What a delightful woman. I appreciate her enthusiasm in this lecture, this is the epitome of passion. She's instilled a motivational drive for me to pursue a career in law, or at least research into it.
I am teaching American Politics here in Canada. Instead of assigning lengthy readings on Judicial Review and Marbury v. Madison, I assign this lecture for that week. Thank you!
WOW!!! I wish i had a lecturer like her will always look forward to her class her enthusiasm is all the energy I will need to study more and become one of her favourites in class
Dear Lord, you are an incredible teacher! I was glued the entire time, and begging for more. I learned things of which I had no clue in the context of the judiciary's part in/for/of this case. To bring Marshall's part alive in this class makes YOU the brilliant one. I applaud your style and charisma, as well as your intelligent and exciting manner of educating.
The people -- the people -- are the rightful masters of both congresses, and courts -- not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. --September 16 and 17, 1959 Notes for Speeches at Columbus and Cincinnati
@@user-xc7iq4cm8t administrative law, trust law, and adhesion contracts. When the separation of powers doctrine was defeated with the administrative procedures act we were immediately put in their crosshairs.
Well, I'm a bit cynical. In one interpretation, you can say "Wow! he did an amazing thing!". Which is true, he did do something with amazing consequences. The question is, did he even mean to set this precedent? As I understand it, Marshall was a deeply career focused man. Looking at the circumstances, It can be just as easily said that he didn't want a conflict with the newest and greatest political power(the president). By essentially saying "We can't prosecute the executive", he was able to weasel his way out of confrontation with the president (which kept good relations), while also saying "we're not 100 percent useless, look we can do this judicial review thing! To me it feels like a big way to save face
I have a question and hope someone could explain to me. in this lecture, Prof. Risa alluded to Thomas Jefferson as "Republican" and John Adams as "Federalist". But I thought the Republican party only came existence in the second or third decade of 1800s, after the "Whigs" was dissolved? Even if her reference of Jefferson as 'republican' (small 'r') meant Jefferson believed more in the idea of 'republicanism', I am still confused. From multiple other accounts of political historians, they have mostly agreed and associated Jefferson to the 'Democrat Party', saying he was like the "ancestor" of the 'Democrat party', formed in opposition to the Federalists (and later the Whigs). Even this association of Jefferson to the 'Democrat Party' also perplexes me because I thought Jefferson's political belief system [ SMALL government, STATES Rights, etc..] --these are core principles and tenets of 'Conservatism' (in terms of present day definition of 'Conservatism'). Whereas Washington, Hamilton and Adams (of the 'Federalist' camp) believed in the idea of a bigger, stronger centralized government -- an idea which was more aligned with today's 'Democrat Party'. Leaving aside the issue of 'Slavery', I just can't seem reconcile the above and have a correct understanding on which Founding fathers were more closer to the "republican /conservative" philosophical thoughts, prior to Abraham Lincoln. Was Jefferson more of a 'Republican' (as what Prof. Risa said in her lecture)? Or was Jefferson more of a 'Democrat'? Please can someone please assist to help me unpack and unentangle this. Thanks.
Jefferson belonged to the Democratic-Republican party, and party members were called "Republicans". I'm not sure it's historically accurate to try to directly correlate the Democratic-Republican party with either the modern day Republican or Democratic party - it's more accurate to say that Democratic-Republicans believed in representative government, were pro-France, championed worker's rights, and opposed highly centralized government, whereas Federalists' preferred centralization, were pro-Britain, and supported the business and industrial classes. If anything, Democratic-Republicans were kind of mix between modern Republican and Democratic ideologies (this seems obvious given the hybrid name of the party but I think this is more coincidental than anything). Also worth nothing: the Republican and Democratic parties flipped ideologies between Lincoln and FDR, so it's not often useful to make direct comparisons between past and current political parties by party name alone. tldr: while Jefferson, Lincoln and Reagan were all "Republicans", they had very different political ideologies.While political party names have remained relatively constant over time, party platforms and ideologies have dramatically changed.
I just saw your post. And I also just posted a similar question too. I am not American, but I am very interested in the history of American Founding. I am confused too.
