RN to BSN and watching your videos for a required Government class. At first I hated the idea of this dry old stuff but the last 4 years have taught me I really should know the constitution so much better than I was never taught 50 years ago. So, thank you for making this so palatable and interesting.
Watching this in May 2023 as we’re staring at a Debt Ceiling crisis. Invoking the 14th Amendment was one option on the table. To anyone in the future reading this, I hope all pans out, but as of now we have no idea what’s going to happen.
Law enforcement and courts arresting(seizing)American citizens and seizing their property (civil asset forfeiture) without being first found guilty in a public trial by a jury is a illegal unconstitutional violation of the 14th amendment section 1. As well as felony crimes in violation of legal law through violating and depriving American citizens constitutionally protected rights, liberties, privileges, immunities.
I'm here in 2024 watching this. I already knew the 14th ammendment but wanted more explanation on it and I'm glad this video was first because that context was exactly what i was looking for. It even went beyond that
Article 4 section 1 establishes who is a American citizen. It prohibits the state and federal government from passing or enforcing any form of laws violating or depriving any citizens constitutionally protected rights,and protects all citizens equally under the courts and law.
Mr. Hughes, amazing! Your energy level is fantastic! I have always been a student of math and science until recently I have wanted to go back and revisit history. Your videos are a fantastic journey into history indeed. Thank you so very much for posting these videos, and thank you for contributing to the most important job in the world, teaching. Thank You!
Can anyone point me to a passage explaining the rights of parents under constitutional rights? Currently dealing with a case where an abducted child has been in foster care and the foster agency failed to notify me in a reasonable amount of time. They took over 15 months which is as far as i can see a breach of a fathers rights.
It's a violation of not only your supremacy clause, article 4 section 2 paragraph 1,4th amendment,9th amendment enumeration clause,14th amendment section 1 constitutionally protected rights, liberty, privileges, immunities, but a violation of your childrens as well. All parents should educate their children that when they reach the age of majority they have the right to sue the state and all officials involved for their illegal abduction. You should use title 18 U.S.C. section §241,§242, title 18 U.S.C. section 1201 kidnapping with you and your childrens 4th and 14th amendment section 1 rights in the courts against the judge,and CPS/DCFS workers and all law enforcement officials involved. Sue them for kidnapping your children. Sue whoever reported you as well for felony conspiracy against rights and felony deprivation of rights under color of law in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. sections §241 and §242.
I would say I am closer to you then you think although I am sure my paradigm is static in some western context. I appreciate your honesty and intellect and look forward to your future comments.
In Article 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, you seem to have glossed over something. Seemingly, being born in the US would automatically make one a US citizen, conveniently ignoring the fact the it clearly states "being subject to the jurisdiction thereof". You mentioned native Americans not getting citizenship this way, presumably because they would be born on Indian lands (reservation) and not "in the US". However, offspring of foreign diplomats aren't automatic US citizens similarly, but because their parents are not subject to jurisdiction of US laws. Fast forward, illegal aliens born in the US, don't (or shouldn't) get automatic US citizenship, because their parents are still subjects of the laws of the original country. Yes, they aren't diplomats with immunity to US laws, but they aren't automatically subjects to all but immigration laws.
@@donaldrayprine5153 Really? I have never heard of the offspring of diplomat becoming citizens of the host country. As far as Native Americans goes, yes, but that was a separate act of Congress following World War 1.
Subject to the jurisdiction refers to a person born with allegiance to a nation. It has nothing to do with obeying laws. A "Natural Born citizen" is someone that is born with full and complete allegiance to a nation. If both parents are U.S. citizens then you are Natural Born, If one parent is a citizen, then you are a naturalized citizen. This is the original intent of the clause , and the one we are Constitutional required to follow, even though our government tends to ignore it .
@@Jbickley00 How and why, is that a "good thing"? Let's have a cadre of North Koreans come in and raise an army of citizens as soldiers to wipe out America? Good idea. NOT!
Please give this a full listen: At around 2:30 and on, the narrator talks about how Section 3 dealt with disallowing this who had participated in the Civil War as a punitive measure. That this is from 11 years ago is critical, as it objectively shows people have always had the correct understanding as to the 14th Amendment. Crucially, it does not encompass or contemplate any future insurrection or rebellion, as there are other provisions in the law that deal with such. Section 3, of the 14th Amendment which has been in the news of late cannot be used to disqualify President Trump. That is the short and simply truth.
Most of the rights in the Bill of rights have been applied to the States via the 14th Amendment. Here is an interesting fact, the Supreme Court has refused to except poor people as a class that needs to be protected under the 14th Amendment. That is why the race card has to be used all the time, or that is why the race card is used all the time by the Democrats. Title 42 U.S.C section 1983 does not state that the action have to be racially motivated to violate the rights of the people secured by the Constitution and Laws, nor does the 14th Amendment use the word race, Yet, the Court refuses to change its view that it is unconstitutional to discriminate based on wealth or the lack of wealth.
@@sosa7k169 it is not funny, it is a fact. the race card came from the Democrats objecting to the ratification of the 14th amendment on the grounds that it would give blacks the same rights as whites. read the congressional globe and learn what they the Democrats say while in office.
