Fun fact: the "bill of rights" was only added to try to persuade the states to vote to approve the constitution, which most of them were reluctant to do. Even to this day it's doubtful that the constitution was ever truly ratified. Most likely the numbers were cooked to push it through. And remember that's with only a fraction of even white men being allowed to vote at the time, because they didn't even have universal white male suffrage then.
True that there is a method, but in defense of the originalist types, it is also extremely hard to amend it. That may be indicative that the founders didn’t want us to stray too far unless we were absolutely sure we wanted that. So yes, but also no
@@DireAvenger001no, you are far too naive. The founders were not good people. The constitution was imposed on this country to protect the interests of people with money. Specifically people with money over landed interests and labor.
Make no mistake. Originalists aren't really originalists. They cite that framework so they can do the biddings of their conservative masters, wildly misinterpreting what is actually written, saying it was what the founders would have wanted. Nothing more. So even pretending they're TRYING to be originalists is a waste of time.
@@MrsRitchieBlackmore Uhhh. Hate to break it to you, but actually overturning Roe was the opposite of originalism, considering that Roe was said by an earlier Supreme Court to be protected by the constitution, somehow. The overturning simply rejected that notion, so you've got it backwards.
@@ethanwilliams1880 Originalism is a theory of Constitutional interpretation that is reliant on the original text and disregards further evolution of law and society. The opposite theory is of a "living" constitution. The fact that a prior case can be overturned is a matter of general common law. Basically, a decision can be based in the idea of an originalist reading of the Constitution or a living reading of the Constitution. But overturning a decision isn't necessarily one or the other. So, Uhhh, you are wrong.
Guess who the "conservative masters" are? They are the citizens who actually elect their representatives. On the other hand... those on the Left are masters of nobody, and they only serve themselves while hurling blame at conservatives for doing the same thing. Republicans serve THE NATION - as founded - not the version of it which they only hope existed. This is why the Left constantly attempts to railroad the constitution and The Bill of Rights out of existence. Democrats want to reconstruct the nation from the ground up - in their own image. No enemy of theirs can do anything - in their own eyes - without first getting the express approval and permission from themselves, the Democrats. The more Marxist style rule we get from the Democrats, the more impossible it will become to preserve the nation as founded. NOTHING was wrong until Democrats came along and messed it up. All I can say is ... Prove me wrong.
@@MrsRitchieBlackmore This argument makes you an originalist, though. That's all I'm saying. Well I guess I'm saying there's a lot of hypocrisy on both sides of the isle as well.
@@sakomanlee Sure about that? So what was the official legal statement of how they came to the conclusion to overturn, and what was the same for the implementation in the first place? Also, if it wasn't necessarily one or the other, it was still clearly opposed to the previous ruling, and therefore opposite to the ruling, however you present a false dichotomy, then say that since it didn't necessarily fit in your imagined parameters that I was then somehow wrong? See where your reasoning breaks down?
The problem with Originalism is that it skips the centuries of intervening judicial decisions that have already DONE THE WORK of interpreting law under the constitution up to that point, and then just makes up something to fit into their own biases. Where I'm from, we call this a scam.
Yeah how exactly does a lawyer or a judge claim to be an "originalist" in good faith and just ignore every prior interpretation of the Constitution? They're just liars at that point.
@@Dante-420 Justice Thomas literally did not recuse himself from the case that allowed his own wife's text messages to be released to the Jan 6 committee. An 8-1 decision where he was the only decenter and he did not recuse himself. I'm not a SCOTUS scholar but I know what a scam looks like.
I like that the "defense" of Scalia's originalism is to juxtapose him having a disagreement with Thomas where Scalia essentially says "I mean I'm an originalist, but I still think some of the stuff we've done since then was good" when Thomas is just like "no I literally want to live in the 18th Century"
Well, I'd gladly let Thomas live in the 18th century. I somehow don't think he'd be quite as happy with how HE would be living. Since he was born in Georgia--in our real timeline--he would've most likely been born a slave, grew up a slave and died a slave.
@@Combatwhombatamendments are at the federal level and a civil war was fought over state rights, states don't have a right to do whatever they want which has also been decided by the SCOTUS
@@Combatwhombatthe constitution is legal framework for ALL states which is why the confederate constitution made sure to include a provision allowing slavery
9:21 I'm so annoyed by people who pretend to be principled and then just end up arbitrarily picking and choosing whatever agrees with their ideology anyway.
It’s an outgrowth of their whole worldview. What does the Bible mean on this question? Conveniently, it means exactly what they feel like. Same principle. They don’t actually care what the framers meant. It means whatever is convenient in this moment to Alito, et al.
I'm understand the concept of original intent; however, what I don't understand is how conservatives came to the conclusion that the Founder's "original intent" was to create the framework for a Corporate Christo-Fascist Oligarchy.
Originalists pick and choose phrases in the Constitution to fit their conservative goals and ignore the full context of them with the wording surrounding the phrase they accept. They also pick and choose specific founder writings to reinforce their interpretation while ignoring other writings of the same founders contradicting their conservative goals. As stated in this video there is no way an originalist can know what was originally intended and their interpretations are derived out of whole cloth.
The greatest Trick Federalist Society "Constitutional Originalists" use is the one where they claim all words have a separate "legal definition" that makes your school education on even the most basic word's definition wrong so you must rely on Lawyers and Judges to tell you what the US Constitution means. According to Federalist Society Judges: Average Citizen word usage = wrong Dictionary = wrong High school English Literacy = wrong College English Literacy = wrong Congressional Author of a Law = wrong Judge not Federalist Society Member = wrong Judge Federalist Society Approved = Always correct This is the kind of reason the early church considered it sinful to translate the bible because the Pastor could ignore objections from the parishioners on the grounds they alone could read the bible's dead language.
Have to agree with @MrsRichieBlackmore. We all do it to some extent. We need to be more diligent in ascertaining all of the facts. Which is why we have courts where both sides can present their case.
''''''They also pick and choose specific founder writings to reinforce their interpretation while ignoring other writings of the same founders contradicting their conservative goals.''''' give me an example of that
That surely deserves a repeat - Let me help you: The fact they wrote a process to amend the Constitution shows intent. Originalism is a bogus doctrine.
since amending the constitution was always an option given by the founders then that's a power the founders intended us to have they intended for us to b able to change some things for various reasons but they did not intend for us to remove key vital parts of the document like the right to bear arms , freedom of the press, the need for warrant to search ,etc
@@janed14255 - Why put words in my mouth? I said no such thing. You made a conclusion, and then you found an idiotic way to somehow blame me for it. Do NOT pretend to know the intent of the founders. You simple DON'T know -
I'm understand the concept of original intent; however, what I don't understand is how conservatives came to the conclusion that the Founder's "original intent" was to create the framework for a Corporate Christo-Fascist Oligarchy.
'Shut up woke atheist nazi communist' or some other idiotic insult will be hurled at you when you state your very logical and reasonable question. You can't have lucid with people who have permanently bricked up their minds... or never had a mind to begin with.
It’s interesting to note that constitutional original is started on the early 7p’s, the same time the movement towards strict interpretation of the bible also took hold. Both of course are absurd, retrograde, reactionary approaches to the detriment of a modern society.