Marbury v. Madison was incorrectly decided. Moreover, the 10th Amendment is clear that any powers not expressly granted to the federal government are reserved for the states. What this means is that both red and blue states should be able to review laws and determine them unconstitutional rather than the Supreme Court where they are in fact unconstitutional. This approach would return the federal government to its intended role of regulating interstate trade and providing for a common defense. For those who believe such a stance would end the US, it would not. Canadian provences have had the right to reject federal legislation from the beginning. More realisticly, what this stance represents is the reestablishment of constitutional law, greater levels of freedom, a better balance between state and federal governments, and the path to preventing the national divorce that's frequently been mentioned in recent years.
[[ the 10th Amendment is clear that any powers not expressly granted to the federal government are reserved for the states. ]] Agree! [ What this means is that both red and blue states should be able to review laws and determine them unconstitutional rather than the Supreme Court where they are in fact unconstitutional ]] Disagree that is what the Tenth Amendment means (at least concerning this point of judicial review). [[ Marbury v. Madison was incorrectly decided. ]] I disagree. That said, ultimately, the constitution is to be interpreted according to the "meeting of the minds" of those parties who agreed to it (contract law). And, so it is, even though the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the constitution in the first instance (judicial review), the States, with 3/4 support/agreement, can amend the constitution to make clear their understanding of it. Wherefore; When any such interpretation by judicial review is sufficiently in error to so motive the parties, the parties have avenue for having the final say of the meaning of the social contract.
@2Truth4Liberty The meeting of the minds, which was explicit in the text, reserves to the state and the people all rights not explicitly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. Judicial review was neither mentioned nor considered until 1803 and it dealt with a case in Washington, DC, which isn't a state, specifically a political appointment in DC. Not only was the decision wrong then it's wrong now. It's such a fundamental error it'll never be reversed, but every single judicial federal review is unconstitutional, as it's a power that was reserved for the states. If the federal government wants wants judicial review to be constitutional, they're the ones that need an amendment, not the states. I don't foresee the states willingly giving up their right of review. That said, I'm not unrealistic about the usurption or whether the federal government will ever relinquish it's stolen power.
Right after she finished law school in 2000, she pursued her PhD until 2003. While she was a PhD student, she served as the clerk to one of the judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit; then the clerk to Justice Breyer of the Supreme Court for two years. So in response to your question: she did actually see the inside of two of the nation’s prestigious courts actively drafting the judges’ legal opinions and rulings.
her enthusiasm makes me actually want to go to law school after i graduate next year..i used to feel this enthusiasm until everyone started telling me not to go to law school bc "unemployment rates, blah blah..."
Marshall was wrong. No one branch is suppose to say what the constitution says. Thats the whole point of 3 branches and sovereign states, to pit them against each other. The Congress and POTUS are suppose to challenge SCOTUS and each other, and the states. THATS THE WHOLE POINT!
[[ Marshall was wrong. No one branch is suppose to say what the constitution says. ]] Disagree. That would be codifying Anarchy. Ultimately, the constitution is to be interpreted according to the "meeting of the minds" of those parties who agreed to it (contract law). And, so it is, even though the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the constitution in the first instance (judicial review), the States, with 3/4 support/agreement, can amend the constitution to make clear their understanding of it. Wherefore; When any such interpretation by judicial review is sufficiently in error to so motive the parties, the parties have avenue for having the final say of the meaning of the social contract.
Why not teach Chisholm v Georgia? The actual FIRST case that was heard by The Supreme Court of The United States of America? A much more foundational case for "Con" Law.
Let us then turn this government back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it. --July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago
Even if you use translated captions, another countries legal ideals and history, especially from two centuries ago, probably wouldn't make sense anyways
Jefferson was concerned that the constitution would give a substantial amount of power to one branch of government. So, during the drafting of the constitution, he consulted with Ben Franklin and other founders to balance the power between the three branches of government.
I always hated it when professors would brag about where they studied. It demonstrates how arrogant and eliteiste some professors are. The problem is the most severe at major four year institutions.