Keith Hughes needs to watch the 14th Amendment as explained by the Institute for Justice. The 14th Amendment was needed because in the early 1830s, the Tanney Supreme Court opined in Baron v. Baltimore (courts opine. Tyrants issue rulings because they rule) that Article 4 Section 2 of the US Constitution because the US Constitution does NOT apply to the states & gives no power to the US Federal gov't to force the states (or counties or cities or other political subdivisions) to protect the rights, privileges or immunities of the people/citizens of the USA. The Dred Scott is connected but the problem was that the scumbag Tanney Supreme Court's ruling in Baron v Baltimore that gutted the US Constitution.
Article 4 section 2 applied the constitution to the states not just federal government, hence Article 4 section 2 text. The citizens of each "STATE"shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several "STATES".
Would have been nice to have a little more discussion of Section 3 through this 2024 election year. Now we're more screwed-up than the U.S. was after the Dred Scott Decision. Hope y'all enjoy those "cheaper eggs". Trump voters may have just bought them (& a whiter USA) at the price of the republic itself.
The government did screw the black people as well as American natives but this is a new world we all have the same rights so it's time for all of us to move on with life and love and respect each other
I was hoping that this explanation of the 14th Amendment would at least expand on the argument over whether or not children born to illegal immigrants should be protected by this amendment.
They are not US Citizens because they are not born under the jurisdiction of the USA. They are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country. they can be summoned back to their homelands and conscripted into military service. They have recourse to the embassy of their home country for the redress of grievances. According to the authors of the 14th Amendment, "subject to the jurisdiction" means the complete jurisdiction. The first act of an illegal alien/AKA "invader" entering our Republic is an affront to our Laws which they willfully break by entering our country illegally: a clear declaration that they are NOT subject to our laws.
Gods law supersedes man law. He created us all equal. I bet all those law people claimed to be good Christians too. One thing to claim another to actually be, thru actions.
Among several key omissions, owing, I presume, to the need for brevity, two stand out: mention of Barron v. Baltimore, which restricted the application of the Bill of Rights to the Federal Government; and the Slaughterhouse Cases, in which the Supreme Court actually first addressed the scope and validity of the Fourteenth Amendment and provided the legal precedent on which Cruikshank would rely.
Good news is is I do have videos of them. The hard part is deciding how deep to dive Knowing that the majority of my students are just trying to wrap their heads around the idea. I do appreciate the comment. If you go to my channel page you will see a link to my video index
So thank you for posting this video, I’m not a young person anymore, I’m not currently enrolled in any courses covering the constitution & so I am wondering do you think the 14th amendment is applicable when cops shoot unarmed people & then they use something called qualified immunity to basically inoculate themselves from prosecution! I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts about that & again thank you for posting video!😎
It largely depends on the circumstances the police officer is faced with. An officer in Ohio saved a young woman's life by shooting Ma'khia Bryant, who was in the process of stabbing someone. If however, the police officer is found to have acted criminally then they face a trial and could very well spend the remainder of their life behind bars.
@@oliverduke1173 Touché! So with all due respect, I wasn’t talking about armed people, and I understand your point, but we know the majority of the people whose cases end up in the news, never end up in court, and when they do it is likely that this particular SCOTUS decision of qualified immunity is used broadly as a common defense, and we also know that the subjects in these cases were not carrying firearms, and were not pointing a firearm at the police, in fact a lot of these cases involving situations so egregious that the subjects weren’t just walking away, they were running away out fear of the police! So this isn’t about a cliché, it’s about life, and death, and whether or not the rule of law has any real meaning or standing in the general scheme of things, and as we all should know that life is a lot more dangerous when people have lost faith with those entrusted with their safety, e.g. the cases of 12 year old Tamia Rice, and Breonna Taylor remains prominent in my mind as to just how messed up things are in this country where judges are likely to rule in favor of qualified immunity even in cases where the facts show otherwise, and because of the prejudicial nature of such a decision, it makes an appeal unlikely to result in a reversal. Comphrende!
Qualified immunity doesn't legally exist anywhere in the united states constitution whatsoever. Qualified immunity is corruption of justice made up by a corrupt criminal judge. The only government officials who have any form of immunity under the constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land are senators only when they are on the floor voting or driving to session or home from session no other immunity legally lawfully exists. Article 2 section 4 states otherwise that all government officials can be arrested, charged, prosecuted, and impeached for treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors including a sitting president.
Your not going to like this but I tend to avoid the big questions as a facilitator of learning experiences. In order to be able to have ears, I need to be seen as fair. I do know its hard to be neutral on a moving train (Zinn) but I try. I would say the current paradigm of capitalism leads much to be desired. I am also against corporate personhood outright and thing that people need education in socialism as well as capitalism, negatives and positives. I lean on peeps like you to advocate.
1. Entre - citizenship (protection by states), due process, equal protection of the laws 2. Correct 3/5 compromise - population and representation 3. Prohibits CSA leaders from being in congress 4. Congress can enforce these decisions
3 prohibits anyone who takes a oath of office and violates said oath and the constitution of the united states from holding any office in the united states of America. 4 pertains to public debt and prohibits financial claims of lost or freed slaves. 5 gives Congress authority to enforce it
And to complete my rant our judicial body is completely compromised being paid off whatever it is because it is their job to keep the other two branches in line with the constitution which they have failed miserably at doing so one can only conclude that they’re compromised or being paid off on top of that the executive branch to the administrative offices of government has overstepped his bounds by creating what’s called administrative judge is an administrative process is which violate the separation of power clause not to mention any statute that is written that Contradicts a constitution is completely void it no but we live our every day lives under their statutes we the people have failed the constitution and allowed our government complete control
I though they decided corporations had freedom of speech and that comes from the corporate citizenship interpretation of the fourteenth. Money = freedom of speech was also an interesting interpretation of the first amendment too.