With very rare exceptions one only arrives at originalism if they believe the founders of America were anointed and empowered by an omnipotent, all-knowing God. Count the number of originalist judges who are NOT theists and who do NOT believe America is God's chosen city on a hill and you'll see that the assertion is true.
Making it a static document puts it in the same category of a religious text, doesn't it? It basically implies the writers were infallible and the world was never going to change. Seems kind of absurd for a founding document.
How would another collection of archaic verbiage make anything more clear than the original document? This is exactly why the congress has power to pass laws and the courts have the power to translate verbiage... the constitution literally contains the methods to have itself explained.
Reading the title my immediate response was _"just about everything"_ quickly followed by _"and thinking Trump has any use for it at all other than wiping his ass with it"._
@kriscynical your initial comment was an insult to some to begin with, implying all conservatives get everything wrong about the constitution. As far as the trump stuff, I just find it funny that most of you are so stuck on him that you can't think of anything else. Have fun dear and have a nice day. 😊
To quote a right wing politician from India "Equality is for Equals"...The founding fathers meant "All Rich white men are equal. No need to quarrel among ourselves. There's plenty of slaves and peasants to use and abuse". That's the original meaning. But people ran with a different meaning.
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living:’ that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it." Thomas Jefferson, September 6, 1789
The problem here is that conservatives don't view the Constitution as a fallible, changeable legal document, but as scripture. And much like how they view Scripture, they view the Constitution as this unchanging, infallible document that councidentally aligns with all their goals.
I disagree. Conservatives clearly have every intention of encoding forced birth in the bill of rights. They both know that it's changeable and want to remove the first amendments establishment clause. What do you think the "states rights" argument is really about?
@@Combatwhombat There's a bunch of cognitive dissonance there, but they do somehow believe that the Constitution supports the mandate of forced birth, but also recognize that they'll have to actually enshrine it in law for it to be enforceable.
@@MrGksarathy right. And how many states do they need to do so? How many states have they introduced legislation to enshrine bans in? They want a Christian nation, and they're very open about it.
@@MrsRitchieBlackmore agreed, but not just difference justices. We need justices who are willing to take the time to really study the constitution and interpret what it really says.
I say all the time: Going to statements like the Federalist Papers for clarification on the Constitution is like trying to argue that the car salesman's pitch overrides the sale contract.
I am curious about the free exercise clause.. Today it is taken to mean almost a special right for religious nuts to violate the rule of law where it cones to equity and civil rights. Yet when I read about it in the historical context, it really only meant the federal government was not supposed to make laws expressly targeting the free exercise of religion - the government very often limited the exercise of religions in a general sense as a side effect of promoting the general peace. Am I wrong about this? If not, wtf happened and how do we undo this?
If were going to all be originalists, we need to bring back solving disputes with duels to the death. Is Mitch McConnell willing to draw pistols at 20 paces?
Antonin Scalia said that he never looks at transcripts from Congress to find out intent, and he never reads the minutes of the Constitutional Convention. He reads the wording of the law and the wording of the Constitution and applies what he thinks the Constitution means as compared to the law.
@@LordZontar That is not what FreddieVee said that Scalia said. FreddieVee may be wrong, but the statement said that Scalia did not look at “original intent”
I agree, but there are still many questions that come up and there is still the interpretation of the preamble. One big one, we have recently encountered, do individual freedoms take place over the common good? Can governments write laws for people to wear masks to try to prevent the spread of COVID, or does the right of the individual to choose take precedence? Can the government force you to get vaccinated for the common good? We wrote public health laws that put the common good before individual freedoms and required vaccinations for public schools and some jobs for at least 60 years before COVID hit us, yet the applications of those laws divided this country like nothing else.
Nobody talks about Gouverneur Morris, the penman of the Constitution, being a staunch abolitionist and encoding that I to the Preamble (the philosophical cornerstone of the Constitution). That single sentence says it ALL.
They think it was carved in stone by the hand of God by Perfect People Who Never intended anything to be changed ever ever. It's similar to the idea right Wingers have that you can never admit you made a mistake because that's a sign of weakness when it's quite the opposite.
The constitution is a living document, meaning it can be changed and re-interpreted over time, which it has. What we need is a new constitution for the 21st century but as messed up as the US is I see about zero chance of that.
Originalism isn't a solution the problem. Originalism is one factor that adds up to a solution. We cannot allow ourselves to be bound to an unyielding interpretation as if the Constitution is some sort of religious text. By the same token, we consign ourselves to a rootless and Orwellian world of constantly evolving narratives if we abandon efforts to understand and bear in mind what terms and phrases meant in 1787. The use of the term "militia" to describe groups which the Founding Generation would have seen as armed mobs is an example of how changing definitions require us to bring an understanding of what was meant by the terminology as it was ratified. We may not be able to look into the minds of everyone who touched the document, but we certainly can understand the vocabulary.
The constitution is a limitation on government, not the individual. The country was not founded on unlimited majority rule. It was founded on unalienable rights regardless of the public vote. The purpose of majority is to choose the personnel of government, not it’s principle’s.
The declarations preamble perhaps best states the most basic ideals that define America; '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." And, that's where everyone stops, but the next line is where it's really at -- "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" It's this follow up that argues the rights of the individual and the limitations of government. This line that frames the quintessential three words of the American rhetoric; "We the People..."
The Constitution also was not founded on *any* principle of minority rule and NO rights are absolute. It does incorporate the idea of rights not subject to the public vote, except in conservative minds for rights they don't want people (especially women, gays and brown people) to have. Also, the principle of limited government is NOT "no government", as conservatives seem to believe. Conservatives also have the nonsensical idea that the constitutional arrangement gives the states the balance of power and exemption from all constitutional limitations. It does not, as even a cursory reading of the plain text reveals.
The question with the much shorter answer would be what do they get right about it. But these are the people who think PraegerU is a valid source of education.
The number one thing conservatives get wrong about the constitution is when they use it to argue against taxes when getting taxes was literate reason they moved to a constitution. 😂
!@@tadrobinson8370 I don't need an I.d to buy my neighbor's shotgun and that's the way the republicans want it.... Republicans do want me to provide I.d. to vote.
@@tadrobinson8370 rampant gerrymandering to guarantee one-party legislative supermajorities, imposition of I.D. requirements over and beyond the standard I.D. (a driver's license or state I.D. and/or voter registration card) for persons for all usual civil functions, closure of offices from which I.D. can be obtained to make it more inconvenient to do so, closure of polling places and cutbacks on voting time to make voting more inconvenient in non-white majority districts, imposition of inconveniently long timeframes for voter registration, restrictions upon both absentee voting and the timeframe for absentee voting, expansion of state powers to purge voting rolls and deny qualification, and in some states the removal from the Secretary of State authority over elections and the vesting of that power upon an electoral board hand-picked by the governor. In short, every measure designed to give the ruling party power to choose the voters instead of the other way around.
If Justice Clarence Thomas is so insistent that precedent should have no weight in decisions of constitutional law, then I guess we can throw out Marbury v. Madison. SCOTUS has no explicit, constitutionally enshrined power to judge constitutionality of laws. That power is based entirely on common law and precedent.
Any interpretation of the Constitution that conflicts with the concept of "Life, liberty, and *the pursuit* of happiness." Should be immediately disqualifying.