ACADEMIC LEARNING A SHELL MADE OF STEELE How do you explain to a man, who has been bogged in the swamp for decades, that there is a major gap between analysing economics in terms of growth and promoting clean energy. It is made so much harder to change contents while nor having the vision and capacity to overview the contexts. Added to that, new patterns require confidence, and this is not happening when trying to operate on hidden agendas that only come to light as they fail. Team work and schooling are not about bringing down participants to a deplorable level. Plus when learning becomes based on experience facing corruption, it becomes.even stronger than theorical knowledge, and gets transferred from one generation to the next around the dinner table. One may have to go through much more pain because common-sense finds it hard to hatch through shells made of STEELE.
Great 45 minutes of Minutia. NO BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT can RENEGOTIATE THE CONTRACT, aka the COMPACT called a CONSTITUTION. The Supreme COURT JUSTICES ARE NOT THE FINAL INTERPRETERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, You are Fibbing or unknowledgeable here Prof. The Supreme Court has one JOB. to make sure ANY Code, Policy, or "LAW" conforms to the Constitution. If any Code, Policy, Mandate, or "LAW" does not conform to the Constitution as DEFINED BY ITS WRITERS (no it is NOT a Living Contract, as NO CONTRACT is Living and can be changed without the Knowledge, Consent, and Authority of ALL Concerned Parties of said Contract) at the Time was Written and Passed. Definitions of WORDS DO NOT CHANGE WITH TIME. But those looking to Usurp YOUR Individual American Authority, will redefine words and then lable you a CRIMINAL under the new Definition. This is called Extortion and Embezzlement and when that is perpetrated by Government, it is called Treason by Tyranny which is a JUST Cause for the action of Hanging the Convicted Traitor and or Traitors.
The Supreme Court has one JOB. to make sure ANY Code, Policy, or "LAW" conforms to the Constitution. Correct, and that court CANNOT do that (conforming determination) without interpreting what the Constitution means. Ultimately, the constitution is to be interpreted according to the "meeting of the minds" of those parties who agreed to it (contract law). And, so it is, even though the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the constitution in the first instance (judicial review), the States, with 3/4 support/agreement, can amend the constitution to make clear their understanding of it. Wherefore; When any such interpretation by judicial review is sufficiently in error to so motive the parties, the parties have avenue for having the final say of the meaning of the social contract.
@@2Truth4Liberty I would disagree. The direct Meaning is already presented. The issue is of the SC Interpreting. The words used have long been established prior to their use in the Compact. So, what is to interpret? OH Yes. our CURRENT Needs, but the Constitution does not allow for current need reinterpretation. Which is why the SC often, yes OFTEN must rescind previous Opines such is the overturning of the RvW Opine. Yes, Opines. The Supreme Court does NOT MAKE RULES. it leaves ITS OWN OPINIONS about Rules...But the 1st Rule never changes. the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, regardless of the OPINION OF ANYONE, including a gaggle of Jurors called the Supreme Court because there is NOTHING LEFT TO INTERPRET. Just because the Supreme Court is thought of Rule makers, does not make it such. The most glaring example being "Shall Not Be Infringed". Many opinions have swayed the definition of that phrase, and infringement is occurring every minute... Yet the phrase is still there in the 2nd, unchanged from the first ink on hemp papers.
If the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, then the states cannot be sovereign, nor could the federal government be sovereign. Plus judges and court clerks could not have absolute immunity either.
"If the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, then the states cannot be sovereign" Incorrect, because the States can change the constitution(so the States are the Supreme Enactors of Law) . That also demonstrates that the constitution is "delegated authority". A sovereign can delegated some authority without losing the status of a sovereign when that sovereign has preserved the ability to end the delegation. 3/4 of the States today could amend the constitution to End the Fedeal Government. That demonstrates the States (made up of the People of the States) that States are sovereign. The Federal government is not a like soveriegn such as a State but is sovereign concerning the powers delegated to it until that delgation is rescinded.
@@xandro2445according to the United States Supreme Court the States are Sovereign. On November 13, 2023, the Supreme Court stated that we have no right to stop the government from murdering us. Reason given “sovereignty”
So, when we say our Rights come from the Constitution, we are, in effect, agreeing to the submission of our Rights to the tender mercies of federal judges, because Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1, gives them power over all cases “arising under the Constitution.” This is why we must always insist that our Rights have a source - Almighty God , the Natural Law - which transcends the Constitution! 2 And furthermore, why would the Creator of The Constitution (that’s us) grant to our “creature” (the judicial branch of the federal government), the power to determine the scope & extent of OUR Rights? It makes no sense at all!