The why is hard, probably because states have used marriage as an organizing principle for thousands of years. The how, the evolution of it as issue in federalism seems interesting though. Your request in more of a philosophical video, seemingly you me to conclude it shouldnt be. Personally I probably agree with you at least in the idea of a state sanctifying love is quite creepy.
6:26 Mapp actually originally went to court because she thought Ohio’s anti-pornography law was unfair, but she ended up winning the case for a different reason: the Fourth and Fourteenth were violated! 🙃
4:57 "With Brown versus Board of that and this of course is where the Supreme Court looks at a Kansas law that segregates children by race. The children that were being segregated had self-esteem issues and so to the racist children too" First of all, what the fuck do you mean "the racist children"? You're demonizing and accusing KIDS, who have no role in making these laws. You're assuming "If a child is going to an all-white school, they are automatically racist." That's fucked and wrong. Secondly, if both the black kids AND the white kids had self-esteem issues: That's equal. So you're arguing against yourself.
Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment says, “…neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”
@@firefire7529 The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
In another video title of yours, you said ... "I know nothing." Hmm ... So does that also includes videos such as this one? Do you - or do you NOT - comprehend the 14th amendment?
Where at 3:07 does it say any person born in the US IS a citizen ? Why did you not see the the word and ? looks like it takes two things to be a citizen . Birth and subjecting yourself to the jurisdiction of the US. Just a thought.
I wish you would have had time to explain the proper meaning of the second half of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, which is known in law as "INCLUSIVE CLAUSE", AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, since mere birth is and was not enough, otherwise it would have been left out.
LGBT people aren't even supposed to be a separate people. They are supposed to be members of the same community of people with their own personal liberties.
Everyone should have learned this in school. When I went, it was mandatory, if you wanted to graduate. We had to learn how this country was run and we learned ethics. I don't understand why this has changed. If you are American, how could you not know the government you live under? That this has to be explained out side of schools shows failure of our educational system!
So I'm crazy on the Internet. Okay, I'm fine with that, as long as I have access to your videos. Could you make videos about the differences between US politicla system and others?
first clause, you forgot to mention the qualifying factor within and that is, ", and subject to the jurisdiction thereof....". Illegal immigrants, ambassadors, migrant workers or visitors who have children here; neither the child nor the parent are citizens.
Biden does not have to use it! The people have the power to invoke it, as it does not specify who can invoke it, but section 3 begins with: " NO PERSON SHALL"! Self explanatory and it does take 2/3 of the government to recind it!
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. [But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.] By not paying the descendants of American enslavement reparations, the United States has broken The law consistently for nearly 200 years. CUT THE CHECK! On April 16, 1862, President Lincoln signed the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act. This law prohibited slavery in the District, forcing its 900-odd slaveholders to free their slaves, with the federal government paying owners an average of about $300 (equivalent to $8,000 in 2021) for each.Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The federal government did not grant pensions to Confederate veterans or their dependents, however, southern state governments granted pensions to Confederate veterans and widows. Veterans filed for pensions in the state where they were living at the time, not the state from which they served.www.archives.gov/files/research/military/civil-war/confederate/confederate-pensions.pdf[{"insert":"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. [But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.] By not paying the descendants of American enslavement reparations, the United States has broken The law consistently for nearly 200 years. CUT THE CHECK! On April 16, 1862, President Lincoln signed the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act. This law prohibited slavery in the District, forcing its 900-odd slaveholders to free their slaves, with the federal government paying owners an average of about $300 (equivalent to $8,000 in 2021) for each.Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The federal government did not grant pensions to Confederate veterans or their dependents, however, southern state governments granted pensions to Confederate veterans and widows. Veterans filed for pensions in the state where they were living at the time, not the state from which they served.www.archives.gov/files/research/military/civil-war/confederate/confederate-pensions.pdf "}]
Yep, US citizen= cestui qui vie trust = badge of slavery. And you weren't told this when you signed up for this and now all your previously common law rights you contracted out of (unknowingly) so now all your rights have been converted into privileges & you need a license to do what is actually a common law right, but as a card carrying club member of D.C. aka US citizen now you have no rights except those your congressman gives you... And he can also take away... And this video mentioned none of this, but that's by design For all real students looking to find out what we the sheeple aren't supposed to work out have a look see at the content on Glenn Winningham's YT channel Sovereign Living, and be prepared to take notes. You're gonna need to if you really wanna see where this 14th amendment leads us...
What's the question. I sort of take a clear and present danger outlook. Anything is fine unless it causes an evident danger to another human. I also think that websites also have the right to regulate your speech; it's their space; so if Twitter or FB wants to regulate "hate speech" thats sort of within there right b/c you opted in to their business. But someones personal website? As long as it doesnt present a clear and present danger, I say let your freak flag fly.
[But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and Void.] Explain this part.👈🏾
14th amendment won't work with the debt crises because they'll drag it out in the courts ending with a republican Supreme Court. The end. Congress needs to just raise the debt ceiling then debate the budget. I mean the budget will be debated then eventually passed by BOTH PARTIES.
