As a kid I heard the "jury of your peers" and my teacher once said my classmates were my peers. I was terrified forever because my classmates were always mean to me.
Some of the best information on UA-cam is coming from you. Thank you for your efforts to give knowledge. The effects of the 9th amendment from a legal standpoint on what are rights that are not written would be informative.
Happiness, as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence means right to pursue a means of living, such as printer or blacksmith. An example of how word meanings change.
@@warrenpierce5542 Finally, someone that gets that. I taught this: The Pursuit of Happiness = Purpose. That 1 thing a serious person can hold onto through thick and thin.
You didn't mention "the constitutional right to make a phone call." I have been told that many times, it always amazed me how forward thinking the writers were to include phones.
"it always amazed me how forward thinking the writers were to include phones." You do realize that the Constitution can be amended right? (not that it has been to give someone the right to a phone call) but we are not limited to just what was initially written.
I think it's easy for laypeople like myself to conflate the idea of a "right to privacy" with the actual right granted "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" by the 4th amendment.
More like Freedom of Speech does not mean FROM from CONSEQUENCES imposed by the Private Sector and there actually is LIMITED Freedom FROM Speech. Twitter as a private company had the right to ban President Trump. A college campus that receives pubic taxpayer funding has the obligation to let a Neo Nazi speaker book its theater/auditorium. Back in the 60s the police did not have the right to arrest comedian Lenny Bruce for obscene jokes; they violated his Constitutional Right to Freedom of Speech. On the other hand any comedy club as a private business would have had the right to fire Lenny Bruce for obscene jokes management considered "going too far". Freedom FROM Speech is afforded by an "abrogation" known as the "Captive Audience Exception": A Fundamentalist street preacher has the Constitutional Rights to Freedoms of Speech and Religion; a preacher may legally stand on most street corners and preach that homosexuality will lead you to eternal hellfire. If, however, he's on a street corner with a bus-stop, the Transit Authority's passengers are a "captive audience"; they would miss their bus as a consequence of leaving the corner, not wishing to hear the preacher's message. The preacher MAY NOT take advantage of people being unwilling to risk missing the bus to get out of earshot of his sermon, but the preacher's Constitutional Rights to Religion/Speech are not unduly abridged because there are more corners without bus-stops than with bus-stops. Another example is where the speaker's safety cannot be guaranteed. It's VERY touch-and-go, and it's called "the Heckler's Veto". While you SHOULD face criminal charges with possible Federal Hate Crimes enhancements for physically battering that street preacher, the police can decide that because he's preaching in front of a GAY BAR on a weekend night, he's gonna get his ass kicked 6 ways from Sunday and they can tell him they're not gonna babysit him while doing something as stupid as telling a bar full of homosexuals that they're filthy abominations to Almighty God. Like the bus-stop, he can be made to take his Tent Revival Sideshow someplace less likely to get him killed by gay drunks.
If I received a nickel for every time someone argued that "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was a constitutional right I would be rich. What’s worse is when I point out that’s from The Declaration of Independence, I either get called a liar or told that it’s close enough. When I point out it’s says the pursuit of and not the guarantee of, then they often have a come apart…
There are no Constitutional rights. That would imply that your rights come from the Constitution. They're natural rights. And FTR, the 9th amendment states that there are other natural rights. Life, liberty and property are part of the 1st law of nature. "Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature." Samuel Adams 1772
Most people are stupid. I have to listen to potato heads tell me things are done differently here because Kentucky is a commonwealth and not a state. I tell them that Kentucky is a state and a "commonwealth" in name only. That laws are still based on the constitution (state & federal) and that each state has its own little rules or ways of doing things that differ.
James Madison was also an ardent defender of the Constitution not granting public favors or recognition to any church / religion. Though trained for the ministry under Anglicans and Presbyterians, he said that the only two churches that could be trusted with public favors rejected them on principle anyway (Mennonites/Amish and Quakers). “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”
I am not a lawyer and I bow to your legalistic supremacy. Caveat delivered. In my opinion: A 5-5 tie of the SC Justices wouldn't be a failure of the SC to hand down a judgment, but rather an affirmation of a lower court standing. An even number of SC Justices strengthens lower court decisions against a slim majority overruling.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (Ninth Amendment) The founders named some rights but by naming some didn’t eliminate others. Today the constitution, at least regard to amendments, is looked at as the only limitation on governmental power; the constitution however is quite clear that the only powers given to the government, federal government, are those enumerated in the articles. Some rights were so basic, like freedom, that the founders didn’t think they needed to be mentioned. Today both the ninth and tenth amendments don’t get much attention despite the point they provide that the limits are more target at the government and its size and power then the people.
Steve. Help me out here. I was always under the impression that the constitution does not grant rights , but instead a document stating what the government cant do to me. Your thoughts please
This is what is historically referred to as the right to privacy: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, "
Section 16 of Virginia’s Bill of Rights does not use the verbiage “separation of church and state” but has a similar result. Virginia’s Bill of Rights was a good starting point of discussion and had a considerable influence on the writing of the USA Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson also wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom that separated religion from Virginia’s early government. Differences between Virginia’s original and USA’s Bill of Rights documents do matter a lot so the words omitted in the USA Bill of Rights are substantial and should carry much weight even though the words aren’t present at all. Perhaps a part 2 of this topic could explore what isn’t in the USA Constitution but was in Virginia’s Bill of Rights and how the differences may matter in our everyday lives.
The Fourth Amendment does say: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." That does pertain to privacy.
@thunderbird002 Sorry friend "shall" does in fact mean "obligated to do" in this context. You must accept the 18th century definition of the word not our current diluted, it-could-mean-anything definition.
@thunderbird002 No that is not correct. British English in the late 18th Century is not considered Old English. A language that formed from Germanic tribal elements around the 5th century. Only about 15% of Old English words have survived past the 12th century when Old English merged with Franken dialects to form Middle English. Our modern English which dates back to the 1500s is pretty much what we speak today.
@thunderbird002 The 1500s is not the 15th century, it's the 16th century. I think most educated people understand or have read Shakespeare. Regardless of your literary knowledge, the Fourth Amendment pertains to individual protection of property and the right to keep property private from the government. At least I hope it still does.