@@white_isnt_a_race2338 No shit Sherlock?! Ya think that's why we're supposed to have a public service such as governance operating as an impartial third party for such disputes?
The Constitution says nothing about “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, that is the Declaration of Independence. It does list 6 reasons for the Constitution: Form a more perfect Union Establish Justice Insure domestic Tranquillity Provide for the common defense Promote the general welfare Secure the Blessings of Liberty… Anything interpretation that goes against that is unconstitutional. Of course, the founders didn’t define those things, so we are left to interpret each item in light of everything else.
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools" - Douglas Adams, in Mostly Harmless (1992)
People who go on and on about what "the framers/founders would have wanted" are MISSING THE DAMN POINT so bad. Why should we give a flying fuck about what men who lived over two centuries ago intended? We live in the here and now, and our laws should reflect our times.
The Constitution is like a union contract: If there is nothing in the Constitution that says the government can't do (insert policy/action here), then they absolutely can do it.
I don’t believe every in the past was religious, they simply didn’t want to be murdered for saying otherwise. The founding fathers were no exception and on top of that they specifically documented that the constitution was meant to grow with the people to be a framework not to be unchanged and absolute forever.
@@pho-kingsoup8126 they may but I'm an independent. I may vote for Cornel West to disrupt the corruption of the 2 deep rooted parties. The democrats have gone off the rails , sold us out in just 2 years
What EVERYONE seems to be getting wrong about the Constitution: The powers of the government were SEPARATED into three SEPARATE branches, legislative, executive, and judicial. EVERYONE in the government is in ONE of those three branches, and can only exercise the power of THAT branch. A Congressperson cannot act as a judge, nor as a police detective. Congresspeople can only do what was explicitly assigned to them in Article I. Likewise with judges, and likewise with Presidents and their subordinates; a President CANNOT make any laws that affect the general population. That's why Lincoln couldn't (and didn't) free the slaves.
Well said. If only we had honorable people running things. As it stands now the constitution is a impediment for these people. Something to make a end run around. And something the left side doesn’t get about the bill of rights “or choose to ignore” is that the bill of rights is for the INDIVIDUAL. The individual citizen is born with these rights. In other words no one in government has the authority to give them or take them away. It doesn’t matter if THE COLLECTIVE decides they want to trample someone rights they can’t. Greater good blah blah blah no. And that’s what they ALWAYS do. They ran that slop the whole time during the pandemic. We have to take away your livelihood and and put you under house arrest because your rights don’t supersede our rights to not get covid from you. Which is patently absurd of course which is why I’m disappointed in my fellow Americans for allowing these demons to do what they did. It should have been a collective NO. Fk off. But not only did most people bend over but they shamed the people that questioned it. And worse they cheered the government on as they punished them. All the while the government and the ruling class looted the country and demolished what was already a crumbling working class and middle class. Let me stop before this turns into a harangue. But well said my friend I agree with you. ✊🏻😉🍀🇺🇸
The Supreme Court begs to differ with you. They have ruled numerous times that the President can have executive fiat as long as the orders are Constitutional. Congress can investigate problems
@@soulknife20…executive fiat is flat out different from ratifying a law And Congress can investigate but that’s also a worlds difference from pursuing warrants and searches
@@cole141000Oh fair. Though, with executive orders, they are as good as laws according to the SCOTUS. I believe the original intent of EOs was to do something while Congress settles on the law.
I believe it was Madison who didnt want the bill of rights put with the constitution. He feared folks would think they were the only rights we had... hell if he wasnt right
I've heard several arguments where an assumption is being made that the original intent of the Constitution was to be the only federal law, not just the guiding framework.
The Supremacy Clause destroys that argument, and whatever scrap of it may have remained was definitely swept away by the 14th Amendment. States have always had the guarantee of republican government, are perfectly free to legislate on purely state concerns, may choose their own officials and set the rules for elections, but they're still subject to constitutional checks on their laws and still bound by oath to it, and have no power to trample on rights guaranteed to ALL citizens by the constitution.
@@BDSMaestro The Founders were certainly not perfect. A good number of them were reconciled to slavery. They also wrote a constitution that had within it the capacity to change to the point where slavery would eventually be eliminated. They certainly did not write the kind of explicit, ironclad protections for slavery that were to be found in the Confederate States constitution.
The biggest problem is the notion that the founders/framers would have wanted their ideals to stand for all time but even if some of them diid feel that way their opinion should not matter nearly 250 years later. Times cjamge, morality has changed. While we don't all agree on what morality is in it's entirety the vast majority would agree in the "First do no harm" principal, that is to say no person should have the right to intentionally harm another person (self defense or punishment would mean that one of the parties has violated the first principal). If most reasonable people agree on the first premise the rest will boil down to how to best protect the general population from those who choose to ignore such a,basic rule. The framers allowed slavery to continue, women to have very few basic riights, children under the age of 12 to marry, and many other morally questionable things( By today's standards) to continue. One last note on morals, I am not speaking of biblical sin because the bible in itself is morally questionable and many sins are not immoral except to religious people. First protect basic freedoms that bring no harm to other living people, such as freedom of speech(hate speech known to lead to violence or intending to cause physical harm to others should not be protected) freedom from or of non interference religious pratices and other easily conceptualized ideas of personal bobily autonomy laws. After that just Protect one another, help one another and make sure no one goes hungry or homeless, all have access to proper medical care and no one but the military has access to military grade weaponary as. The rest can be ironed out by concensus and voting.
Times change, yes. But guess what? Morality never changes. Some people attempt to change morality, but they can't, simply because evil is evil, and good is good. Some people don't know the difference between the two, and they put good and evil in the wrong categories.
Wow, I mean there are good reasons to reject originalism as I do, but "we don't have a book big enough to contain everyone's opinion at the time of the writing/ratifying of the Constitution" is not a good one. And? Even if you did know everyone's opinion, what does that matter? So should we make sure your hard earned professional opinion is drowned out by the clownery of the lay opinion as well? No, let's just put it out on the table..... This is a weak excuse to not study the past intently, not a reason to learn harder from it. You wouldn't want us to recommend that students throw away YOUR opinion just because it isn't everyone's opinion in a few years from now, why would you ask us to throw Madison in the trash simply and only because it was his opinion. The proper criticism is to acknowledge the anti-Federalist papers and their tangential works. There is still a veritable treasure of notions to ponder about who ended up being correct vs incorrect about the consequences of ratification many years later. Once you've finished reading and deciphering those, THEN you can decide whether or not more insight is necessary. But that's not even possible, so like I said, I disagree.
If someone told me in 200 years, that there were too many liberals in 2023 to say they all intended for there to be a minimum wage, I would point out they are parrots.@@white_isnt_a_race2338
Not sure that statement is true. What is true that with instant communication and fast travel, the world is more vocal than ever before. Social Media and phones that can capture videos anywhere and anytime has allowed us to spread stories- be they the truth or lies - faster and to more people than ever before. Now we are adding AI to the mix. It is hard enough to tell truth from lies from debatable concepts, but we have magnified the problem 100 fold. Bullying and lack of civility is the norm now. It’s scary and no one seems to say stop to the people “on their side”.
Is it's that they treat it like they treat the Bible? Pick and choose out of context, pretend it's unalterable and needs to be adopted in every nation on Earth?