Mapp was born in 1923 and the incident happened in 1957 so she was about 34 years old at the time. Not exactly an age I would envision when someone is described as being 'older' but I can't say it's wrong either because the term itself is subjective and based on the speaker's own point of reference when describing someone's age. Maybe the creator of the video believes any female above the age of 18 to be 'older', while the age of 11 or 12 to be more suitable to describe someone that is young... so from that point of view, anyone above 30 would be 'very old' and above '60' should be considered fossils.
I don't believe so, I think Citizens is all wrapped up in free speech and election law. Even Harlan though is unclear in San Mateo County v. Southern Pac. R.R. about the true intention of corporate personhood... making the distinction between legal and natural citizens. I think "corporate personhood" is ripe for a new looksy.
It's for every color. It says nothing about being black there. I do not believe it was written for blacks only. I'm sure they were thinking of everyone.
The fourteenth amendment is an important one to discuss and you did a great class on it. However, I would like to point out how entities use this to make foreign citizens who bear a child within our borders an American citizen. In no way, should that child be considered a citizen and no other country in the world do that. For instance, when soldiers are deployed to a foreign country, such as Japan or Germany, their children are still American citizens. One of the prominant writers of the Fourteenth Amendment addressed this point. So a very important action to do is to find out the intentions of the writers. That is the procedure of the Supreme Court to find out precedence. You did mention how the Supreme Court sometimes messes, like the Dred Scott decision.
If the child is born in the united states 14th amendment section 1 makes it a US citizen period. 14th amendment text. All persons born or naturalized in the united states,and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof,are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Subject to the jurisdiction thereof means they are subject to the laws,courts. All human beings born in the united states are automatically subject to the laws of the united states.
RN to BSN and watching your videos for a required Government class. At first I hated the idea of this dry old stuff but the last 4 years have taught me I really should know the constitution so much better than I was never taught 50 years ago. So, thank you for making this so palatable and interesting.
Watching this in May 2023 as we’re staring at a Debt Ceiling crisis. Invoking the 14th Amendment was one option on the table. To anyone in the future reading this, I hope all pans out, but as of now we have no idea what’s going to happen.
Checking in. 5 hrs later. No change in the “news” as of now. 😁
Interesting how I "randomly" came onto this video. Pure coincedence for sure.
There is a tentative deal, now it has to be voted upon in the house and Senate, then signed as well
1 report was it was a 2 year deal
The 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling. Are there still Democrat slave owners trying to get reimbursed for Republicans freeing their slaves?
Watched this because I am homeschooling my soon-to-be-13 year old daughter. We are going over the Civil War and Reconstruction.
Thank you so much for making this accessible. I feel more prepared for my public policy class today!
Studying for my police academy, trying not to ignorantly violate rights.
Jesus, man. Good luck to you. Things are NOT cop friendly these days. And I commend you for putting in the work.
@@povljr Thank you!
The department will urge you to violate rights
Don't worry you'll figure it out the day you graduate you'll become just like the rest of the scum bag police
We need good police officers! Good luck to you.
You're awesome. These videos are a huge help. Thank you!
You help so much with my constitutional law class; very easy, simple and basic breakdowns.
Law enforcement and courts arresting(seizing)American citizens and seizing their property (civil asset forfeiture) without being first found guilty in a public trial by a jury is a illegal unconstitutional violation of the 14th amendment section 1. As well as felony crimes in violation of legal law through violating and depriving American citizens constitutionally protected rights, liberties, privileges, immunities.
I'm here in 2024 watching this. I already knew the 14th ammendment but wanted more explanation on it and I'm glad this video was first because that context was exactly what i was looking for. It even went beyond that
Article 4 section 1 establishes who is a American citizen. It prohibits the state and federal government from passing or enforcing any form of laws violating or depriving any citizens constitutionally protected rights,and protects all citizens equally under the courts and law.
The only thing the 14th amendment has to do with slavery is section 4 pertaining to the public debt.
Sounds like a great topic for a lecture on Federalism, I'll put it on the DJ list. Thanks!
Vivik explained it pretty well...
What about the Natives Indians and the black Aboriginal that were here before they brought slaves over. What about their citizenship?
If they were here after the 14th amendment was written and adopted then they are US citizens.
Mr. Hughes, amazing! Your energy level is fantastic! I have always been a student of math and science until recently I have wanted to go back and revisit history. Your videos are a fantastic journey into history indeed. Thank you so very much for posting these videos, and thank you for contributing to the most important job in the world, teaching. Thank You!
Section 5 gives Congress the authority to enforce the 14th amendment.
Can anyone point me to a passage explaining the rights of parents under constitutional rights?
Currently dealing with a case where an abducted child has been in foster care and the foster agency failed to notify me in a reasonable amount of time. They took over 15 months which is as far as i can see a breach of a fathers rights.
It's a violation of not only your supremacy clause, article 4 section 2 paragraph 1,4th amendment,9th amendment enumeration clause,14th amendment section 1 constitutionally protected rights, liberty, privileges, immunities, but a violation of your childrens as well. All parents should educate their children that when they reach the age of majority they have the right to sue the state and all officials involved for their illegal abduction. You should use title 18 U.S.C. section §241,§242, title 18 U.S.C. section 1201 kidnapping with you and your childrens 4th and 14th amendment section 1 rights in the courts against the judge,and CPS/DCFS workers and all law enforcement officials involved. Sue them for kidnapping your children. Sue whoever reported you as well for felony conspiracy against rights and felony deprivation of rights under color of law in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. sections §241 and §242.
