
@Herro So who are you?
@Herro Someone who wants to keep our free and Secular Country.
It is because of corporate media and contemporary public education that many believe the fallacies identified in this video. Hardly anyone reads the Constitution anymore. And it's an interesting note that the Vermont Constitution closely resembles the federal.
This 30 minutes video taught me more about our country than 12 years in school could.
Lysander Spooner said it best: "But whether the constitution really be one thing or another, this much is certain- That it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
The fact of the matter is Thomas Hobbes' social contract theory is rife with contradiction and violates the essence of individual sovereignty. Frankly, there is no such thing as a social contract. The constitution of the United States is NOT a social contract. It's an arbitrary decree.
What a brilliantly concise but extremely informative appraisal of the American Constitution construction.
There is no 'The' American Constitution. Each of the countries in America have their own.
@@davidharner5865 Its the UNITED STATES of AMERICA constitution. Why anyone named the entirety of the new world "America" was the mistake. So now we have North, South and Middle America. However, there is only ONE USA.
@@davidharner5865 of course there is an American constitution. "American" is simply a colloquial way of saying the Constitution of the United States of America. Only the citizens of the United States are known as Americans. Thus the constitution that governs United States citizens is properly described as the American constitution.
I am very grateful for this explanation. I must say, I always learn something from this channel. I thank you. Keep up the great work
didn't say how or why?
A big factor in creating our Constitution was the need to create a national currency.
Sure, we could have created a national currency while keeping state issued currencies.
Why we didn’t is another matter.
But the point is that we really did need a national currency. Just as any nation does for economic reasons, including preventing currency wars among the individual states.
This is excellent. Very knowledgeable lecturer
We are at this very moment facing a tyrannical government, the same as our founding fathers did. We are being pushed into taking action in the same manner that our founding fathers bravely chose. It’s a true disgrace what we’ve allowed our federal government to become. The federal government was to protect our sovereignty, not control every aspect of our lives.
Agreed, but there's some weirdo Canadians here.
@@zyxzyx3030 What do Canadians have to do with the U.S.A?
We would be much better off if we would only elect candidates who would pledge not to take any large money donations. If we could get to where those who are supposed to represent us were living off the salaries we pay them rather than going into politics to get rich off large corporate donors they would be actually representing the people. If we looked at those large donations as scandalous and made laws against them that would be enforced we would be much better off. We now have big money being represented, but the interests and needs of majority of the population are not actually represented.
@@MarcABrown-tt1fp they make it wierd
It has been a slow erosion of our rights and an ever increasing desire to be controlled for the appearance of safety. Perhaps we can, once again, find the bravery to save our great country and fulfill the preamble of the Declaration of Independence. " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." No slavery of any type this time around.
Britain wasn't an absolute monarchy in 1642, it was aparliamentary democracy. France was an absolute monarchy
Thank you for posting this!
The Alito document quoting Hale from the 1600’s and saying abortion wasn’t part of America’s life. His misogyny could not be more hateful or alarming. It was vicious.