Excellent, as always, Steve! I wonder if the English law about jury of peers related to the 'peerage'? Anyone with a title was commonly known as a peer of the realm. So a peer of the realm would not be judged by a jury of 'commoners' (for lack of a better term). Does that sound right? Cheers!
In fact, most of the founders advised strongly against political parties. They were absolutely right to oppose the formation of political parties. Instead of three branches of government that can never tie, we have two political parties that always tie. Instead of a standoff between state and federal governments, we have divided state governments too weak for effective federal opposition. But the USA has the same problem that the British parliament has: political parties are effective at getting their candidates elected and at gaining power. I might also point out the power that party leaders possess and that these leaders were NOT elected in general elections.
4 роки тому
Political parties are inevitable in a political system. It's just inherent in the process. Even dictatorships have factions within the power structure.
The Constitution is only one document of a continuum arising from English Common Law, Magna Carta, Royal Charters, ecclesiastical law, &c. Why the Federalist Papers are important-
@@cforn The Republican and Democrat parties are private organizations. They are not part of the government. The states spend money to hold primaries so these private organizations can decide who gets to run for elected offices.
The 9th Amendment makes it clear that our rights are not limited to those listed in the constitution. It reads "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Therefore, it is wrong to say that we do not hold a particular right because it is not specifically mentioned in the constitution, such as privacy and travel. In essence, private individuals enjoy the right to take any action unless it is prohibited by law. For government action, it is the opposite - the government may not take any action unless authorized by law.
Of course, the man in the video never said those rights don't exist. He said they weren't literally within the Constitution. And, of course, he was 100% right.
@@stevelehto - Yes, agreed. My comment was for the benefit of those viewers who might make an incorrect assumption after viewing the video but the video itself was excellent as are the others I have seen since discovering your channel. Good work!
question: Recently saw a comment by NY that a ruling on part of a gun law as unconstitutional yet it was explained away as voluntary regarding compliance with the ruling. So NY elected not to comply with the ruling. So why do have a District Federal Court as well as an Appellate Court if State doesn't have to comply with a ruling regarding constitutionality of a law?
Would depend on how SCOTUS worded the ruling... Sometimes Federal Marshals are sent in to enforce SCOTUS rulings... I think this has been mainly necessary in the South...
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. There are many states passing "Red Flag Laws" and other laws to deprive law abiding citizens of their 2nd amendment rights. There are also many other laws, asset forfeiture, illegal immigration, etc. that are in violation. How can an average person have the Section 242 of Title 18 brought against those who violate our rights?
Steve makes a classic error when noting that the "right to privacy/travel" is not in the Constitution. The Constitution does not give rights. The Bill of Rights does not give "rights to the people", it simply enumerates certain rights that some constitutional delegates insisted upon be noted to give some examples of the "God given rights" from the Declaration of independence. Read the 9th amendment, which states "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE. We the people hold all rights except for those, rightly or (often) wrongly denied or limited by government. I see this mistake far too often by some "learned" scholars. Read the Constitution people. The Government does not give us any rights. They only limit, deny or abuse them.
People need to know that the word coin IS a verb also. "To coin a phrase," means to make, or create, a new phrase. It's not putting your words on a plate of metal. The courts didn't need to go over this, Miriam/Webster would have solved the issue.
The rights listed in the Constitution put no obligation on anyone else EXCEPT the right to a jury. That is the only right which involves forced servitude on others; it is done to balance the power of the state against the individual. The Constitution says there is a right to counsel, which in and of itself does NOT mean "lawyer", so under the Constitution itself nobody can be forced to act as another person's attorney. Bar associations may disagree. The Constitution only grants rights to government. Note that Steve didn't say we didn't have many of the rights mentioned; he said they weren't listed in the Constitution itself. The Constitution itself says that it isn't a complete list of our rights, and any rights not mentioned belong to the states or to the people. As the Constitution does not grant rights to the people, it doesn't need to list our rights. The Bill of Rights exists to clarify that we do in fact have rights without being a comprehensive list, and emphasized rights that had been egregiously abused in recent memory.
Indeed. The Bill of Rights is not the government granting rights, but recognizing those rights exist and forbidding the government from interfering with them.
@@Charistoph I mistook it as a list of rights granted until I took the time to actually read it, and some of the record taken of the convention of the comments by the people who actually wrote it. It's amazing what folks think is in there that isn't and that is they don't see.
@@scotthedrick2460, welcome to the modern education. People will not fight for rights they don't think exist, and certain parties have been working for decades to make sure that fewer and fewer are aware of what the government can truly do. Interestingly enough, as an example, FICA became technically unconstitutional as soon as they dropped the received funds in to the general budget instead of keeping them in trust. It has become an income tax at that point, and the constitution forbids taxing for the same thing twice. And this is the same group they want us to trust with our health care and protection...
jason60chev It is from “The Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom”, wherein the Baptist’s were in fear of violence from the Congregationalists, wherein Jefferson referred to a “wall of separation between the church, and the State. Jefferson himself did not hold with the many (even then) ridiculous stories from the Bible, and is famous for crafting the “Jefferson Bible “, where he went through the text and manually cut all the silly “miracle” crap, and threats of burning for all eternity, and left a text filled with common sense of treating one another with love and kindness.
A quick question about the number on the Supreme Court, if the number of Justices is set by law enacted by congress, can't then a Congress change the makeup of the court just by changing the law (figuring the ability to override a veto) and wouldn't that skew the powers of the 'co-equal' branches of government
FYI: I had an ad in the middle of this video. Sometime in the future, in your past, you indicated you did not put ads in the middle of your videos, and some say you had.
I must be smarter than the average bear. Good topic. A lot of people get those wrong and quite a few more. Maybe because they no longer teach or require civics in high school? At least that is what I've heard. I took civics in the 9th and 12th grade. It was mandatory to graduate.
chrisretusn a lot of the ones arguing so much are trying to defend their stance on Sovereign Citizen thinking, I believe. While they don’t want to follow the laws or be a citizen of the US, they rely heavily on the Constitution to validate their actions. Yet they fail to see the irony in this and blow a gasket when and spout random court cases from the early 1900’s to bolster their case. I find them hilarious. Sorry if you are one too.