I would say I am closer to you then you think although I am sure my paradigm is static in some western context. I appreciate your honesty and intellect and look forward to your future comments.
Does anyone know what comment Hip was responding to?
I meant through my vids, lol. but you can always tweet me! or better yet, go to HipHughes History on FB!
Why did you skip section 4?
@Ned Bazinga Got THAT Right!!!
The canceling of the Confederate Debt was very significant.
this guy went on a rant and forgot i guess...
In Article 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, you seem to have glossed over something. Seemingly, being born in the US would automatically make one a US citizen, conveniently ignoring the fact the it clearly states "being subject to the jurisdiction thereof". You mentioned native Americans not getting citizenship this way, presumably because they would be born on Indian lands (reservation) and not "in the US". However, offspring of foreign diplomats aren't automatic US citizens similarly, but because their parents are not subject to jurisdiction of US laws. Fast forward, illegal aliens born in the US, don't (or shouldn't) get automatic US citizenship, because their parents are still subjects of the laws of the original country. Yes, they aren't diplomats with immunity to US laws, but they aren't automatically subjects to all but immigration laws.
There is a provision for Native Americans, and Diplomats as well
@@donaldrayprine5153 Really? I have never heard of the offspring of diplomat becoming citizens of the host country.
As far as Native Americans goes, yes, but that was a separate act of Congress following World War 1.
Subject to the jurisdiction refers to a person born with allegiance to a nation. It has nothing to do with obeying laws. A "Natural Born citizen" is someone that is born with full and complete allegiance to a nation. If both parents are U.S. citizens then you are Natural Born, If one parent is a citizen, then you are a naturalized citizen. This is the original intent of the clause , and the one we are Constitutional required to follow, even though our government tends to ignore it .
If you are born in the US, you are a citizen. This is different than most other countries and that’s a good thing.
@@Jbickley00 How and why, is that a "good thing"? Let's have a cadre of North Koreans come in and raise an army of citizens as soldiers to wipe out America? Good idea. NOT!
Wish I hadn't wasted so much time yesterday watching Dr. Phil and baby kittens sleeping vids yesterday when I could have been watching yours.
It was about train cars, and yes, each car was equal. Some might have wear and tear, but, the were the same exact train car models.
Love the house of learning! New subscriber.
I love your videos you are helping get through my American government college course I LOVE YOU THANK YOU! lol
Awesome! I am glad you found them and they found you.
Question, who and what party where the SC Justices put into /on the fort by? Back in 1886 or what ever date you said
How is state income tax legal? They are taking property without due process or just compinsation
@@YahwehhasgivenaservanttoHis 1040 INCOME TAX IS PAID TO QUEEN OF ENGLAND, NOT THE U.S.
Please give this a full listen:
At around 2:30 and on, the narrator talks about how Section 3 dealt with disallowing this who had participated in the Civil War as a punitive measure.
That this is from 11 years ago is critical, as it objectively shows people have always had the correct understanding as to the 14th Amendment.
Crucially, it does not encompass or contemplate any future insurrection or rebellion, as there are other provisions in the law that deal with such.
Section 3, of the 14th Amendment which has been in the news of late cannot be used to disqualify President Trump. That is the short and simply truth.
Thanks for this video! I just ordered some Hip Hughes merch.
Is the fourteenth amendment also used for corporate personhood and thus contributing to the Citizen United decision?
Nowhere in the 14th amendment does it pertain to any business or corporations whatsoever.
@@dragonf1092
Though I understand the personhood rights in it have been extened by legal practice to include corporations
(not that I approve of that)
can you do a video on the incorporation of rights through the 14th amendment ?
Most of the rights in the Bill of rights have been applied to the States via the 14th Amendment. Here is an interesting fact, the Supreme Court has refused to except poor people as a class that needs to be protected under the 14th Amendment. That is why the race card has to be used all the time, or that is why the race card is used all the time by the Democrats. Title 42 U.S.C section 1983 does not state that the action have to be racially motivated to violate the rights of the people secured by the Constitution and Laws, nor does the 14th Amendment use the word race, Yet, the Court refuses to change its view that it is unconstitutional to discriminate based on wealth or the lack of wealth.
@@johnhumphrey9953 Appreciate the knowledge, that’s funny.
@@sosa7k169 it is not funny, it is a fact. the race card came from the Democrats objecting to the ratification of the 14th amendment on the grounds that it would give blacks the same rights as whites. read the congressional globe and learn what they the Democrats say while in office.
@@johnhumphrey9953 I was agreeing with you. Have a good one and thanks 🙏🏾
I was thinking along the same lines; the incorporation clause.
Keith Hughes needs to watch the 14th Amendment as explained by the Institute for Justice. The 14th Amendment was needed because in the early 1830s, the Tanney Supreme Court opined in Baron v. Baltimore (courts opine. Tyrants issue rulings because they rule) that Article 4 Section 2 of the US Constitution because the US Constitution does NOT apply to the states & gives no power to the US Federal gov't to force the states (or counties or cities or other political subdivisions) to protect the rights, privileges or immunities of the people/citizens of the USA. The Dred Scott is connected but the problem was that the scumbag Tanney Supreme Court's ruling in Baron v Baltimore that gutted the US Constitution.
Article 4 section 2 applied the constitution to the states not just federal government, hence
Article 4 section 2 text.
The citizens of each "STATE"shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several "STATES".
Too many people in America many holding offices lacking reading comprehension.