"when we say our Rights come from the Constitution" we are often speaking euphemistically. Certainly the Bill of Rights provides, not rights, but Protection of rights.
For every right there is a remedy. Such a logical statements brings to memory an experience with our childhood neighbourhood problem of very low academic scores in state grading, and the influencer's, and influencers who love hearing such very true logic such as to every problem we can create a new angle for a yet unfound solution. Psychopaths love betraying sound tight logical plans by pushing those very integrating, and powering factors that cruise each plan forward from a slow pace to the up sonic rocketing misile of anti-logic defiance in giving more of what you want, and need to lose exactly what goals that were in mind plus action by inflating the means past measurable constraints. Meaning. Your logic is cute, and corect, but so what?
She seems a bit amuck but finally gets to the points of the case. Calling out the Jeffersonian Republicans was out of context from the 1st party system to the third party system in which Abraham Lincoln founded the Republican Party of the modern day.
Who's watching in 2024? How amazing is Professor Rita Globuloff!? ❤
me 😂
@@oussamadouis2554Thank you, Oussama. Professor Globuloff knows the law. Have a great rest of the year!
What a delightful woman. I appreciate her enthusiasm in this lecture, this is the epitome of passion. She's instilled a motivational drive for me to pursue a career in law, or at least research into it.
If you love her so much why don't you marry her
@@sabertoothwallaby2937 that depends on her willing.
I am teaching American Politics here in Canada. Instead of assigning lengthy readings on Judicial Review and Marbury v. Madison, I assign this lecture for that week. Thank you!
WOW!!! I wish i had a lecturer like her will always look forward to her class her enthusiasm is all the energy I will need to study more and become one of her favourites in class
Please tell me there are more videos of this professor teaching class!
Dear Lord, you are an incredible teacher! I was glued the entire time, and begging for more. I learned things of which I had no clue in the context of the judiciary's part in/for/of this case. To bring Marshall's part alive in this class makes YOU the brilliant one. I applaud your style and charisma, as well as your intelligent and exciting manner of educating.
Shes brilliant like how she broke it down so well
Damn this woman has basically studied and taught in every Ivy League ever lol
At least the top 3 ivy’s haha
She is so awesome. Holy cow. I could watch her talk law for HOURS.
I wish she was my constitutional law professor.
Her job is to suck you in to the soul draining institution with her bubbly personality. :P
@@johneric5394 lmao
@@johneric5394 peeq
better off finding a homeless coke head they are exactly like this but more affordable lol
The people -- the people -- are the rightful masters of both congresses, and courts -- not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it.
--September 16 and 17, 1959 Notes for Speeches at Columbus and Cincinnati
So, how are our courts getting away with stealing millions of homes?
@@user-xc7iq4cm8t administrative law, trust law, and adhesion contracts. When the separation of powers doctrine was defeated with the administrative procedures act we were immediately put in their crosshairs.
Class starts at 05:00
An awesome lecture. I wish she was my Constitutional lecturer. this case reminds of Administrative law class with my teacher Mr. Rumanyika,
This was incredibly helpful, and she really did add value and helped me understand the importance of this case.
Well done Professor! Very insightful and inspiring!
This was an excellent lecture. I now fully understand Marbury v Madison, which confounded me to no end. Marshall was truly the man.
fUlLy
Well, I'm a bit cynical. In one interpretation, you can say "Wow! he did an amazing thing!". Which is true, he did do something with amazing consequences.
The question is, did he even mean to set this precedent? As I understand it, Marshall was a deeply career focused man. Looking at the circumstances, It can be just as easily said that he didn't want a conflict with the newest and greatest political power(the president). By essentially saying "We can't prosecute the executive", he was able to weasel his way out of confrontation with the president (which kept good relations), while also saying "we're not 100 percent useless, look we can do this judicial review thing!
To me it feels like a big way to save face
Amazing explain, great teacher of constitutional law !