Some civics is informally introduced from Grade 1 on up... but I never had a course actually titled Civics... despite about 10 years of college... Prolly because I was always more math, science, physics, chemistry, medicine oriented...
The "Constitution" makes a good catchall for those who have not looked closely at it. "It's n the constitution" he said. pulls out a copy of the constitution and says "SHOW ME" conversation ended
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. So the right to travel is a right because it isn't in there, as is the right to eat, breathe, jump, not jump, and anything else I didn't list.
Miranda starts "you have the right to remain silent." Most say that is from the 5th amendment. I have not found it. Is that right like the right to privacy, implied but not explicit?
Since my first car in high school, and a so one-to-one exam on the Declaration, Constitution and Federal st Papers, I have had a copy of each in every subsequent vehicle! They have won me a fair amount of money in trivia contests and other disputes!!! It's surprising the number of people who got mad not only for losing, but also that I had the proof in my car!!?? The "sovereign citizens" are gonna be surprised about that right to travel bit! That's the basis for their existence!! Ooops!
Steve, even though the exact words are not used, wouldn't the Fourth Ammendment in assuring people their right to be secure in their person, place, papers etc, be considered a reference to privacy?
@@brianborell4469 I just listened to Steve again and he does not specify any particular venue. He talks about privacy in general. Webster defines privacy as "freedom from unauthorized intrusion". If the Constitution denotes we the people to be "safe" in our persons, places, papers etc from government intrusion, then that sounds like privacy to me.
With respect to the number of justices on the Court, you are forgetting the recent history of the Merrick Garland nomination. His nomination (after Scalia's death) was held up for 239 days by Majority Leader McConnell. We saw months of what happens with an 8 member Court - mostly unable to reverse or uphold lower court decisions.
Travel is covered by the 9th and 10th amendments. Since it's not mentioned, it's supposed to be left to the states and the people. A lot of things aren't mentioned in the constitution, and this doesn't imply that the federal government can do whatever it wants with any issue just because the constitution doesn't mention it.
@@corydorastube you need to grow up. If something stinks and is harmful, and you are covering someone in that stench, it isn't unreasonable for the person to basically say "stop doing this offensive thing to me". Is it?
@@corydorastube I was just spraying people with water the other day and (shocker) someone asked me to stop! I swore at them and said I'll keep doing it! I'm a reasonable person. Am I?
Isn't the right to privacy part of being "secure in your persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures"? That sounds like privacy to me.
Its our government's general policy to deny its citizens any right that is not explicitly and specifically provided by our Constitution, and even then, there must also be a statute, a court rule, stare decisis, and whatever other BS excuse they feel ike using to impose their personal opinion on the general public....unless you have lots of money, in which case theyre a bit more open minded.
@@brandonharvey7939 That's a bit hyperbolic. There's no law against sneezing. Or putting legos together not according to the included instructions. IOW, there are literally an infinite number of things you do that are not denied by law.
I read the phrase "B.C.E" in something I was reading a while back and a couple of people freaked out on me for being politically correct and then a string of epithets. 1) I was reading it and 2) it is now the accepted way of denoting the year. So I just throw it out there from time to time for entertainment purposes.
I believe the OED says Common not Christian. I'm a Christian, and I'm not bothered by either. I understand what is meant, and that's good enough for me: no need to be triggered or offended or victimized by something as trivial as words.
I believe some of the confusion is that 1) people mistake the Declaration of Independence with the Bill of Rights. 2) Lincoln ' s platform was that the constitution should be viewed through the Declaration of Independence. Lastly the Declaration of Independence is based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights . Also many state constitutions were drafted with the Virginia state constitution in mind. By the way much of the Declaration of Rights is in the Virginia constitution. It was the most influential colony and then state in those days. You can find more understanding of the thought process behind the articles of the constitution by reading both the Federalist and the Anti Federalist papers. They are available on line.
And General Lee decided his loyalty to the State of Virginia came first. I've fantasized: Lee keeps his oath to the United States. Confederacy defeated in months. With General Lee leading the Union troops, south is sullen but accepts the situation. For Lincoln's second term he chooses Lee as vice President. Lee is then elected President of the United States. Twice. [sigh]
One of the things that seems to be lacking is many who want to interpret the Constitution to their own or their Party's benefit is an understanding of why the constitution is worded the way it is. Much of the wording was explicit to avoid allowing or restricting the citizens in their own actions so long as they do not infringe upon others. "The Federalist Papers" are a collection of the writings, correspondence etc of the Founding Fathers that goes into more depth about what they wished to secure or prohibit. There are also tons of references to not wanting many political things that have happened though they were not addressed specifically because they did not want them but also did not want any more restrictions on the "people" than necessary.
Need to review the difference between republic and democracy . In short, a republic stands on a basic foundation of law and principle. A democracy erases and rewrites the foundation any time 51% wants a change. There by minority has no basic rights unless majority agrees they should have them.
Steve, I believe the original draft did not have "in the year of our Lord" in article 7 but I downloaded an image from www.archives.gov which clearly shows it on the final signed iteration. Any thoughts on the discrepancy?
Thomas Jefferson originally wrote "subjects" somewhere on the Declaration of Independence. Old habit; subjects of the KING. He went back and changed it. The Library of Congress discovered the change about, oh 15 years ago during routine care for the document. I think it was found by infrared light.
Speaking of travel, what's your thoughts on the Transportation Security Administration requiring citizens to have a passport to travel within the United States for certain citizens of certain states? This was to be implemented January 22, 2018.
"Clouds of Witnesses" by Dorothy Sayer. 👀 Old mystery novel. A British Duke is accused of murder. Sayers carefully researched and wrote out all the rigmorale that would be required, including, yes, a jury of Dukes and Earls, members of the House of Lords. Partly because her novel spelled out all the complexities, the British changed the law! They now receive citizen juries like everyone else. It's a great read.