Would have been nice to have a little more discussion of Section 3 through this 2024 election year. Now we're more screwed-up than the U.S. was after the Dred Scott Decision. Hope y'all enjoy those "cheaper eggs". Trump voters may have just bought them (& a whiter USA) at the price of the republic itself.
What does subject to jurisdiction mean
It means all the places that the United States claims to own
The government did screw the black people as well as American natives but this is a new world we all have the same rights so it's time for all of us to move on with life and love and respect each other
I was hoping that this explanation of the 14th Amendment would at least expand on the argument over whether or not children born to illegal immigrants should be protected by this amendment.
I don’t know why you would need that explanation when the answer is clearly said
They are not US Citizens because they are not born under the jurisdiction of the USA. They are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country. they can be summoned back to their homelands and conscripted into military service. They have recourse to the embassy of their home country for the redress of grievances.
According to the authors of the 14th Amendment, "subject to the jurisdiction" means the complete jurisdiction. The first act of an illegal alien/AKA "invader" entering our Republic is an affront to our Laws which they willfully break by entering our country illegally: a clear declaration that they are NOT subject to our laws.
Skip to 0:45
Gods law supersedes man law. He created us all equal. I bet all those law people claimed to be good Christians too. One thing to claim another to actually be, thru actions.
hey great video🥃 could you do one on " the battle of Athens " .. thank you
Among several key omissions, owing, I presume, to the need for brevity, two stand out: mention of Barron v. Baltimore, which restricted the application of the Bill of Rights to the Federal Government; and the Slaughterhouse Cases, in which the Supreme Court actually first addressed the scope and validity of the Fourteenth Amendment and provided the legal precedent on which Cruikshank would rely.
Good news is is I do have videos of them. The hard part is deciding how deep to dive Knowing that the majority of my students are just trying to wrap their heads around the idea. I do appreciate the comment. If you go to my channel page you will see a link to my video index
Hi Mr. Hughes do you have any hints to better understand the State Action Doctrine?
So thank you for posting this video, I’m not a young person anymore, I’m not currently enrolled in any courses covering the constitution & so I am wondering do you think the 14th amendment is applicable when cops shoot unarmed people & then they use something called qualified immunity to basically inoculate themselves from prosecution! I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts about that & again thank you for posting video!😎
It largely depends on the circumstances the police officer is faced with. An officer in Ohio saved a young woman's life by shooting Ma'khia Bryant, who was in the process of stabbing someone. If however, the police officer is found to have acted criminally then they face a trial and could very well spend the remainder of their life behind bars.
cops should not shoot armed people either. please don't use this cliche
@@oliverduke1173 Touché! So with all due respect, I wasn’t talking about armed people, and I understand your point, but we know the majority of the people whose cases end up in the news, never end up in court, and when they do it is likely that this particular SCOTUS decision of qualified immunity is used broadly as a common defense, and we also know that the subjects in these cases were not carrying firearms, and were not pointing a firearm at the police, in fact a lot of these cases involving situations so egregious that the subjects weren’t just walking away, they were running away out fear of the police! So this isn’t about a cliché, it’s about life, and death, and whether or not the rule of law has any real meaning or standing in the general scheme of things, and as we all should know that life is a lot more dangerous when people have lost faith with those entrusted with their safety, e.g. the cases of 12 year old Tamia Rice, and Breonna Taylor remains prominent in my mind as to just how messed up things are in this country where judges are likely to rule in favor of qualified immunity even in cases where the facts show otherwise, and because of the prejudicial nature of such a decision, it makes an appeal unlikely to result in a reversal. Comphrende!
Qualified immunity doesn't legally exist anywhere in the united states constitution whatsoever. Qualified immunity is corruption of justice made up by a corrupt criminal judge. The only government officials who have any form of immunity under the constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land are senators only when they are on the floor voting or driving to session or home from session no other immunity legally lawfully exists. Article 2 section 4 states otherwise that all government officials can be arrested, charged, prosecuted, and impeached for treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors including a sitting president.
It is the only case law enforcement should be useing their weapons.
How about vs mistresses does this apply too?
This is music to my ears
Your not going to like this but I tend to avoid the big questions as a facilitator of learning experiences. In order to be able to have ears, I need to be seen as fair. I do know its hard to be neutral on a moving train (Zinn) but I try. I would say the current paradigm of capitalism leads much to be desired. I am also against corporate personhood outright and thing that people need education in socialism as well as capitalism, negatives and positives. I lean on peeps like you to advocate.
I totally agree about personhood for corporations needs to be removed.
1. Entre - citizenship (protection by states), due process, equal protection of the laws
2. Correct 3/5 compromise - population and representation
3. Prohibits CSA leaders from being in congress
4. Congress can enforce these decisions
protection by states? more like protection by constitution right?
No, he skipped 4, and went right to 5.
3 prohibits anyone who takes a oath of office and violates said oath and the constitution of the united states from holding any office in the united states of America.
4 pertains to public debt and prohibits financial claims of lost or freed slaves.
5 gives Congress authority to enforce it
1 also prohibits states from passing or enforcing any form of law that violates the rights of American citizens.
Having a Debat with my sister do state have to follow constitutional law yes or no
Yes. Constitutional law is THE law. See supremacy clause and this amendment (no state shall deny...)