The decision in Marbury v. Madison is a very important precedent. That decision shaped the structure of our jurisprudence.
Great story. One of the best dramas I've ever heard.
I have a question and hope someone could explain to me.
in this lecture, Prof. Risa alluded to Thomas Jefferson as "Republican" and John Adams as "Federalist".
But I thought the Republican party only came existence in the second or third decade of 1800s, after the "Whigs" was dissolved?
Even if her reference of Jefferson as 'republican' (small 'r') meant Jefferson believed more in the idea of 'republicanism', I am still confused.
From multiple other accounts of political historians, they have mostly agreed and associated Jefferson to the 'Democrat Party', saying he was like the "ancestor" of the 'Democrat party', formed in opposition to the Federalists (and later the Whigs).
Even this association of Jefferson to the 'Democrat Party' also perplexes me because I thought Jefferson's political belief system [ SMALL government, STATES Rights, etc..] --these are core principles and tenets of 'Conservatism' (in terms of present day definition of 'Conservatism').
Whereas Washington, Hamilton and Adams (of the 'Federalist' camp) believed in the idea of a bigger, stronger centralized government -- an idea which was more aligned with today's 'Democrat Party'.
Leaving aside the issue of 'Slavery', I just can't seem reconcile the above and have a correct understanding on which Founding fathers were more closer to the "republican /conservative" philosophical thoughts, prior to Abraham Lincoln.
Was Jefferson more of a 'Republican' (as what Prof. Risa said in her lecture)?
Or was Jefferson more of a 'Democrat'?
Please can someone please assist to help me unpack and unentangle this. Thanks.
Jefferson belonged to the Democratic-Republican party, and party members were called "Republicans". I'm not sure it's historically accurate to try to directly correlate the Democratic-Republican party with either the modern day Republican or Democratic party - it's more accurate to say that Democratic-Republicans believed in representative government, were pro-France, championed worker's rights, and opposed highly centralized government, whereas Federalists' preferred centralization, were pro-Britain, and supported the business and industrial classes. If anything, Democratic-Republicans were kind of mix between modern Republican and Democratic ideologies (this seems obvious given the hybrid name of the party but I think this is more coincidental than anything). Also worth nothing: the Republican and Democratic parties flipped ideologies between Lincoln and FDR, so it's not often useful to make direct comparisons between past and current political parties by party name alone. tldr: while Jefferson, Lincoln and Reagan were all "Republicans", they had very different political ideologies.While political party names have remained relatively constant over time, party platforms and ideologies have dramatically changed.
@@mcolemanxc16
Hi Michael, I got it now. Thanks so much for the detailed explanation.
It was Madison that’s why they was beefing for so long
Wow, what a brilliant woman !
💯
Hello
You don’t want write it down. You don’t want to see them now or later.
What did she say at 33:14 ?
The constitution can...
I didn't get this line.
Anyone who can tell?
"The constitution can trump democratically passed laws."
Since it is the supreme law of the land
@Brad Morrison yesn't
Does anyone know why she refers to Jefferson’s party as the republicans rather than the democratic republicans?
I just saw your post. And I also just posted a similar question too. I am not American, but I am very interested in the history of American Founding. I am confused too.
She is amazing! 🏆👏
Marbury v. Madison was incorrectly decided. Moreover, the 10th Amendment is clear that any powers not expressly granted to the federal government are reserved for the states. What this means is that both red and blue states should be able to review laws and determine them unconstitutional rather than the Supreme Court where they are in fact unconstitutional. This approach would return the federal government to its intended role of regulating interstate trade and providing for a common defense. For those who believe such a stance would end the US, it would not. Canadian provences have had the right to reject federal legislation from the beginning. More realisticly, what this stance represents is the reestablishment of constitutional law, greater levels of freedom, a better balance between state and federal governments, and the path to preventing the national divorce that's frequently been mentioned in recent years.
[[ the 10th Amendment is clear that any powers not expressly granted to the federal government are reserved for the states. ]]
Agree!
[ What this means is that both red and blue states should be able to review laws and determine them unconstitutional rather than the Supreme Court where they are in fact unconstitutional ]]
Disagree that is what the Tenth Amendment means (at least concerning this point of judicial review).