The Federal Reserve tells the US Government how much and when to print dollar bills or "Federal Reserve Notes". All the those notes, are delivered to the Federal Reserve Banks per instructions of the Federal Reserve board. The Federal Reserve board has the job of keeping the economy in check by controlling how much money is available at any given time. That being said, the Federal Reserve does not control coinage. The Federal Government is allowed to mint as many coins it wants. This came about because most coins were originally worth their weight because they made of silver or gold. Nowadays, coins are minted with cheaper metals like copper/brass, zinc, nickel and some have a thin (clad) cosmetic covering of silver or in the case of 1 cent pieces, brass. This makes the coins look like their previous versions. With the Federal Government still able to mint as many coins as they want and in whatever denomination they want, at one point, when the national debt reached 1 trillion dollars, there was talk of minting a 1 trillion dollar coin to pay off that debt. Luckily, it was never really considered because it would have caused super high inflation.
Thanks for hitting upon Life, Liberty and Property. Which was a point of contention when drafting the Declaration of Independence - "Happiness" was substituted to have a more philosophical appeal, but then changed back to Property as the protected tangible. - *** keep in mind women were legally property back then, thus making the pursuit and possesion of a Wife an inalienable right. Along with her dowry and any inherited lands.
Never realised I was one of "the other people who speak English". Will be visiting NJ in the near future, think I must get a T-shirt made with that slogan.
My problem with the flag and I hope this doesn't trigger you Steve. The black white and blue flag. If law enforcement wants a flag fine but make one don't just recolor the The nations flag.
No, for a variety of reasons. 1) The "title" of Esquire is not granted by the US Gov't (which is what is constrained by the Constitution); and 2) "Esquire" is not a title of "nobility." But thanks for asking since I get asked that about once a week by some sovereign tinfoil hat wearing nutjob. I should be good for another week or so now.
Interesting that the "Jury of your peers" phrase from the Magna Carta is still used by people in the nation that constitutionally eliminated the concept of peerage.
The word God was not in the pledge of allegiance until the 1960s. Look it up. Also the word is not in the Constitution of the US. When in doubt do you own research.
@@josephbill937 But they were trying to avoid the mistakes of Britain's government which was involved in religion. That's why they kept religion and government separate in the United States giving us freedom of religion.
@@josephbill937 Heil Trump? Thomas Jefferson treat of Tripoli 1797 "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Jefferson to his closest friend(When the weren't at war with each other) John Adams in 1823 “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. … But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding…. “
I think the 'separation of church and state' thing is hinted at in Article VI: " . . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. " Just means you can't be required to have a particular (or any) religion in order to take part in government, not that you can't have religion and be in government.
@@rkba4923 Very true. And there are a whole lot of SCOTUS decisions that expand on the idea of 'establishing' a religion that have expanded that to also mean the government may not 'endorse' or 'prefer' a particular religion over any other. So while the constitution does not explicitly claim 'separation of church and state', it's been well established that the first amendment means government almost always has to avoid mixing in religious affairs.
"God Helps Those Who Help Themselves" (Not in the Bible and some would argue the Bible says the OPPOSITE. "I can do all things through Christ who strengheneth me.") Various levels and different punishments in Hell. (Actually in Dante's Inferno/Divine Comedy. Bible describes Lake of Fire and/or Outer Darkness. New Testament pulls hell out Classical Mythology. Old Testament Jews never heard of such a place.) Satan as a monstrous goat-legged, horned beast-man with pitchfork. (Bible says he's deceptively angelic. The popular picture is really Pan from Classical Pagan Mythology carrying Neptune's Trident.) 3 Wise Men/Magi and Star of Bethlehem. (Bible says they brought 3 GIFTS-gold, frankincense, myrrh-could have been 2 Magi, could have been 11. Angels told Shepherds where to find Jesus in Bethlehem. Star leads Magi to Jesus location when Jesus would have been around toddler-age. Magi and shepherds don't visit Jesus, Mary, and Joseph at the same place or time.) Noah's family and animals on Ark for 40 days/nights. (Rain lasted 40 days/nights. It took months for the Ark to reach dry land) Adam and Eve ate apple. (Unknown fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) Jonah was in a Whale. (Bible says great fish. Old Testament Jews may have seen a whale, but wouldn't have known it was a sea mammal not a fish. Kosher diet says not to eat lobster, crab, oysters or anything else without fins, but whales have fins and Jews of the time would only have known of fish and what seafood they were forbidden to eat. Same diet for Muslims today, minus wine.) Money is the root of all evil. (Jesus said LOVE OF money was evil and to pay taxes to the secular government and to give money to the poor.) Most Controversial. Christians HATE THIS: Humanity started with just two people made by one god-Adam and Eve. (Genesis-4,000 years of Jews and no Christians-originally said a god, Yahweh blew air into the dust and made Adam and made Eve out Adam's Rib. God is translated from Elohim first. Elohim is many gods making man in "OUR image". God is then translated from Yahweh, 1 god specifically creating Adam and Eve. They are Cain and Abel's parents. Cain kills Abel, then takes a wife. Cain's wife was from the people created by other Gods.)
The Bill of Rights almost didn't make it in the constitution because most of the people in the Philadelphia Convention thought it was common sense seeing as how they didn't give any such authority to the government.
“Separation of Church and State” This comes from Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. Ironically even here, what he describes is the constitution protecting religion from intrusions by government. People have flipped this concept on its head. They now have it bass-ackwards to believe it protects government from religion.
The First Amendment does two things. 1)Keeps the Gov't from establishing a religion and 2) keeps the gov't from restricting any religion. ("no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.) What you are describing is the second of the two clauses.
"We the people" need to be protected from religion. Look at how religion has harmed us. We're in a pandemic and churches are demanding they be given special rights which winds up spreading COVID around. Consider how religion has attacked the rights of LGBTQ+ and people outside their faith.
I belive Jefferson wrote about a wall between Church and State e in a letter to the Dunbury Baptists. Of course the could have expressed the same sentiment. I wouldn't have clue as to who they would be, or who was the first.
You need to run for US President. I want to see the commercials by your opponents using snippets from your videos to misrepresent (or perhaps in some cases, accurately represent) your positions. And I want to listen to you verbally eviscerate reporters and debate opponents. Most of all, I covet having someone with your level of no-nonsense tackle our common problems. Where's your exploratory committee?
You mentioned the first amendment... the wording of it leads me to believe that the only one(s) bound or restricted by it, is congress... does that mean that state and local governments have no such restrictions? or am I missing something?
I am quite familiar with the KJV but was unaware of this argument until you made it just now. Give me the citations for "3 branches of gov't" and our "judicial system" coming from it. By citations, I mean book, chapter & verse.
