Limited government and the Constitution
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 лип 2024
- From our free online course, “American Government”:
www.edx.org/course/american-g...
Harvard Professor Tom Patterson examines the Constitution’s provisions for limited government and explores the extent to which these provisions have curbed or failed to curb extra-constitutional uses of power.
- Subscribe to our channel: / @harvardonline
- Sign up for emails about new courses: harvardx.link/email
- HarvardX courses on edX: www.edx.org/school/harvardx
- Harvard University's online courses: online-learning.harvard.edu/
HarvardX empowers the faculty of Harvard University to create high-quality online courses in subjects ranging from computer science to history, education, and religion.
Learn more with our free online course, "U.S. Government": harvardx.link/jk0d2
One thing this and every other video I've found fails to address is the currently accepted interpretation of the Constitution that emerged from U.S. v Butler and has allowed for the expansion of the fed. gov. ever since. My assertion is that this interpretation essentially assumes the 9th amendment to be irrelevant and/or superfluous, and has resulted in the nearly unlimited government we have today, sadly.
Thank you for the free online courses it has helped me greatly with my Economic studies.
I loved the video, thank you for the upload!
Really excellent work here. I do think, however, that claiming that the Supreme Court was granted the right to "interpret the Constitution" is false, otherwise, what was Marbury about?--if not to give the final, and at the time, open question as to who had the final authority on the Constitutionality of laws. Article III itself grants the power of the Supreme court to determine the agreement of the law in "cases", not necessarily legislation. That being the case, the concept of "judicial review" might be construed as an egregious overreach by our nations most influential Justice, John Marshall. And also one reason, among many, but maybe a chief reason the essence of the Constitution has been gutted. There are many examples, but rulings of the 14th amendment as construing Corporations as legal persons; Plessy v Fergusson of 1896, creating a legal fiction of the possibility of separate facilities being equal; Buckley v Valeo in '74 which was the first salvo opening the door in dark money into our process; Citizens United and Shelby. A body that is confirmed by the undemocratic Senate, no less. (8:40 for reference in the video). We've strayed VERY far from the original, on that most will agree, on all sides. I would say it has not been for the best. Especially when you consider that other liberal democracies got rid of their electoral college system, and don't have the same issues with the inherent imbalance in the Senate and the extreme nature of gerrymandering. Money as speech. Sort of like the recent statement by the RNC that Jan 6 was "political discourse". Ever felt your intelligence insulted. We live in a pretty brazen environment.
thanks for the video glhf
Aren't the people supposed to vote for the laws and the people that they vote to represent them are supposed to uphold the laws that they vote for
Yes. However, the Constitution prohibits any law that violates it. Your rights are supposed to remain untouched. Any law that contradicts the Constitution or violates your rights is illegal.
The United States Government is supposed to protect the peoples rights and have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution.
There is abundant criminal activity among those who took that oath.
That's a fact.
If you were to look hard enough I would bet some of them are influenced by a foreign nation directly or indirectly.
Very big problems here but God has a plan. I don't know what that plan is but I do know he succeeds in whatever he does.
@@alexashworth3119 this comment is the same comments that I've been saying just with different words 👍🇺🇸
@@ljsmooth69 your assertion of people voting on laws is, as I understand you, a referendum, which is a function of a Democracy, the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic, we don't hold referendums.
@@ExpatriatePaul is it a referendum to vote on something or is that a democracy where everybody gets together in votes is that not a republic I don't believe it is a referendum I believe it's a misunderstanding of the way people evaluate things compared to what's the referendum and what is it and what's a democracy which is a republic than what they appear to be or think it to be a whole definition of a democracy of a republic is what for the people to get together and vote on things that's a republic that's the democracy of it 👍🇺🇸
@@ljsmooth69 a referendum is when a possible law is voted on by all of the constituents eligible to vote and who choose to do so, that is a function of a Democracy, the U.S. was declared as a Republic in the Constitution, therefore we elect people to represent us and vote in our stead for such actions. Sadly neither system is by any means perfect, but then perfection is an almost entirely subjective concept.
Congress never had the right to write any laws over the people look at the notes and debates of the constitution, the topic was brought up and passed in the negative
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