[[ Marbury v. Madison was incorrectly decided. ]]
I disagree.
That said, ultimately, the constitution is to be interpreted according to the "meeting of the minds" of those parties who agreed to it (contract law). And, so it is, even though the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the constitution in the first instance (judicial review), the States, with 3/4 support/agreement, can amend the constitution to make clear their understanding of it. Wherefore; When any such interpretation by judicial review is sufficiently in error to so motive the parties, the parties have avenue for having the final say of the meaning of the social contract.
@2Truth4Liberty The meeting of the minds, which was explicit in the text, reserves to the state and the people all rights not explicitly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. Judicial review was neither mentioned nor considered until 1803 and it dealt with a case in Washington, DC, which isn't a state, specifically a political appointment in DC. Not only was the decision wrong then it's wrong now. It's such a fundamental error it'll never be reversed, but every single judicial federal review is unconstitutional, as it's a power that was reserved for the states. If the federal government wants wants judicial review to be constitutional, they're the ones that need an amendment, not the states. I don't foresee the states willingly giving up their right of review. That said, I'm not unrealistic about the usurption or whether the federal government will ever relinquish it's stolen power.
Thank you so very much! I am using this in my edmodo class for high school.
Hello
This was indubitably awesome.
This was great!!!! I love this professor.
She's great!
Is charlotville safe to study in?
Has she actually seen the inside of a courtroom after law school?
Right after she finished law school in 2000, she pursued her PhD until 2003. While she was a PhD student, she served as the clerk to one of the judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit; then the clerk to Justice Breyer of the Supreme Court for two years. So in response to your question: she did actually see the inside of two of the nation’s prestigious courts actively drafting the judges’ legal opinions and rulings.
@@mehmedyaqubi5951 You know what I mean. Has she ever litigated a case in court?
her enthusiasm makes me actually want to go to law school after i graduate next year..i used to feel this enthusiasm until everyone started telling me not to go to law school bc "unemployment rates, blah blah..."
Well...are you in law school??
Well...are you in law school??
That's gratefully lectured professor ( Risa Goluboff ) from the - University of Virginia school of law ) that is wonderful.thanks.
Very nicely done.
Marshall was wrong. No one branch is suppose to say what the constitution says. Thats the whole point of 3 branches and sovereign states, to pit them against each other. The Congress and POTUS are suppose to challenge SCOTUS and each other, and the states. THATS THE WHOLE POINT!
[[ Marshall was wrong. No one branch is suppose to say what the constitution says. ]]
Disagree. That would be codifying Anarchy.
Ultimately, the constitution is to be interpreted according to the "meeting of the minds" of those parties who agreed to it (contract law). And, so it is, even though the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the constitution in the first instance (judicial review), the States, with 3/4 support/agreement, can amend the constitution to make clear their understanding of it. Wherefore; When any such interpretation by judicial review is sufficiently in error to so motive the parties, the parties have avenue for having the final say of the meaning of the social contract.
Fantastic discussion!
so do law grads get jobs again or did it never recover, so many stories heard of law grads going into tech?
She’s amazing!
Thank you from Europe :). Helped with my case law study for my final thesis.
Do law school classes have lectures now?
Mock class
Thank you
Amazing
Great lecture. Coffee anyone?
Wow am enjoying this class hope. How I wish I was there but hope we shall receive more videos for lessons
The Court Won!
Why not teach Chisholm v Georgia? The actual FIRST case that was heard by The Supreme Court of The United States of America? A much more foundational case for "Con" Law.
🌈🙏💜awesome class & professor!
Let us then turn this government back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it.
--July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago
The gal reminds me of Elle from Good Wife. All of the idiosyncrasies are there.
é uma pena eu não poder entender pq eu falo portugesssssssssssssssssssssssss
Even if you use translated captions, another countries legal ideals and history, especially from two centuries ago, probably wouldn't make sense anyways
I wish I had a brain like this woman has.
Jefferson was clear about handing despotic power over to the judiciary...
Jefferson was concerned that the constitution would give a substantial amount of power to one branch of government. So, during the drafting of the constitution, he consulted with Ben Franklin and other founders to balance the power between the three branches of government.