This all makes sense, and I agree, but the average American would have tuned out as soon as this guy started talking. They don't want complicated reasoning no matter how enlightened that may be.
Lmao I got an ad from “hillsdale”, a fash propaganda arm, that begins with a very self-serious old goofball saying “when you have these Woke Revolutions…” and then goes on to claim they’ll educate you about the constitution. 😂
it is time for the US to add to the constituion the provisions of the Swiss constitution taking away from the politicians, pundits and judges the power to modify and interpret the constitution. The Swiss people are the final authority, in this way the constitution coninuously adapts to what the people want, as it has to be in a real democracy. No representativo democray, republic or not is a real democracy because the people only vote and can not directly decide anything. The US constitution is an elitist document that gives politicians in power, of any party, as well as the judges, power that does not belong to them in a democracy. One result of such constitution is that all US politicans on the Right and the Left are elitist Messianics, the former are Christian Messianics, the latter Marxist Messianics who dream of the Socialist-Communist Promised Land of Milk and Honey, all of them believe the human contition is wretched, that we are sinner, exploiters, etc. Some day we will recover the Ancient Greek idea of the common people deciding the affairs of the country. But that requires people proud of being humans, who do not need the magical gods to tell them what is right or wrong. Only that mindset can produce real democracy, all other "democracies" are fake because the people can talk and can vote but can not decide any policy or law.
Switzerland is a far smaller country, with a far better educated and homogeneous populace in terms of their civili duties and responsibilities. There is a reason why Switzerland is a first world country and the USA is a third world country.
This makes the assumption that people are naturally good though. Look at all the war, destruction, and chaos humans have inflicted on each other through out history. We aren't a good species. We will naturally do evil things. We have to have something to restrain our inclination toward evil.
How many people would want to sign an Adaptive and Flexible Contract under any pretext? The US Constitution is a contract on the function of government; if it's adaptive and flexible, it's a meaningless document.
What this video gets wrong about the constitution: It has article five which is specifically designed to self amend utilizing a specific procedure. Any attempt to bypass the process stems from a heart of impatience at best or a desire to circumvent the democratic process. Don’t do that. Your colors are showing. He argues therefore that the founders had no intentions. Can you imagine zero intent? Article 5 guys. Make congress do their jobs. When Sanford was wrongfully decide the answer was the 13th amendment from the congress.
Me as a conservative I find the constitution overrated since it allows too much freedom for Americans to do stupid stuff which is why this country is a complete joke, the constitution needs some changes.
I agree. In Germany, they have no free speech. You can get put in prison for saying democracy doesn’t work. I think people should be put in prison for as much as saying they think Donald trump won the 2020 election.
Meh there is already methodology to update the document. You just need to actually reach that point. You haven't, and people such as these hosts ensure that the other side will hold on against any argument.
What the "Other side" have discovered is that they can make it virtually impossible to "reach that point." Also, I don't think that it is "inconceivable" that the document doesn't mean what they think it means.
@paulpeterson4216 not virtually impossible. This side has no idea how to reach out, talk, or convince the other side due to a severe case of superiority complex. Why would the other side give people like this any credence or ability to control their life?
@john_premose if you want that comment to be taken seriously, focus on your own "gol's". If you don't know who the hosts are, you are too ignorant to even bother, and your comprehension shows that you will not understand any point being made.
What they get wrong is attaching such grandiosity to it, using such frames as "divinely inspired". In reality, it is a work of compromises, many inartful, in attempts to reach a consensus. Some of it, as I heard a law school professor say, is a "cringe-worthy tap dance around the subject of slavery". To make gods of our "framers" or act like the document itself was sent down from on high on stone tablets, is ludicrous. It is written by humans, and that species is not perfect.
@@thejuniorseas7683 “They” are the people who think the second amendment refers to guns. “The people” refers to representatives, just how it did in “The People V. OJ Simpson.” The second amendment guarantees you the right to a police department which you have the option of joining.
@@BDSMaestro Please do read the Federalist Papers, because then you'll understand that the founding fathers meant for citizens to own and bare firearms regardless of joining a police department or national guard.
The constitution itself tells us that it was not meant to static because there are provisions for amendments.
There is even a method to amend it holy shit.
Fun fact: the "bill of rights" was only added to try to persuade the states to vote to approve the constitution, which most of them were reluctant to do. Even to this day it's doubtful that the constitution was ever truly ratified. Most likely the numbers were cooked to push it through. And remember that's with only a fraction of even white men being allowed to vote at the time, because they didn't even have universal white male suffrage then.
Conservatives’ favorite thing *about* the Constitution is even called the second AMENDMENT.
True that there is a method, but in defense of the originalist types, it is also extremely hard to amend it. That may be indicative that the founders didn’t want us to stray too far unless we were absolutely sure we wanted that.
So yes, but also no
@@DireAvenger001no, you are far too naive. The founders were not good people. The constitution was imposed on this country to protect the interests of people with money. Specifically people with money over landed interests and labor.
Make no mistake. Originalists aren't really originalists. They cite that framework so they can do the biddings of their conservative masters, wildly misinterpreting what is actually written, saying it was what the founders would have wanted. Nothing more.
So even pretending they're TRYING to be originalists is a waste of time.
@@MrsRitchieBlackmore Uhhh. Hate to break it to you, but actually overturning Roe was the opposite of originalism, considering that Roe was said by an earlier Supreme Court to be protected by the constitution, somehow. The overturning simply rejected that notion, so you've got it backwards.
@@ethanwilliams1880 Originalism is a theory of Constitutional interpretation that is reliant on the original text and disregards further evolution of law and society. The opposite theory is of a "living" constitution. The fact that a prior case can be overturned is a matter of general common law. Basically, a decision can be based in the idea of an originalist reading of the Constitution or a living reading of the Constitution. But overturning a decision isn't necessarily one or the other. So, Uhhh, you are wrong.
Guess who the "conservative masters" are?
They are the citizens who actually elect their representatives.
On the other hand... those on the Left are masters of nobody, and they only serve themselves while hurling blame at conservatives for doing the same thing. Republicans serve THE NATION -
as founded - not the version of it which they only hope existed.
This is why the Left constantly attempts to railroad the constitution and The Bill of Rights out of existence. Democrats want to reconstruct the nation from the ground up - in their own image.
No enemy of theirs can do anything - in their own eyes - without first getting the express approval and permission from themselves, the Democrats.
The more Marxist style rule we get from the Democrats, the more impossible it will become to preserve the nation as founded.
NOTHING was wrong until Democrats came along and messed it up.
All I can say is ... Prove me wrong.
@@MrsRitchieBlackmore This argument makes you an originalist, though. That's all I'm saying. Well I guess I'm saying there's a lot of hypocrisy on both sides of the isle as well.
@@sakomanlee Sure about that? So what was the official legal statement of how they came to the conclusion to overturn, and what was the same for the implementation in the first place? Also, if it wasn't necessarily one or the other, it was still clearly opposed to the previous ruling, and therefore opposite to the ruling, however you present a false dichotomy, then say that since it didn't necessarily fit in your imagined parameters that I was then somehow wrong? See where your reasoning breaks down?
The problem with Originalism is that it skips the centuries of intervening judicial decisions that have already DONE THE WORK of interpreting law under the constitution up to that point, and then just makes up something to fit into their own biases. Where I'm from, we call this a scam.