Your, "familiarity" with the KJV is void of knowledge. The 3 branches of Government come from : Isa_33:22 For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.the judicial system comes from the OT Judicial system before Israel came into the land when Moses was the Judge for Israel.
The right to travel (aka Movement) dates back to the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union in article 4. The drafters of the Constitution thought of this right as fundamental and did not believe it needed to be included. There is plenty of case law reiterating the right to travel. It is not specifically stated but Article IV Section 2 Clause 1 has been interpreted as granting such a right. In Hendrick v. Maryland (1915). The court stated( In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may prescribe uniform regulations necessary for safety and order in respect to operation of motor vehicles on its highways, including those moving in interstate commerce.) So much for the right to travel by automobile with no license or registration crowd.
funny he brought this up, I seen a show from englands, it is ficitional story anyway one episode had a group of people fighting for their right to roam, meaning you can fence off your property but must leave a walkway for roamers, kind of funny because the cuyahoga valley parks system (used to be call recreational system) has alot of trails that pass through some of peoples property (usually near the end but a few do go right through almost the middle) no doubt taken by emient domain maybe? anyway made me think of this right to roam, maybe there is something to this, some people were complaining people were walking on their yards and stuff letting their dogs roam on their yard, because some peoples yards actually rub up against the towpath trail, for me I would just put up a fence to keep them off the yard, other than that just step out the door and you will be on the towpath trail that leads to alot of beautiful lakes and streams and heron nests areas and bald eagles nests, sounds like paradise to me.
@@stevelehto Stating a fact and citing are completely different. The fact is it was included in the Articles of Confederation. I never once said that it still holds water. It is though a US historical document left behind for us to examine. The historical nature of it shows there was indeed a right of movement before the signing of the Constitution. A question i would have is. - Since the right of movement was in-fact previously secured by the people before the signing of the Constitution wouldn't it then fall under the Ninth Amendment?
There was a federal court that ruled that the declaration of independence was a legal document can't find that ruling anymore when Google searching but I remember that case
a legal document to who? the colonies? the people want ing to get separated from britain? since the us was not established at the time it was written it wasnt for the us. adding it to the us would have been a big event, which i dont remember ever happening. a judge may have said that, there are a lot of judges that want to take over the legislators right to write laws. judges dont get to write laws.
There's caselaw it's the foundation for our country and lists rights that have been used over and over again in court. "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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
@@scottmcshannon6821 think about it all thirteen states unanimously ratified it. It basically was the instrument formed the us government apart from Britain. I know it had a different version initially but that could also be said about the restructuring act of 1940
@@scottmcshannon6821 and the constitution can be rewritten if ratified the declaration of independence can't which lists all men are created equal and endowed with an unalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness that can not be undone. Maybe people's opinion of what that looks like.
Steve Lehto, you forgot one thing thats not mentioned in the constitution and its mentioned only in the declaration just like life liberty and the persuit of happiness. This would make it eleven things not mentioned in the constitution, here it is "All men are created equal" and I'm glad because that rubs me the wrong way but hey when something you dislike and not mentioned in the document coincide, nothing to cry about. Equal protection of the law is however mentioned at the end of the 14th amendment which was put there during or following the civil war (long after the first ten upon the revolutionary war) another one after the bill of rights (first ten) was the thirteenth amendment which got rid of slavery in the United States.
True, people are not equal in any reasonable measurement. "Equal before the law" is pure genius. Something that everyone can grasp and aspire to. Similar to a man's home is his castle- another pervasive myth
The "all men are created equal" (written by a man who owned slaves) referred to a rejection of the government-sanctioned social classes of nobles in European countries and England. There people had different legal standing based upon the social class into which they were born. Jefferson was stating that we are all born with the same legal standing.
As a kid I heard the "jury of your peers" and my teacher once said my classmates were my peers. I was terrified forever because my classmates were always mean to me.
Some of the best information on UA-cam is coming from you. Thank you for your efforts to give knowledge. The effects of the 9th amendment from a legal standpoint on what are rights that are not written would be informative.
Yeah, the 9th is the shortest, and most important amendment.
We can have all kinds of rights that aren't enumerated.
"No one can take your happiness" I would like to introduce you to my ex
Happiness, as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence means right to pursue a means of living, such as printer or blacksmith. An example of how word meanings change.
@@warrenpierce5542 Finally, someone that gets that. I taught this: The Pursuit of Happiness = Purpose. That 1 thing a serious person can hold onto through thick and thin.
@@warrenpierce5542 man it's a joke.
LOL 🤣
If your ex is so bad why did you marry her?
You didn't mention "the constitutional right to make a phone call." I have been told that many times, it always amazed me how forward thinking the writers were to include phones.
"it always amazed me how forward thinking the writers were to include phones." You do realize that the Constitution can be amended right? (not that it has been to give someone the right to a phone call) but we are not limited to just what was initially written.
You're an interesting and excellent educator!! Thank you for your videos!
@Steve, I can’t believe you’d think that any of us commenters could be wrong.
You missed one that needs to be in the top 10. The word democracy.
Thank Providence. Can you even imagine more than fifty percent of people being right more than fifty percent of the time?
@@franklyanogre00000 - It would work if the mentally ill couldn't vote...
@dimapez - Same thing happening today on most websites... tell the truth get banned...
right to free education, right to free health treatment/insurance, and of course you have to fight for your right to party.
I think it's easy for laypeople like myself to conflate the idea of a "right to privacy" with the actual right granted "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" by the 4th amendment.
Very educational as always. I had recently asked about "jury of your peers". Thanks for clearing that up.
I distinctly remember the requirement everyone get bubblegum and strawberries on their birthday.
Strawberry flavored bubble gum
The one thing I've seen recently is that a lot of people seem to think that the freedom of speech is also the freedom from speech when It is not.
More like Freedom of Speech does not mean FROM from CONSEQUENCES imposed by the Private Sector and there actually is LIMITED Freedom FROM Speech.
Twitter as a private company had the right to ban President Trump. A college campus that receives pubic taxpayer funding has the obligation to let a Neo Nazi speaker book its theater/auditorium.