@Cracker Jax Well sniff a half a kilo of cocaine and you will have a brain.that bounces off the walls like this lol
I have a question Professor. Marbury got screwed. Where's the justice?
Wait... Wasnt the beginning of The Republican party when Lincoln was elected
I always hated it when professors would brag about where they studied. It demonstrates how arrogant and eliteiste some professors are. The problem is the most severe at major four year institutions.
ACADEMIC LEARNING
A SHELL MADE OF STEELE
How do you explain to a man, who has been bogged in the swamp for decades, that there is a major gap between analysing economics in terms of growth and promoting clean energy. It is made so much harder to change contents while nor having the vision and capacity to overview the contexts. Added to that, new patterns require confidence, and this is not happening when trying to operate on hidden agendas that only come to light as they fail. Team work and schooling are not about bringing down participants to a deplorable level. Plus when learning becomes based on experience facing corruption, it becomes.even stronger than theorical knowledge, and gets transferred from one generation to the next around the dinner table. One may have to go through much more pain because common-sense finds it hard to hatch through shells made of STEELE.
Do we have a remedy for the Birth Certificate Fraud , that the Government did to Us?
Will you be my personal guide mam
lol - she has ... WAY too much energy.
But she's right - this is a fascinating and important case.
Great 45 minutes of Minutia. NO BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT can RENEGOTIATE THE CONTRACT, aka the COMPACT called a CONSTITUTION.
The Supreme COURT JUSTICES ARE NOT THE FINAL INTERPRETERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, You are Fibbing or unknowledgeable here Prof.
The Supreme Court has one JOB. to make sure ANY Code, Policy, or "LAW" conforms to the Constitution.
If any Code, Policy, Mandate, or "LAW" does not conform to the Constitution as DEFINED BY ITS WRITERS (no it is NOT a Living Contract, as NO CONTRACT is Living and can be changed without the Knowledge, Consent, and Authority of ALL Concerned Parties of said Contract) at the Time was Written and Passed. Definitions of WORDS DO NOT CHANGE WITH TIME. But those looking to Usurp YOUR Individual American Authority, will redefine words and then lable you a CRIMINAL under the new Definition. This is called Extortion and Embezzlement and when that is perpetrated by Government, it is called Treason by Tyranny which is a JUST Cause for the action of Hanging the Convicted Traitor and or Traitors.
The Supreme Court has one JOB. to make sure ANY Code, Policy, or "LAW" conforms to the Constitution.
Correct, and that court CANNOT do that (conforming determination) without interpreting what the Constitution means.
Ultimately, the constitution is to be interpreted according to the "meeting of the minds" of those parties who agreed to it (contract law). And, so it is, even though the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the constitution in the first instance (judicial review), the States, with 3/4 support/agreement, can amend the constitution to make clear their understanding of it. Wherefore; When any such interpretation by judicial review is sufficiently in error to so motive the parties, the parties have avenue for having the final say of the meaning of the social contract.
@@2Truth4Liberty I would disagree. The direct Meaning is already presented. The issue is of the SC Interpreting. The words used have long been established prior to their use in the Compact. So, what is to interpret? OH Yes. our CURRENT Needs, but the Constitution does not allow for current need reinterpretation.
Which is why the SC often, yes OFTEN must rescind previous Opines such is the overturning of the RvW Opine.
Yes, Opines. The Supreme Court does NOT MAKE RULES. it leaves ITS OWN OPINIONS about Rules...But the 1st Rule never changes. the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, regardless of the OPINION OF ANYONE, including a gaggle of Jurors called the Supreme Court because there is NOTHING LEFT TO INTERPRET. Just because the Supreme Court is thought of Rule makers, does not make it such.
The most glaring example being "Shall Not Be Infringed". Many opinions have swayed the definition of that phrase, and infringement is occurring every minute... Yet the phrase is still there in the 2nd, unchanged from the first ink on hemp papers.
Very nice.
Amazing.
If the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, then the states cannot be sovereign, nor could the federal government be sovereign. Plus judges and court clerks could not have absolute immunity either.
States aren't sovereign.