I mean, even if orginalists took that into account, their philosophy would still be bad if it led to harmful reactionary policies/interpretations
Yeah how exactly does a lawyer or a judge claim to be an "originalist" in good faith and just ignore every prior interpretation of the Constitution? They're just liars at that point.
So you're not familiar with "stare decisis"?
@@Mustapha1963 No, and neither are at least 5 of the justices currently serving on the Supreme Court
@@Dante-420 Justice Thomas literally did not recuse himself from the case that allowed his own wife's text messages to be released to the Jan 6 committee. An 8-1 decision where he was the only decenter and he did not recuse himself. I'm not a SCOTUS scholar but I know what a scam looks like.
“What conservatives get wrong about The Constitution.”
The answer is A LOT!
I like that the "defense" of Scalia's originalism is to juxtapose him having a disagreement with Thomas where Scalia essentially says "I mean I'm an originalist, but I still think some of the stuff we've done since then was good" when Thomas is just like "no I literally want to live in the 18th Century"
Well, I'd gladly let Thomas live in the 18th century. I somehow don't think he'd be quite as happy with how HE would be living. Since he was born in Georgia--in our real timeline--he would've most likely been born a slave, grew up a slave and died a slave.
They intended for the document to change over time. They literally built in a way to change it.
What do you think the "states rights" argument is really about? Given the push at the state level in every state possible to ban abortion.
@@Combatwhombatamendments are at the federal level and a civil war was fought over state rights, states don't have a right to do whatever they want which has also been decided by the SCOTUS
@@Combatwhombatthe constitution is legal framework for ALL states which is why the confederate constitution made sure to include a provision allowing slavery
@@Combatwhombatthere's a reason the republicon candidates were asked if they would pass abortion laws at the federal level
@@Combatwhombatall of which has little to do with what the OP says
9:21 I'm so annoyed by people who pretend to be principled and then just end up arbitrarily picking and choosing whatever agrees with their ideology anyway.
It’s an outgrowth of their whole worldview. What does the Bible mean on this question? Conveniently, it means exactly what they feel like. Same principle. They don’t actually care what the framers meant. It means whatever is convenient in this moment to Alito, et al.
I'm understand the concept of original intent; however, what I don't understand is how conservatives came to the conclusion that the Founder's "original intent" was to create the framework for a Corporate Christo-Fascist Oligarchy.
Just because some people interpret in this way is by no means true of the whole.
These days the Bible should be burned because it's being used by evil people, tRump etc al
Originalists pick and choose phrases in the Constitution to fit their conservative goals and ignore the full context of them with the wording surrounding the phrase they accept. They also pick and choose specific founder writings to reinforce their interpretation while ignoring other writings of the same founders contradicting their conservative goals. As stated in this video there is no way an originalist can know what was originally intended and their interpretations are derived out of whole cloth.
The greatest Trick Federalist Society "Constitutional Originalists" use is the one where they claim all words have a separate "legal definition" that makes your school education on even the most basic word's definition wrong so you must rely on Lawyers and Judges to tell you what the US Constitution means.
According to Federalist Society Judges:
Average Citizen word usage = wrong
Dictionary = wrong
High school English Literacy = wrong
College English Literacy = wrong
Congressional Author of a Law = wrong
Judge not Federalist Society Member = wrong
Judge Federalist Society Approved = Always correct
This is the kind of reason the early church considered it sinful to translate the bible because the Pastor could ignore objections from the parishioners on the grounds they alone could read the bible's dead language.
Have to agree with @MrsRichieBlackmore. We all do it to some extent. We need to be more diligent in ascertaining all of the facts. Which is why we have courts where both sides can present their case.
@@MrsRitchieBlackmore- some, a LOT more than others
Oc, they're largely Christian Nationalists
Cherry-picking is second-nature to them - they do it with their own beliefs!
''''''They also pick and choose specific founder writings to reinforce their interpretation while ignoring other writings of the same founders contradicting their conservative goals.'''''
give me an example of that
The fact they wrote a process to amend the Constitution shows intent, Originalism is a bogus doctrine.
That surely deserves a repeat -
Let me help you:
The fact they wrote a process to amend the Constitution shows intent. Originalism is a bogus doctrine.
since amending the constitution was always an option given by the founders
then that's a power the founders intended us to have
they intended for us to b able to change some things for various reasons but
they did not intend for us to remove key vital parts of the document
like the right to bear arms , freedom of the press, the need for warrant to search ,etc
@@janed14255 - Why put words in my mouth? I said no such thing. You made a conclusion, and then you found an idiotic way to somehow blame me for it. Do NOT pretend to know the intent of the founders. You simple DON'T know -
I'm understand the concept of original intent; however, what I don't understand is how conservatives came to the conclusion that the Founder's "original intent" was to create the framework for a Corporate Christo-Fascist Oligarchy.
'Shut up woke atheist nazi communist' or some other idiotic insult will be hurled at you when you state your very logical and reasonable question. You can't have lucid with people who have permanently bricked up their minds... or never had a mind to begin with.
Especially when they created the corporate charter to serve the community they were located in! Not the community serving the corporations!
Why does it even matter what the Founders thought anymore? The world is enormously different now.
Imagine using “Corporate Christo-Fascist Oligarchy” unironically…
What other buzzwords do you know?
@@caseypdx503 If the shoe fits...
It’s interesting to note that constitutional original is started on the early 7p’s, the same time the movement towards strict interpretation of the bible also took hold. Both of course are absurd, retrograde, reactionary approaches to the detriment of a modern society.
With very rare exceptions one only arrives at originalism if they believe the founders of America were anointed and empowered by an omnipotent, all-knowing God. Count the number of originalist judges who are NOT theists and who do NOT believe America is God's chosen city on a hill and you'll see that the assertion is true.
Making it a static document puts it in the same category of a religious text, doesn't it? It basically implies the writers were infallible and the world was never going to change. Seems kind of absurd for a founding document.
since the founders created an amendment process they intended for us to have the power to change it
@@robinsss Seems so obvious yet...
@@pho-kingsoup8126 originalists agree with us on that
They had every opportunity to add a taxonomy document to give explanations. They DID NOT.
How would another collection of archaic verbiage make anything more clear than the original document? This is exactly why the congress has power to pass laws and the courts have the power to translate verbiage... the constitution literally contains the methods to have itself explained.
Reading the title my immediate response was _"just about everything"_ quickly followed by _"and thinking Trump has any use for it at all other than wiping his ass with it"._
Does trump literally permeate every thought process of your intellect, which is smaller than his hands.
@@carnivorepolice5-0 I made _one single comment_ on a political video about Conservatives, my dude. Jesus, calm down. lol
@kriscynical lol I made one little comment about how your thought process immediately brought trump to mind... it's OK man, just relax.
@@carnivorepolice5-0 That works a lot better when you're not the one who replied with an insult because you got triggered, hon. Run along. 👋
@kriscynical your initial comment was an insult to some to begin with, implying all conservatives get everything wrong about the constitution. As far as the trump stuff, I just find it funny that most of you are so stuck on him that you can't think of anything else. Have fun dear and have a nice day. 😊
To quote a right wing politician from India "Equality is for Equals"...The founding fathers meant "All Rich white men are equal. No need to quarrel among ourselves. There's plenty of slaves and peasants to use and abuse".