Back in the 60s the police did not have the right to arrest comedian Lenny Bruce for obscene jokes; they violated his Constitutional Right to Freedom of Speech. On the other hand any comedy club as a private business would have had the right to fire Lenny Bruce for obscene jokes management considered "going too far".
Freedom FROM Speech is afforded by an "abrogation" known as the "Captive Audience Exception":
A Fundamentalist street preacher has the Constitutional Rights to Freedoms of Speech and Religion; a preacher may legally stand on most street corners and preach that homosexuality will lead you to eternal hellfire.
If, however, he's on a street corner with a bus-stop, the Transit Authority's passengers are a "captive audience"; they would miss their bus as a consequence of leaving the corner, not wishing to hear the preacher's message. The preacher MAY NOT take advantage of people being unwilling to risk missing the bus to get out of earshot of his sermon, but the preacher's Constitutional Rights to Religion/Speech are not unduly abridged because there are more corners without bus-stops than with bus-stops.
Another example is where the speaker's safety cannot be guaranteed. It's VERY touch-and-go, and it's called "the Heckler's Veto".
While you SHOULD face criminal charges with possible Federal Hate Crimes enhancements for physically battering that street preacher, the police can decide that because he's preaching in front of a GAY BAR on a weekend night, he's gonna get his ass kicked 6 ways from Sunday and they can tell him they're not gonna babysit him while doing something as stupid as telling a bar full of homosexuals that they're filthy abominations to Almighty God.
Like the bus-stop, he can be made to take his Tent Revival Sideshow someplace less likely to get him killed by gay drunks.
If I received a nickel for every time someone argued that "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was a constitutional right I would be rich. What’s worse is when I point out that’s from The Declaration of Independence, I either get called a liar or told that it’s close enough. When I point out it’s says the pursuit of and not the guarantee of, then they often have a come apart…
There are no Constitutional rights. That would imply that your rights come from the Constitution. They're natural rights. And FTR, the 9th amendment states that there are other natural rights.
Life, liberty and property are part of the 1st law of nature.
"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature."
Samuel Adams 1772
Most people are stupid. I have to listen to potato heads tell me things are done differently here because Kentucky is a commonwealth and not a state. I tell them that Kentucky is a state and a "commonwealth" in name only. That laws are still based on the constitution (state & federal) and that each state has its own little rules or ways of doing things that differ.
James Madison was also an ardent defender of the Constitution not granting public favors or recognition to any church / religion. Though trained for the ministry under Anglicans and Presbyterians, he said that the only two churches that could be trusted with public favors rejected them on principle anyway (Mennonites/Amish and Quakers). “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”
I am not a lawyer and I bow to your legalistic supremacy. Caveat delivered. In my opinion: A 5-5 tie of the SC Justices wouldn't be a failure of the SC to hand down a judgment, but rather an affirmation of a lower court standing. An even number of SC Justices strengthens lower court decisions against a slim majority overruling.
Law isn't anything real. It's politics driven. Depends who or which party can stack the courts...
I'm going to lecture an attorney about the law and its specifics. This should go well, I'm sure.
You should see the comments I've had to delete today.
@@stevelehto I can only imagine!
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (Ninth Amendment) The founders named some rights but by naming some didn’t eliminate others. Today the constitution, at least regard to amendments, is looked at as the only limitation on governmental power; the constitution however is quite clear that the only powers given to the government, federal government, are those enumerated in the articles. Some rights were so basic, like freedom, that the founders didn’t think they needed to be mentioned. Today both the ninth and tenth amendments don’t get much attention despite the point they provide that the limits are more target at the government and its size and power then the people.
Steve. Help me out here. I was always under the impression that the constitution does not grant rights , but instead a document stating what the government cant do to me. Your thoughts please
Anyone who says that nobody can take your happiness has never been to the Department of Motor Vehicles.
:) 😄😄😄
Ain't that the truth!
#1 thing not in the constitution, but should be. Steve Lehto is the best Yout Tube Attorney.
This is what is historically referred to as the right to privacy:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, "
...against the Govt, not other individuals specifically.
Section 16 of Virginia’s Bill of Rights does not use the verbiage “separation of church and state” but has a similar result. Virginia’s Bill of Rights was a good starting point of discussion and had a considerable influence on the writing of the USA Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
Thomas Jefferson also wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom that separated religion from Virginia’s early government.
Differences between Virginia’s original and USA’s Bill of Rights documents do matter a lot so the words omitted in the USA Bill of Rights are substantial and should carry much weight even though the words aren’t present at all.
Perhaps a part 2 of this topic could explore what isn’t in the USA Constitution but was in Virginia’s Bill of Rights and how the differences may matter in our everyday lives.
Steve....can you possibly do a video on Rights we have that are NOT found in the Constitution?
That was informative. Thanks! Love your videos!
Thank you Steve. When i try to explain this to my peers. It falls on death ears
What are death ears?
The Fourth Amendment does say: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." That does pertain to privacy.
Which, thanks to civil forfeiture, has been circumvented.
@thunderbird002 Sorry friend "shall" does in fact mean "obligated to do" in this context. You must accept the 18th century definition of the word not our current diluted, it-could-mean-anything definition.
@thunderbird002 18th century English is not Old English or even Middle English.
@thunderbird002 No that is not correct. British English in the late 18th Century is not considered Old English. A language that formed from Germanic tribal elements around the 5th century. Only about 15% of Old English words have survived past the 12th century when Old English merged with Franken dialects to form Middle English. Our modern English which dates back to the 1500s is pretty much what we speak today.
@thunderbird002 The 1500s is not the 15th century, it's the 16th century. I think most educated people understand or have read Shakespeare.
Regardless of your literary knowledge, the Fourth Amendment pertains to individual protection of property and the right to keep property private from the government. At least I hope it still does.
I like the way this was explained. BTW I like that Hillsdale college web site up there somewhere in Michigan. They have classes on constitution.
Excellent, as always, Steve! I wonder if the English law about jury of peers related to the 'peerage'? Anyone with a title was commonly known as a peer of the realm. So a peer of the realm would not be judged by a jury of 'commoners' (for lack of a better term). Does that sound right? Cheers!