And to complete my rant our judicial body is completely compromised being paid off whatever it is because it is their job to keep the other two branches in line with the constitution which they have failed miserably at doing so one can only conclude that they’re compromised or being paid off on top of that the executive branch to the administrative offices of government has overstepped his bounds by creating what’s called administrative judge is an administrative process is which violate the separation of power clause not to mention any statute that is written that Contradicts a constitution is completely void it no but we live our every day lives under their statutes we the people have failed the constitution and allowed our government complete control
I bet $50 he records in his shorts or underwear 😂
I though they decided corporations had freedom of speech and that comes from the corporate citizenship interpretation of the fourteenth. Money = freedom of speech was also an interesting interpretation of the first amendment too.
Why no comment on debt ceiling clause in the 14th amendment?
The why is hard, probably because states have used marriage as an organizing principle for thousands of years. The how, the evolution of it as issue in federalism seems interesting though. Your request in more of a philosophical video, seemingly you me to conclude it shouldnt be. Personally I probably agree with you at least in the idea of a state sanctifying love is quite creepy.
6:26
Mapp actually originally went to court because she thought Ohio’s anti-pornography law was unfair, but she ended up winning the case for a different reason: the Fourth and Fourteenth were violated! 🙃
4:57 "With Brown versus Board of that and this
of course is where the Supreme Court looks at a Kansas law that segregates children by race. The children that were being segregated had self-esteem issues and so to the racist children too"
First of all, what the fuck do you mean "the racist children"? You're demonizing and accusing KIDS, who have no role in making these laws. You're assuming "If a child is going to an all-white school, they are automatically racist." That's fucked and wrong.
Secondly, if both the black kids AND the white kids had self-esteem issues: That's equal. So you're arguing against yourself.
"Creates"?
Question...How can the 14th be invoked in a lawsuit against a state by one of its' citizens if the eleventh protects them?
What about section 4 of the 14th Amendment? Completely skipped that part!
Great videos, though!
Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment says, “…neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”
Basically, The USA is not responsible for confederate war debts.
@@firefire7529 and sanctuary cities
@@firefire7529 The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
I thought I was. I'll tell you what Ill meet you on my homepage any time you are free.
In another video title of yours, you said ... "I know nothing."
Hmm ...
So does that also includes videos such as this one?
Do you - or do you NOT - comprehend the 14th amendment?
You and Tom Arnold are twins I swear
😂😂😂
Where at 3:07 does it say any person born in the US IS a citizen ? Why did you not see the the word and ? looks like it takes two things to be a citizen . Birth and subjecting yourself to the jurisdiction of the US. Just a thought.
I wish you would have had time to explain the proper meaning of the second half of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, which is known in law as "INCLUSIVE CLAUSE", AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, since mere birth is and was not enough, otherwise it would have been left out.
Born or Naturalized...... AND Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof
13th was ratified *after* he assassination of lincoln, not before (0:55)
Hey Hughes, can you do a video on why government is involved in marriage?
In reference to map versus Ohio., the 11th amendment states that you can't sue the state that you reside in.
LGBT people aren't even supposed to be a separate people. They are supposed to be members of the same community of people with their own personal liberties.
400yrs of slavery led to Civil war and civil right movement.
Everyone should have learned this in school. When I went, it was mandatory, if you wanted to graduate. We had to learn how this country was run and we learned ethics.
I don't understand why this has changed. If you are American, how could you not know the government you live under?
That this has to be explained out side of schools shows failure of our educational system!
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
So I'm crazy on the Internet. Okay, I'm fine with that, as long as I have access to your videos. Could you make videos about the differences between US politicla system and others?
first clause, you forgot to mention the qualifying factor within and that is, ", and subject to the jurisdiction thereof....". Illegal immigrants, ambassadors, migrant workers or visitors who have children here; neither the child nor the parent are citizens.
+PacificCircle1 I love you too
MrDerrik770 What does that mean. I'm not up on White supremacist jargon. Oh, I get it YOU SICK RAT -
(think of that every time you watch football)
Troll la la loll la loll la loll loll lolll
The 14th is part of the Constitution. How the F..k can it be unconstitutional? Got meds?
+PacificCircle1 huh? Who?
My question is what is the “due process”
Your audio needs some TLC. When I find myself constantly adjusting the volume, it doesn't endear me to the video's sound editor, or lack thereof.
Biden does not have to use it! The people have the power to invoke it, as it does not specify who can invoke it, but section 3 begins with: " NO PERSON SHALL"! Self explanatory and it does take 2/3 of the government to recind it!
Woah. Not on purpose. Sorry about that. Please send me the audiologist bill.
I get mistaken for being African American but I'm native american could this be possible for many other african americans?
broooo i was studying at 2 am and that 3:43 sound effect scared the crap outta me
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. [But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.]
By not paying the descendants of American enslavement reparations, the United States has broken The law consistently for nearly 200 years.
CUT THE CHECK!
On April 16, 1862, President Lincoln signed the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act. This law prohibited slavery in the District, forcing its 900-odd slaveholders to free their slaves, with the federal government paying owners an average of about $300 (equivalent to $8,000 in 2021) for each.Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.
The federal government did not grant pensions to Confederate veterans or their dependents, however, southern state governments granted pensions to Confederate veterans and widows. Veterans filed for pensions in the state where they were living at the time, not the state from which they served.www.archives.gov/files/research/military/civil-war/confederate/confederate-pensions.pdf[{"insert":"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. [But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.]
By not paying the descendants of American enslavement reparations, the United States has broken The law consistently for nearly 200 years.