That's the original meaning. But people ran with a different meaning.
You've never read anything from period have you?
'''''''''''''The founding fathers meant "All Rich white men are equal''''''
evidence ?
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living:’ that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it."
Thomas Jefferson, September 6, 1789
The problem here is that conservatives don't view the Constitution as a fallible, changeable legal document, but as scripture. And much like how they view Scripture, they view the Constitution as this unchanging, infallible document that councidentally aligns with all their goals.
I disagree. Conservatives clearly have every intention of encoding forced birth in the bill of rights. They both know that it's changeable and want to remove the first amendments establishment clause. What do you think the "states rights" argument is really about?
@@Combatwhombat There's a bunch of cognitive dissonance there, but they do somehow believe that the Constitution supports the mandate of forced birth, but also recognize that they'll have to actually enshrine it in law for it to be enforceable.
@@MrGksarathy right. And how many states do they need to do so? How many states have they introduced legislation to enshrine bans in?
They want a Christian nation, and they're very open about it.
We need to view it as software instead of scripture and realize we’re in dire need of an upgrade.
@@MrsRitchieBlackmore agreed, but not just difference justices. We need justices who are willing to take the time to really study the constitution and interpret what it really says.
I say all the time: Going to statements like the Federalist Papers for clarification on the Constitution is like trying to argue that the car salesman's pitch overrides the sale contract.
I am curious about the free exercise clause.. Today it is taken to mean almost a special right for religious nuts to violate the rule of law where it cones to equity and civil rights. Yet when I read about it in the historical context, it really only meant the federal government was not supposed to make laws expressly targeting the free exercise of religion - the government very often limited the exercise of religions in a general sense as a side effect of promoting the general peace. Am I wrong about this? If not, wtf happened and how do we undo this?
It means; You can practice whatever religion you want but you can't force it on everyone else!
@@tonyh8510 - Who does any forcing of religion in the USA?
Absolutely nobody. That's who.
If were going to all be originalists, we need to bring back solving disputes with duels to the death. Is Mitch McConnell willing to draw pistols at 20 paces?
*throws gauntlet down at McConnell's feet*
Antonin Scalia said that he never looks at transcripts from Congress to find out intent, and he never reads the minutes of the Constitutional Convention. He reads the wording of the law and the wording of the Constitution and applies what he thinks the Constitution means as compared to the law.
Basically: his own fantasy interpretation of that wording, those laws, and of "original intent", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.
@@LordZontar That is not what FreddieVee said that Scalia said. FreddieVee may be wrong, but the statement said that Scalia did not look at “original intent”
@@froglady7491 Scalia certainly did not look at "original intent" because that doctrine is a fantasy to begin with.
Interpreting the constitution in light of the preamble seems the most reasonable approach to me
I agree, but there are still many questions that come up and there is still the interpretation of the preamble. One big one, we have recently encountered, do individual freedoms take place over the common good? Can governments write laws for people to wear masks to try to prevent the spread of COVID, or does the right of the individual to choose take precedence? Can the government force you to get vaccinated for the common good? We wrote public health laws that put the common good before individual freedoms and required vaccinations for public schools and some jobs for at least 60 years before COVID hit us, yet the applications of those laws divided this country like nothing else.
very interesting segment!
Nobody talks about Gouverneur Morris, the penman of the Constitution, being a staunch abolitionist and encoding that I to the Preamble (the philosophical cornerstone of the Constitution). That single sentence says it ALL.
The "living document" part?
They think it was carved in stone by the hand of God by Perfect People Who Never intended anything to be changed ever ever.
It's similar to the idea right Wingers have that you can never admit you made a mistake because that's a sign of weakness when it's quite the opposite.
@@mainely8007 That's why these idiots NEVER LEARN, because you learn from your mistakes.
The constitution is a living document, meaning it can be changed and re-interpreted over time, which it has. What we need is a new constitution for the 21st century but as messed up as the US is I see about zero chance of that.
@john_premose well you could always settle for the peaceful divorce option, or the civil war option.
@@carnivorepolice5-0 yeah, the south can get out any time. I’d welcome that.
Originalism isn't a solution the problem. Originalism is one factor that adds up to a solution. We cannot allow ourselves to be bound to an unyielding interpretation as if the Constitution is some sort of religious text. By the same token, we consign ourselves to a rootless and Orwellian world of constantly evolving narratives if we abandon efforts to understand and bear in mind what terms and phrases meant in 1787. The use of the term "militia" to describe groups which the Founding Generation would have seen as armed mobs is an example of how changing definitions require us to bring an understanding of what was meant by the terminology as it was ratified. We may not be able to look into the minds of everyone who touched the document, but we certainly can understand the vocabulary.
The constitution is a limitation on government, not the individual. The country was not founded on unlimited majority rule. It was founded on unalienable rights regardless of the public vote. The purpose of majority is to choose the personnel of government, not it’s principle’s.
The declarations preamble perhaps best states the most basic ideals that define America; '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."
And, that's where everyone stops, but the next line is where it's really at -- "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" It's this follow up that argues the rights of the individual and the limitations of government. This line that frames the quintessential three words of the American rhetoric; "We the People..."
Limitation, not complete destruction of govt as conservatives always have intended and MAGA brought to the surface
The Constitution isn’t just a “limitation on government”, it actually establishes the framework of said government.
The Constitution also was not founded on *any* principle of minority rule and NO rights are absolute. It does incorporate the idea of rights not subject to the public vote, except in conservative minds for rights they don't want people (especially women, gays and brown people) to have. Also, the principle of limited government is NOT "no government", as conservatives seem to believe. Conservatives also have the nonsensical idea that the constitutional arrangement gives the states the balance of power and exemption from all constitutional limitations. It does not, as even a cursory reading of the plain text reveals.
@@LordZontarif you are not harming anyone by doing something then
you have an absolute right to participate in those activities
The question with the much shorter answer would be what do they get right about it. But these are the people who think PraegerU is a valid source of education.
The number one thing conservatives get wrong about the constitution is when they use it to argue against taxes when getting taxes was literate reason they moved to a constitution. 😂
That they believe voting rights need to be restrictive but gun rights shouldn't?
what restrictions do u speak of?
@@tadrobinson8370 what part of my statement don't you understand?
@@user-qr7ee2cp4y what specific restrictions on voting do u speak of?you mean ID that u need for everything else in life?
!@@tadrobinson8370 I don't need an I.d to buy my neighbor's shotgun and that's the way the republicans want it.... Republicans do want me to provide I.d. to vote.
@@tadrobinson8370 rampant gerrymandering to guarantee one-party legislative supermajorities, imposition of I.D. requirements over and beyond the standard I.D. (a driver's license or state I.D. and/or voter registration card) for persons for all usual civil functions, closure of offices from which I.D. can be obtained to make it more inconvenient to do so, closure of polling places and cutbacks on voting time to make voting more inconvenient in non-white majority districts, imposition of inconveniently long timeframes for voter registration, restrictions upon both absentee voting and the timeframe for absentee voting, expansion of state powers to purge voting rolls and deny qualification, and in some states the removal from the Secretary of State authority over elections and the vesting of that power upon an electoral board hand-picked by the governor. In short, every measure designed to give the ruling party power to choose the voters instead of the other way around.