In fact, most of the founders advised strongly against political parties. They were absolutely right to oppose the formation of political parties. Instead of three branches of government that can never tie, we have two political parties that always tie. Instead of a standoff between state and federal governments, we have divided state governments too weak for effective federal opposition. But the USA has the same problem that the British parliament has: political parties are effective at getting their candidates elected and at gaining power. I might also point out the power that party leaders possess and that these leaders were NOT elected in general elections.
Political parties are inevitable in a political system. It's just inherent in the process. Even dictatorships have factions within the power structure.
wouldn't the 10th amendment cover many of the things you mention around 7:00?
Or the 9th.
The Constitution is only one document of a continuum arising from English Common Law, Magna Carta, Royal Charters, ecclesiastical law, &c. Why the Federalist Papers are important-
Nice little con law summary. Thanks.
I have a problem with state resources being used, apparently at no costs, to private organizations to choose who is allowed to run for elected office.
Can you explain more fully what you are referring to?
@@cforn The Republican and Democrat parties are private organizations. They are not part of the government. The states spend money to hold primaries so these private organizations can decide who gets to run for elected offices.
Steve, thank you for doing your part to make the word "ubiquitous" ubiquitous.
The 9th Amendment makes it clear that our rights are not limited to those listed in the constitution. It reads "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Therefore, it is wrong to say that we do not hold a particular right because it is not specifically mentioned in the constitution, such as privacy and travel. In essence, private individuals enjoy the right to take any action unless it is prohibited by law. For government action, it is the opposite - the government may not take any action unless authorized by law.
True in theory not in practice.
Of course, the man in the video never said those rights don't exist. He said they weren't literally within the Constitution. And, of course, he was 100% right.
@@stevelehto - Yes, agreed. My comment was for the benefit of those viewers who might make an incorrect assumption after viewing the video but the video itself was excellent as are the others I have seen since discovering your channel. Good work!
Depends on how judges define it. Associate Justice Anthony Scalia stated that the 9th did not apply to women.
Another great video...very informative.
lol "I just said that to trigger you"
Is that a Hudson over your left shoulder (right side looking through the video)?
11. Stand up for your right to party. ;-)
The right to party isn't guaranteed. You gotta fight for it - Beastie Boys.
question: Recently saw a comment by NY that a ruling on part of a gun law as unconstitutional yet it was explained away as voluntary regarding compliance with the ruling. So NY elected not to comply with the ruling. So why do have a District Federal Court as well as an Appellate Court if State doesn't have to comply with a ruling regarding constitutionality of a law?
Would depend on how SCOTUS worded the ruling...
Sometimes Federal Marshals are sent in to enforce SCOTUS rulings... I think this has been mainly necessary in the South...
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
There are many states passing "Red Flag Laws" and other laws to deprive law abiding citizens of their 2nd amendment rights.
There are also many other laws, asset forfeiture, illegal immigration, etc. that are in violation.
How can an average person have the Section 242 of Title 18 brought against those who violate our rights?
Some of the things touched on here are in the Federalist Papers are they not?
We do use those to interpret the Constitution.
Steve makes a classic error when noting that the "right to privacy/travel" is not in the Constitution. The Constitution does not give rights. The Bill of Rights does not give "rights to the people", it simply enumerates certain rights that some constitutional delegates insisted upon be noted to give some examples of the "God given rights" from the Declaration of independence. Read the 9th amendment, which states "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE. We the people hold all rights except for those, rightly or (often) wrongly denied or limited by government. I see this mistake far too often by some "learned" scholars. Read the Constitution people. The Government does not give us any rights. They only limit, deny or abuse them.
Thanks for making that clear, i appreciate your knowledge of our Constitution.
People need to know that the word coin IS a verb also. "To coin a phrase," means to make, or create, a new phrase. It's not putting your words on a plate of metal. The courts didn't need to go over this, Miriam/Webster would have solved the issue.
Excellent education for this age of "University of Google". Well done
The rights listed in the Constitution put no obligation on anyone else EXCEPT the right to a jury. That is the only right which involves forced servitude on others; it is done to balance the power of the state against the individual. The Constitution says there is a right to counsel, which in and of itself does NOT mean "lawyer", so under the Constitution itself nobody can be forced to act as another person's attorney. Bar associations may disagree. The Constitution only grants rights to government. Note that Steve didn't say we didn't have many of the rights mentioned; he said they weren't listed in the Constitution itself. The Constitution itself says that it isn't a complete list of our rights, and any rights not mentioned belong to the states or to the people. As the Constitution does not grant rights to the people, it doesn't need to list our rights. The Bill of Rights exists to clarify that we do in fact have rights without being a comprehensive list, and emphasized rights that had been egregiously abused in recent memory.
Indeed. The Bill of Rights is not the government granting rights, but recognizing those rights exist and forbidding the government from interfering with them.
@@Charistoph I mistook it as a list of rights granted until I took the time to actually read it, and some of the record taken of the convention of the comments by the people who actually wrote it. It's amazing what folks think is in there that isn't and that is they don't see.
@@scotthedrick2460, welcome to the modern education. People will not fight for rights they don't think exist, and certain parties have been working for decades to make sure that fewer and fewer are aware of what the government can truly do.
Interestingly enough, as an example, FICA became technically unconstitutional as soon as they dropped the received funds in to the general budget instead of keeping them in trust. It has become an income tax at that point, and the constitution forbids taxing for the same thing twice. And this is the same group they want us to trust with our health care and protection...
The Church and State idea was from a letter that Jefferson had written to a friend/colleague some years after the adoption of the Const.
jason60chev It is from “The Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom”, wherein the Baptist’s were in fear of violence from the Congregationalists, wherein Jefferson referred to a “wall of separation between the church, and the State. Jefferson himself did not hold with the many (even then) ridiculous stories from the Bible, and is famous for crafting the “Jefferson Bible “, where he went through the text and manually cut all the silly “miracle” crap, and threats of burning for all eternity, and left a text filled with common sense of treating one another with love and kindness.
Steve, everyone knows that the foremost experts on the Constitution exist in the UA-cam comment sections.
How long before someone claims that "Year of our Lord" reference makes us a "Christian" nation?
A quick question about the number on the Supreme Court, if the number of Justices is set by law enacted by congress, can't then a Congress change the makeup of the court just by changing the law (figuring the ability to override a veto) and wouldn't that skew the powers of the 'co-equal' branches of government
Everything in Govt is a compromise...
