Declaration of Independence vs US Constitution
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 сер 2024
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Nationalism Debate: Ya...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- Noom: trynoom.com/lex
- InsideTracker: insidetracker.... and use code Lex25 to get 25% off
- SimpliSafe: simplisafe.com... and use code LEX to get a free security camera
- ExpressVPN: expressvpn.com... and use code LexPod to get 3 months free
- Blinkist: blinkist.com/lex and use code LEX to get 25% off premium
GUEST BIO:
Yaron Brook is an objectivist. Yoram Hazony is a national conservative. This is a conversation and debate about national conservatism vs individualism.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com...
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com...
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman
I think the key part is “WE hold these truths”. It’s their belief. Not a historical fact, but something axiomatic to the framework they were building.
Yeah, what an odd take this guy has. Perhaps 2+2=4 isn’t self-evident to him, as there was a past time when man hadn’t discovered this, while some feckless people today claim 2+2=5.
Self evident does not mean what is being implied... it means that these truths have and will always have existed EVEN BEFORE man discovered them.
In other words you're sayong "self evident" doesn't imply "self evident"
I’m on the same page as Yaren Brook. The French Revolution was about inequalities within the aristocratic class system, and the American Revolution was about enshrining individual liberties.
Geez, this is hard to take.
Where do you get these guys Lex? They are really impressed with themselves. Don’t let this pseudo intellectual nonsense rub off on you.
It doesn't say "these truths ARE self evident" it says "WE BELIEVE these truths to be self evident", we as Americans believe this, so if you don't, your welcome to leave.
It says WE HOLD. Not WE BELIEVE.
The nationalist counterrevolution thesis is a common one, but I don't think it's totally substantive for a variety of reasons. It mostly comes down to the fact that the most ardent nationalists - like Madison and Hamilton - had almost all of their most nationalist proposals defeated or ignored in the Philadelphia Convention. It's true that the US Constitution granted Congress several new substantive powers, but the federal orientation of the union remained the same - much to the chagrin of Hamilton. Also, it was determined, contrary to Madison's preference, that there wouldn't be two houses of Congress based on apportionment, that Congress would not be able to write law on every imaginable subject, that there wouldn't be a superlative judiciary that could take up every case of perceived importance, that there would not be a national veto of state law, and that treason would consist of levying war against the states rather than the central government. Hamilton wanted the states to be homogenized essentially into a singular body, with an monarch-like executive that served for life, with senators appointed by the executive rather than being elected by the states. Ultimately, both Madison and Hamilton saw the framework as an improvement, but complained about these things routinely. For instance, see Hamilton's quote in Madison's notes that the Constitution was "very remote" from his preference, and Madison's complaints about the document in his letter to Jefferson on October 24, 1787.
Under the 1787 Constitution, Congress didn't even contain a general legislative authority that is present in all nationalist constitutions. On the contrary, ratification of the Constitution was secured in the most contentious states through explicit declarations that the general government could assume powers it was not delegated. In Virginia, Edmund Randolph claimed that the general government would endeavor to violate the constitution for exercising any power “not expressly delegated therein.” Maintaining the same position, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina opined that Congress had no right to “exercise powers not expressly delegated to it.” Lending his hand to the cause of ratification in New York, in The Federalist #45 James Madison insisted that the powers delegated to the general government were “few and defined.” At the Hillsborough convention in North Carolina, James Iredell declared that the “powers of the government are particularly enumerated and defined: they can claim no others but such as are so enumerated.” These testimonials, made to assure skeptics in some of the most polarized states, played an enormous role in securing ratification of the Constitution. In this way, the framework was not the national-oriented framework that the archnationalist envisioned - quite to the contrary.
Excellent elaboraron, thanks!
Due to enabling clauses...all of those documents are valid, however, whichever vessel, or volitions in each one individually, that conveys the people having the most freedom is most valid.
What is freedom ? Define
@@glitchinthematrix3559. Whoa. That’s a great question. One (de)finition is “absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government”. Another is “the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved”, and lastly “the power or right to act, think, or speak as one wants without hinderance or restraint”. Those are from the Oxford dictionary.