If Justice Clarence Thomas is so insistent that precedent should have no weight in decisions of constitutional law, then I guess we can throw out Marbury v. Madison. SCOTUS has no explicit, constitutionally enshrined power to judge constitutionality of laws. That power is based entirely on common law and precedent.
You're saying that the highest court in the land has NO authority to judge the constitionality of laws? Seriously? You're a dope -
Well there's a fundamental problem when a ruling depends as much on the legal philosophy that a judge adheres to as to actual statute or precedent.
Nothing "Originalist" ever works. Just look at religion, every interpretation of it changes over time.
Everything
Any interpretation of the Constitution that conflicts with the concept of "Life, liberty, and *the pursuit* of happiness." Should be immediately disqualifying.
And your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness dont mean you get to take those rights away from others
@@white_isnt_a_race2338 No shit Sherlock?! Ya think that's why we're supposed to have a public service such as governance operating as an impartial third party for such disputes?
@@white_isnt_a_race2338- exactly
The Constitution says nothing about “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, that is the Declaration of Independence. It does list 6 reasons for the Constitution:
Form a more perfect Union
Establish Justice
Insure domestic Tranquillity
Provide for the common defense
Promote the general welfare
Secure the Blessings of Liberty…
Anything interpretation that goes against that is unconstitutional. Of course, the founders didn’t define those things, so we are left to interpret each item in light of everything else.
If constitutional purist want to define
Founders intentions then yes you need to include life liberty and pursuit if happiness too
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools" - Douglas Adams, in Mostly Harmless (1992)
People who go on and on about what "the framers/founders would have wanted" are MISSING THE DAMN POINT so bad. Why should we give a flying fuck about what men who lived over two centuries ago intended? We live in the here and now, and our laws should reflect our times.
Originalism doesn't make much sense considering the document can be changed.
50 years for stealing $153 in video tapes. What kinda justice is that? where did this happen. How is that not cruel?
The Constitution is like a union contract: If there is nothing in the Constitution that says the government can't do (insert policy/action here), then they absolutely can do it.
I don’t believe every in the past was religious, they simply didn’t want to be murdered for saying otherwise. The founding fathers were no exception and on top of that they specifically documented that the constitution was meant to grow with the people to be a framework not to be unchanged and absolute forever.
Fascinating discussion
10:19 is a long time to say "Literally everything"
conservative family values.
putting your family ahead of everyone else
Communist family values. Putting others over your own family
@@mikegoetz3184 Like maga does with their orange messiah, I get it.
@@pho-kingsoup8126 they may but I'm an independent. I may vote for Cornel West to disrupt the corruption of the 2 deep rooted parties. The democrats have gone off the rails , sold us out in just 2 years
bet it's everything, when they shout Constitution!
What EVERYONE seems to be getting wrong about the Constitution: The powers of the government were SEPARATED into three SEPARATE branches, legislative, executive, and judicial. EVERYONE in the government is in ONE of those three branches, and can only exercise the power of THAT branch. A Congressperson cannot act as a judge, nor as a police detective. Congresspeople can only do what was explicitly assigned to them in Article I. Likewise with judges, and likewise with Presidents and their subordinates; a President CANNOT make any laws that affect the general population. That's why Lincoln couldn't (and didn't) free the slaves.
Well said. If only we had honorable people running things. As it stands now the constitution is a impediment for these people. Something to make a end run around. And something the left side doesn’t get about the bill of rights “or choose to ignore” is that the bill of rights is for the INDIVIDUAL. The individual citizen is born with these rights. In other words no one in government has the authority to give them or take them away. It doesn’t matter if THE COLLECTIVE decides they want to trample someone rights they can’t. Greater good blah blah blah no. And that’s what they ALWAYS do. They ran that slop the whole time during the pandemic. We have to take away your livelihood and and put you under house arrest because your rights don’t supersede our rights to not get covid from you. Which is patently absurd of course which is why I’m disappointed in my fellow Americans for allowing these demons to do what they did. It should have been a collective NO. Fk off. But not only did most people bend over but they shamed the people that questioned it. And worse they cheered the government on as they punished them. All the while the government and the ruling class looted the country and demolished what was already a crumbling working class and middle class. Let me stop before this turns into a harangue. But well said my friend I agree with you. ✊🏻😉🍀🇺🇸
The Supreme Court begs to differ with you. They have ruled numerous times that the President can have executive fiat as long as the orders are Constitutional. Congress can investigate problems
Not saying it's right, but that's what the SCOTUS does. Interpret the Constitution.
@@soulknife20…executive fiat is flat out different from ratifying a law
And Congress can investigate but that’s also a worlds difference from pursuing warrants and searches
@@cole141000Oh fair. Though, with executive orders, they are as good as laws according to the SCOTUS. I believe the original intent of EOs was to do something while Congress settles on the law.
I believe it was Madison who didnt want the bill of rights put with the constitution. He feared folks would think they were the only rights we had... hell if he wasnt right
I've heard several arguments where an assumption is being made that the original intent of the Constitution was to be the only federal law, not just the guiding framework.
The Supremacy Clause destroys that argument, and whatever scrap of it may have remained was definitely swept away by the 14th Amendment. States have always had the guarantee of republican government, are perfectly free to legislate on purely state concerns, may choose their own officials and set the rules for elections, but they're still subject to constitutional checks on their laws and still bound by oath to it, and have no power to trample on rights guaranteed to ALL citizens by the constitution.
I have the argument that maybe we should listen to literally nothing from people who were cool with owning slaves.
@@BDSMaestro The Founders were certainly not perfect. A good number of them were reconciled to slavery. They also wrote a constitution that had within it the capacity to change to the point where slavery would eventually be eliminated. They certainly did not write the kind of explicit, ironclad protections for slavery that were to be found in the Confederate States constitution.
The entire constitution needs rewritten for modern times. All of it is outdated and irrelevant to the times.
All of it is outdated? I can agree with parts of it, but I think the majority still works. But that is my opinion.
I listen to this guy and my brain hurts. Mental gymnastics.
50 to life for $153? damn. America.
The biggest problem is the notion that the founders/framers would have wanted their ideals to stand for all time but even if some of them diid feel that way their opinion should not matter nearly 250 years later. Times cjamge, morality has changed.
While we don't all agree on what morality is in it's entirety the vast majority would agree in the "First do no harm" principal, that is to say no person should have the right to intentionally harm another person (self defense or punishment would mean that one of the parties has violated the first principal). If most reasonable people agree on the first premise the rest will boil down to how to best protect the general population from those who choose to ignore such a,basic rule.
The framers allowed slavery to continue, women to have very few basic riights, children under the age of 12 to marry, and many other morally questionable things( By today's standards) to continue. One last note on morals, I am not speaking of biblical sin because the bible in itself is morally questionable and many sins are not immoral except to religious people.
First protect basic freedoms that bring no harm to other living people, such as freedom of speech(hate speech known to lead to violence or intending to cause physical harm to others should not be protected) freedom from or of non interference religious pratices and other easily conceptualized ideas of personal bobily autonomy laws.
After that just Protect one another, help one another and make sure no one goes hungry or homeless, all have access to proper medical care and no one but the military has access to military grade weaponary as. The rest can be ironed out by concensus and voting.
Times change, yes. But guess what? Morality never changes.