CUT THE CHECK!
On April 16, 1862, President Lincoln signed the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act. This law prohibited slavery in the District, forcing its 900-odd slaveholders to free their slaves, with the federal government paying owners an average of about $300 (equivalent to $8,000 in 2021) for each.Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.
The federal government did not grant pensions to Confederate veterans or their dependents, however, southern state governments granted pensions to Confederate veterans and widows. Veterans filed for pensions in the state where they were living at the time, not the state from which they served.www.archives.gov/files/research/military/civil-war/confederate/confederate-pensions.pdf
"}]
The only aspect of the video I found irritating was the repetition of 'nevertheless'- otherwise it was perfect!
US citizen = Deprivation of rights under color of law.
Yep, US citizen= cestui qui vie trust = badge of slavery.
And you weren't told this when you signed up for this and now all your previously common law rights you contracted out of (unknowingly) so now all your rights have been converted into privileges & you need a license to do what is actually a common law right, but as a card carrying club member of D.C. aka US citizen now you have no rights except those your congressman gives you... And he can also take away...
And this video mentioned none of this, but that's by design
For all real students looking to find out what we the sheeple aren't supposed to work out have a look see at the content on Glenn Winningham's YT channel Sovereign Living, and be prepared to take notes. You're gonna need to if you really wanna see where this 14th amendment leads us...
~The fear of The Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.~
Fearing the Lord is based on a belief that a God of love punishes His perfect creations.
HEY MURPH //IN THE BEGINNING MAN CREATED GOD /
What is the message associated with the hair? What do you tell the batter? “Here try these mushrooms, they are good on pizzas”.
Huge fan! Mad props. :-)
+Amanda Magdalena thanks Amanda for the wonderful comment! You best be subbed and be sure to spread the virtual word
I teach U.S. History and my kids love you!
Does the 14A help me with the 2A? Why is it not a problem to bear arms in some states and impossible in others? Looks like the 14A is not working.
off the subjet but what is your answer to internet and freedom of speech? thank you
What's the question. I sort of take a clear and present danger outlook. Anything is fine unless it causes an evident danger to another human. I also think that websites also have the right to regulate your speech; it's their space; so if Twitter or FB wants to regulate "hate speech" thats sort of within there right b/c you opted in to their business. But someones personal website? As long as it doesnt present a clear and present danger, I say let your freak flag fly.
Keith Hughes Hi! What if someone is born on a British flag cruise ship in international waters?
[But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and Void.]
Explain this part.👈🏾
thanks!!! Iuse your videos for my French students, it's cristal clear!!!!
Merci! Merci!
14th amendment won't work with the debt crises because they'll drag it out in the courts ending with a republican Supreme Court. The end. Congress needs to just raise the debt ceiling then debate the budget. I mean the budget will be debated then eventually passed by BOTH PARTIES.
In other words, it wont work because it is unconstitutional.
Do you even realize that the Republican plan does increase the debt ceiling?
Mapp was 29 years old= not older woman. She was young when arrested.
Mapp was born in 1923 and the incident happened in 1957 so she was about 34 years old at the time. Not exactly an age I would envision when someone is described as being 'older' but I can't say it's wrong either because the term itself is subjective and based on the speaker's own point of reference when describing someone's age. Maybe the creator of the video believes any female above the age of 18 to be 'older', while the age of 11 or 12 to be more suitable to describe someone that is young... so from that point of view, anyone above 30 would be 'very old' and above '60' should be considered fossils.
Thank You For The Information Of History Rock On 🇺🇸🤘🏻👨🏼🎓
Excluding Native American people, up until 1924.
I just declared myself a US national
So, it has nothing to do with raising the debt limit?
I don't believe so, I think Citizens is all wrapped up in free speech and election law. Even Harlan though is unclear in San Mateo County v. Southern Pac. R.R. about the true intention of corporate personhood... making the distinction between legal and natural citizens. I think "corporate personhood" is ripe for a new looksy.
Those are two separate genres. Dr. Phil does not sleep with baby kittens. Sigh, the internet: This is how rumors get started.
7:01 R.I.P Headphone users.
I know right.
No physical address can’t fish or hunt or buy a gun ! 2 - 4 -14 Amendments?
Biden needs to use this now
It's for every color. It says nothing about being black there. I do not believe it was written for blacks only. I'm sure they were thinking of everyone.
watch the gnome at 1:50
this was uploaded 9 minutes ago, the walking dead ended 10 minutes. Awesome timing indeed.
this comment is ancient
So how is the 14 Ammendiment going to help the Dept Ceiling. Sounds like Jabberwocky
The fourteenth amendment is an important one to discuss and you did a great class on it. However, I would like to point out how entities use this to make foreign citizens who bear a child within our borders an American citizen. In no way, should that child be considered a citizen and no other country in the world do that. For instance, when soldiers are deployed to a foreign country, such as Japan or Germany, their children are still American citizens. One of the prominant writers of the Fourteenth Amendment addressed this point. So a very important action to do is to find out the intentions of the writers. That is the procedure of the Supreme Court to find out precedence. You did mention how the Supreme Court sometimes messes, like the Dred Scott decision.
If the child is born in the united states 14th amendment section 1 makes it a US citizen period.
14th amendment text.
All persons born or naturalized in the united states,and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof,are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
Subject to the jurisdiction thereof means they are subject to the laws,courts. All human beings born in the united states are automatically subject to the laws of the united states.