@@haroldnokumar than by those definitions we don’t
Have freedom here
In the USA 🇺🇸
@@glitchinthematrix3559. Well, it’s not that simple. I have freedoms but only because I comprehend how to adjudicate my Republic in a court of law by using the Constitution. It is an iron clad contract that is enforceable in a court of law pursuant to the fraud statutes and every beneficiary of that contract has the right to claim specific performance on the contract. It is clearly stated in the Preamble of the Bill of Rights that the people are sovereign to the government. Here’s the catch: a people is not the same as a person or persons, also known as a U.S. citizen. The citizen has zero rights and is actually under the jurisdiction of the government. It is a language fraud prison I have been researching for almost a decade. Hence my videos.
Liberty YES! If you get the jab😂 otherwise no liberty…. You only have pursuit of liberty & happiness 😂… Academics live in a bubble
All men are created equal. And endowed by their creator the right to life...liberty...and the pursuit of happiness.
Seems pretty Self evident to me. What part of that do we disagree with?
Go back about 180 years to pre civil war, America was 100% around but I doubt you could say all men were created equal in that situation. Our modern society and general peace has made it seem evident, but it could all fall faster than you could imagine
@@benjaminkellner6245 Yes...America has never lived up to it's document's. but it is these document's that allowed slaves to make the arguement that they were people to begin with. No need to go back pre civil war... Blacks are still murdered with impunity in America today...often by our own government.
@@benjaminkellner6245 While I agree with your statement, you just need to add emphasis on that problem, as in, people only need to go back *less than 3/4th of a century* (less than that, tbh)
And these men are supposed to be highly educated?? Satan has blinded them from the language of that period to how today people are trying to change the meanings.
Seriously? Satan? 😂
Its moments like this that I wish Lex could have Hitch on to talk. These folks would be utterly crushed by him: ua-cam.com/video/iL0_qfSoGoU/v-deo.html
Absolutely.
Hogwash!! I'm sure these guys would have a problem with .....in the beginning as well.
He’s wittawy hitting the gwiddy
It was ordained, and subsequently established by being written in the Preamble of the Bill of Rights....that “we the people” are sovereign to the government. In contrast, the government is sovereign to all U.S. citizens. A citizen is a concept on paper -aka- non-living corporate person. A man or woman is a people -aka- the embodiment of what created the state of mind we call government.
Tell me if it makes sense to anyone that the creation can become the master of it’s creator. Here’s some advice for all who read this: Stop refusing when ANY presumed authority says you must do this or that, even police. To refuse is a dishonor as it is being a “belligerent”.
Remember, everything is commercial/Maritime Admiralty. Always accept the offer (whatever you’re being charged as doing) for value. Make the value a billion dollars. If they want to proceed, great! I’ll take the billion first. Think I’m joking? I’m not.
It is impossible to PAY for anything since 1933. All we are given is the benefit of DISCHARGING debt with our signature. Why? Because federal reserve notes are worthless private bank notes. You cannot PAY for something of value with something that is worthless.
In fact....EVERYTHING is already prepaid via our signature, per: HJR-192-73rd Congress M-session (also known as “The Emergency Banking Act “ and “The New Deal”.
This was done because silver and gold are of substance and actually are money, and therefore PAY for goods and services. They are inexorably connected to The Common Law which is based on property rights. Well...they had to go by the waste side and be replaced by “Colorable Currency”. Why? Because we now have a “Colorable Legal System”, hence the Uniform Commercial Code. So, no more property rights. They went bye-bye. In fact..U.S. citizens have absolutely no right to lodial title ownership of ANYTHING. Your world is not quite what you think it is folks. MOBILEMINDMELD-UA-cam.COM.
I actually like Lex’s speech pace. I would like to slow down some. I talk to fast sometime. I think I’d be a better communicator if I slowed down. What’s the rush?
@1:33 Yes, the Constitution for the United States Of America is a kind of "counter-revolution"... Look at Art. 1, Sec, 8, Clause 17. It gives powers to Congress to govern the District of Columbia that recall the Declarations complaints against King George!!! But The Declaration & the Constitution of 1787 ultimately go together. It just took 78 years... IMHO
And remember they only have jurisdiction within the 10 mi radius and that is all anything outside has to be done under contract and written permission. Any laws they tried to pass only belong to the 14th amendment which was forced upon you at birth
Nope, nope nope. Revisionists history. Read Blackstsone as the basis of the founding documents.
Lmao these guys are all over the place ..only if we had something put in place before everyone could go by
Geez, this guy actually brought up Bismarck with regards to public education...you know the military theorist from when the telegram wasn't even invented.
Absolutely heretical. But no shock
PrePaid historians
I don’t like these weirdos
💪💪🙌🙌
Boooooooo