Some people attempt to change morality, but they can't, simply because evil is evil, and good is good. Some people don't know the difference between the two, and they put good and evil in the wrong categories.
Everything.
"Originalism" is just code for, "We want to walk America back to the XVIII Century!"
Everything?
What was the intent of the founding fathers? Not to allow a single crazy person to be able to shoot 500 to 600 people in one terrible night.
Wow, I mean there are good reasons to reject originalism as I do, but "we don't have a book big enough to contain everyone's opinion at the time of the writing/ratifying of the Constitution" is not a good one. And? Even if you did know everyone's opinion, what does that matter? So should we make sure your hard earned professional opinion is drowned out by the clownery of the lay opinion as well? No, let's just put it out on the table..... This is a weak excuse to not study the past intently, not a reason to learn harder from it. You wouldn't want us to recommend that students throw away YOUR opinion just because it isn't everyone's opinion in a few years from now, why would you ask us to throw Madison in the trash simply and only because it was his opinion.
The proper criticism is to acknowledge the anti-Federalist papers and their tangential works. There is still a veritable treasure of notions to ponder about who ended up being correct vs incorrect about the consequences of ratification many years later. Once you've finished reading and deciphering those, THEN you can decide whether or not more insight is necessary. But that's not even possible, so like I said, I disagree.
He looks like he got the vaccine😂
EVERYTHING.... that is what conservatives get wrong about the constitution. And everything in general
So about those bear arms
July 4th 1776 - November 22 1963. Violent overthrow. Your talking about a constitution of a different country.
What drugs are you on?
There was no more diversity of opinion then than today.
Isn’t that more a self report that you only associate with people who are going to agree with your preconceived biases???
If someone told me in 200 years, that there were too many liberals in 2023 to say they all intended for there to be a minimum wage, I would point out they are parrots.@@white_isnt_a_race2338
Not sure that statement is true. What is true that with instant communication and fast travel, the world is more vocal than ever before. Social Media and phones that can capture videos anywhere and anytime has allowed us to spread stories- be they the truth or lies - faster and to more people than ever before. Now we are adding AI to the mix. It is hard enough to tell truth from lies from debatable concepts, but we have magnified the problem 100 fold. Bullying and lack of civility is the norm now. It’s scary and no one seems to say stop to the people “on their side”.
haha,
they're called amendments for god's sake
good shit guys
Nice try.
Is it's that they treat it like they treat the Bible? Pick and choose out of context, pretend it's unalterable and needs to be adopted in every nation on Earth?
Really? Only five?=)
Everything 😆 🤣
This all makes sense, and I agree, but the average American would have tuned out as soon as this guy started talking. They don't want complicated reasoning no matter how enlightened that may be.
Lmao I got an ad from “hillsdale”, a fash propaganda arm, that begins with a very self-serious old goofball saying “when you have these Woke Revolutions…” and then goes on to claim they’ll educate you about the constitution. 😂
it is time for the US to add to the constituion the provisions of the Swiss constitution taking away from the politicians, pundits and judges the power to modify and interpret the constitution. The Swiss people are the final authority, in this way the constitution coninuously adapts to what the people want, as it has to be in a real democracy. No representativo democray, republic or not is a real democracy because the people only vote and can not directly decide anything. The US constitution is an elitist document that gives politicians in power, of any party, as well as the judges, power that does not belong to them in a democracy. One result of such constitution is that all US politicans on the Right and the Left are elitist Messianics, the former are Christian Messianics, the latter Marxist Messianics who dream of the Socialist-Communist Promised Land of Milk and Honey, all of them believe the human contition is wretched, that we are sinner, exploiters, etc. Some day we will recover the Ancient Greek idea of the common people deciding the affairs of the country. But that requires people proud of being humans, who do not need the magical gods to tell them what is right or wrong. Only that mindset can produce real democracy, all other "democracies" are fake because the people can talk and can vote but can not decide any policy or law.
Switzerland is a far smaller country, with a far better educated and homogeneous populace in terms of their civili duties and responsibilities. There is a reason why Switzerland is a first world country and the USA is a third world country.
@@rsr789 "homogeneous populace" /facepalm
Oh please. Tell me you know nothing about Marxism without telling me you know nothing of Marxism.
This makes the assumption that people are naturally good though. Look at all the war, destruction, and chaos humans have inflicted on each other through out history. We aren't a good species. We will naturally do evil things. We have to have something to restrain our inclination toward evil.
So completely destroy our common law system? That isn’t a simple request; that’s more like overturning our entire foundation
How many people would want to sign an Adaptive and Flexible Contract under any pretext? The US Constitution is a contract on the function of government; if it's adaptive and flexible, it's a meaningless document.
😅
😊
What this video gets wrong about the constitution: It has article five which is specifically designed to self amend utilizing a specific procedure. Any attempt to bypass the process stems from a heart of impatience at best or a desire to circumvent the democratic process. Don’t do that. Your colors are showing. He argues therefore that the founders had no intentions. Can you imagine zero intent? Article 5 guys. Make congress do their jobs. When Sanford was wrongfully decide the answer was the 13th amendment from the congress.
Mixed race marriages crank out the cutest babies. ❤
Who is this WIMP?
sam seder
no hes cool...im talking bout the WIMP in the middle @@tadrobinson8370
Me as a conservative I find the constitution overrated since it allows too much freedom for Americans to do stupid stuff which is why this country is a complete joke, the constitution needs some changes.
I agree. In Germany, they have no free speech. You can get put in prison for saying democracy doesn’t work. I think people should be put in prison for as much as saying they think Donald trump won the 2020 election.
Meh there is already methodology to update the document. You just need to actually reach that point. You haven't, and people such as these hosts ensure that the other side will hold on against any argument.
What the "Other side" have discovered is that they can make it virtually impossible to "reach that point." Also, I don't think that it is "inconceivable" that the document doesn't mean what they think it means.
@paulpeterson4216 not virtually impossible. This side has no idea how to reach out, talk, or convince the other side due to a severe case of superiority complex. Why would the other side give people like this any credence or ability to control their life?
Who and what are you talking about? Articulate for gol's sake.
@@carnivorepolice5-0 The "other side" in this case are delusional fascists.
@john_premose if you want that comment to be taken seriously, focus on your own "gol's".
If you don't know who the hosts are, you are too ignorant to even bother, and your comprehension shows that you will not understand any point being made.
What they get wrong is attaching such grandiosity to it, using such frames as "divinely inspired". In reality, it is a work of compromises, many inartful, in attempts to reach a consensus. Some of it, as I heard a law school professor say, is a "cringe-worthy tap dance around the subject of slavery". To make gods of our "framers" or act like the document itself was sent down from on high on stone tablets, is ludicrous. It is written by humans, and that species is not perfect.
The biggest thing they get wrong is the intent and meaning of the 2nd amendment!!!
😂😂😂😂
Who are "they"?
@@thejuniorseas7683 the deplorable scum on the right
@@thejuniorseas7683 “They” are the people who think the second amendment refers to guns. “The people” refers to representatives, just how it did in “The People V. OJ Simpson.” The second amendment guarantees you the right to a police department which you have the option of joining.
@@BDSMaestro Please do read the Federalist Papers, because then you'll understand that the founding fathers meant for citizens to own and bare firearms regardless of joining a police department or national guard.