"If the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, then the states cannot be sovereign"
Incorrect, because the States can change the constitution(so the States are the Supreme Enactors of Law) . That also demonstrates that the constitution is "delegated authority". A sovereign can delegated some authority without losing the status of a sovereign when that sovereign has preserved the ability to end the delegation.
3/4 of the States today could amend the constitution to End the Fedeal Government.
That demonstrates the States (made up of the People of the States) that States are sovereign.
The Federal government is not a like soveriegn such as a State but is sovereign concerning the powers delegated to it until that delgation is rescinded.
@ wrong, sovereign means that the government derives its authority from God and not from the people. You might want to look up what sovereign means.
@@xandro2445according to the United States Supreme Court the States are Sovereign. On November 13, 2023, the Supreme Court stated that we have no right to stop the government from murdering us. Reason given “sovereignty”
She is good
ua-cam.com/video/r6cnryxwH6A/v-deo.html
You don't track these comments by IP address, right???
Hopefully, you're an old fan, at this point.
I'm the one that took down Sullivan!
Sabato didn't see that coming!!!
And Jim Ryan's mother is far more proud of his brother Jack.
#PatriotGames
#RyanHomes #ad
Someone pays for this speaking as a 60 semi-year-old man this is a whole lot more fluff than I can take, but I guess that’s part of paying your dues
I love her lol
Johnson George Jackson Mark Miller Jeffrey
Tiresome self indulgent diffuse with inaudible student contribution.
Precisely
Then don't watch rather than sit there with the stick up your butt and whining.
So, when we say our Rights come from the Constitution, we are, in effect, agreeing to the submission of our Rights to the tender mercies of federal judges, because Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1, gives them power over all cases “arising under the Constitution.” This is why we must always insist that our Rights have a source - Almighty God , the Natural Law - which transcends the Constitution! 2
And furthermore, why would the Creator of The Constitution (that’s us) grant to our “creature” (the judicial branch of the federal government), the power to determine the scope & extent of OUR Rights? It makes no sense at all!
"when we say our Rights come from the Constitution" we are often speaking euphemistically.
Certainly the Bill of Rights provides, not rights, but Protection of rights.
High speed~
Ego ego
I am, I am
@@NathanDudani you are you are but sorry I can not see you. You are hiding and living in fear
Maybe don't live in places with shit weather.
im glad that she is really explaining my great grandfather john marshall :) its amazing :D
sure: ''is she'' a great'cheers.
Another far leftie ivy league type. The decision was a poor one. Does she have any idea on the bill of rights. 1960s. Not surprised.
"The decision was a poor one."
I am a libertarian conservative constitutionalist and I disagree with that assessment.
For every right there is a remedy.
Such a logical statements brings to memory an experience with our childhood neighbourhood problem of very low academic scores in state grading, and the influencer's, and influencers who love hearing such very true logic such as to every problem we can create a new angle for a yet unfound solution.
Psychopaths love betraying sound tight logical plans by pushing those very integrating, and powering factors that cruise each plan forward from a slow pace to the up sonic rocketing misile of anti-logic defiance in giving more of what you want, and need to lose exactly what goals that were in mind plus action by inflating the means past measurable constraints.
Meaning.
Your logic is cute, and corect, but so what?
"For every right there is a remedy."
Not in Law, but in Law and Equity as a complementary set.
Ignorance of the Constitution is NO Excuse for the Law.
I'd rather study science or politics. Those are the only 2 professions worth pursuing.
idiotic thing to say
Yes but she should be telling her students that she doesn't teach law she teaches them how to go find the law.
Too much evausive...
She seems a bit amuck but finally gets to the points of the case. Calling out the Jeffersonian Republicans was out of context from the 1st party system to the third party system in which Abraham Lincoln founded the Republican Party of the modern day.
She first said democratic republicans, and later omitted the "democratic" party of the name.
She reminds me of a typical community college professor.
Why
@@xandro2445 bcuz that is what they're normally like.
@@yevgeniyzharinov7473 what exactly? I didn't go to community college so I'm not aware.
@@xandro2445 I am not in the mood for discussing this... A normal professor @ commnuity college is reminiscent of her. That's all.
@@yevgeniyzharinov7473 then you shouldn't have made the post. Congrats on failing to support your original post with anything of value.