Reading the comments... wow, entertaining... at lot seem to be experts at reading between the lines.
Kinda like the lower courts...
Or not reading.
If I see somethiing along this line that I want to reply to, I first ask, 'Have you actually read the Constitution?"
Most haven't.
FYI: I had an ad in the middle of this video. Sometime in the future, in your past, you indicated you did not put ads in the middle of your videos, and some say you had.
I must be smarter than the average bear. Good topic. A lot of people get those wrong and quite a few more. Maybe because they no longer teach or require civics in high school? At least that is what I've heard. I took civics in the 9th and 12th grade. It was mandatory to graduate.
chrisretusn a lot of the ones arguing so much are trying to defend their stance on Sovereign Citizen thinking, I believe. While they don’t want to follow the laws or be a citizen of the US, they rely heavily on the Constitution to validate their actions. Yet they fail to see the irony in this and blow a gasket when and spout random court cases from the early 1900’s to bolster their case. I find them hilarious. Sorry if you are one too.
Some civics is informally introduced from Grade 1 on up... but I never had a course actually titled Civics... despite about 10 years of college... Prolly because I was always more math, science, physics, chemistry, medicine oriented...
The "Constitution" makes a good catchall for those who have not looked closely at it. "It's n the constitution" he said. pulls out a copy of the constitution and says "SHOW ME" conversation ended
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. So the right to travel is a right because it isn't in there, as is the right to eat, breathe, jump, not jump, and anything else I didn't list.
Miranda starts "you have the right to remain silent." Most say that is from the 5th amendment. I have not found it. Is that right like the right to privacy, implied but not explicit?
Comes from the 5th Amendment: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." At least, that is where they get it from.
Since my first car in high school, and a so one-to-one exam on the Declaration, Constitution and Federal st Papers, I have had a copy of each in every subsequent vehicle! They have won me a fair amount of money in trivia contests and other disputes!!! It's surprising the number of people who got mad not only for losing, but also that I had the proof in my car!!??
The "sovereign citizens" are gonna be surprised about that right to travel bit! That's the basis for their existence!! Ooops!
Steve, even though the exact words are not used, wouldn't the Fourth Ammendment in assuring people their right to be secure in their person, place, papers etc, be considered a reference to privacy?
@@brianborell4469 I just listened to Steve again and he does not specify any particular venue. He talks about privacy in general. Webster defines privacy as "freedom from unauthorized intrusion". If the Constitution denotes we the people to be "safe" in our persons, places, papers etc from government intrusion, then that sounds like privacy to me.
With respect to the number of justices on the Court, you are forgetting the recent history of the Merrick Garland nomination. His nomination (after Scalia's death) was held up for 239 days by Majority Leader McConnell. We saw months of what happens with an 8 member Court - mostly unable to reverse or uphold lower court decisions.
Travel is covered by the 9th and 10th amendments. Since it's not mentioned, it's supposed to be left to the states and the people. A lot of things aren't mentioned in the constitution, and this doesn't imply that the federal government can do whatever it wants with any issue just because the constitution doesn't mention it.
So is crystal meth then - since we can say that anything not mentioned in the rest of the document is covered in the catch alls.
@@stevelehto There are those who do say it should be legal.
I once had a lady insist that the constitution gives her the right to smoke when I asked her not to at public bus stop.
Joe Dufresne unless smoking at a bus stop is illegal then she has every right to do so. You also have the right to ask her not to.
I would tell you to go and fuck yourself.
Steve, it is here. RCW 9.91.025 §(1) (a) & §(2) (a), RCW 70.160.075.
@@corydorastube you need to grow up.
If something stinks and is harmful, and you are covering someone in that stench, it isn't unreasonable for the person to basically say "stop doing this offensive thing to me". Is it?
@@corydorastube I was just spraying people with water the other day and (shocker) someone asked me to stop! I swore at them and said I'll keep doing it!
I'm a reasonable person. Am I?
Isn't the right to privacy part of being "secure in your persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures"? That sounds like privacy to me.
Its our government's general policy to deny its citizens any right that is not explicitly and specifically provided by our Constitution, and even then, there must also be a statute, a court rule, stare decisis, and whatever other BS excuse they feel ike using to impose their personal opinion on the general public....unless you have lots of money, in which case theyre a bit more open minded.
@@brandonharvey7939 That's a bit hyperbolic. There's no law against sneezing. Or putting legos together not according to the included instructions. IOW, there are literally an infinite number of things you do that are not denied by law.
"I just said that to trigger you."
😂😂😂😂
I read the phrase "B.C.E" in something I was reading a while back and a couple of people freaked out on me for being politically correct and then a string of epithets. 1) I was reading it and 2) it is now the accepted way of denoting the year. So I just throw it out there from time to time for entertainment purposes.
befoer our common era? that is how I understand that abbreviation.
@@rosesmith6208 - before Chrisitian era (BCE) used in place for BC.
I believe the OED says Common not Christian. I'm a Christian, and I'm not bothered by either. I understand what is meant, and that's good enough for me: no need to be triggered or offended or victimized by something as trivial as words.
@@mrDingleberry44 - thanks for the update. Weird. That's what they taught us, but I do see resources saying "common". It is what is is.
I believe some of the confusion is that 1) people mistake the Declaration of Independence with the Bill of Rights. 2) Lincoln ' s platform was that the constitution should be viewed through the Declaration of Independence. Lastly the Declaration of Independence is based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights . Also many state constitutions were drafted with the Virginia state constitution in mind. By the way much of the Declaration of Rights is in the Virginia constitution. It was the most influential colony and then state in those days. You can find more understanding of the thought process behind the articles of the constitution by reading both the Federalist and the Anti Federalist papers. They are available on line.
And General Lee decided his loyalty to the State of Virginia came first.
I've fantasized: Lee keeps his oath to the United States.
Confederacy defeated in months.
With General Lee leading the Union troops, south is sullen but accepts the situation.
For Lincoln's second term he chooses Lee as vice President.
Lee is then elected President of the United States. Twice.
[sigh]
Also Article 6, clause 3 also restricts the authority of religion.
One of the things that seems to be lacking is many who want to interpret the Constitution to their own or their Party's benefit is an understanding of why the constitution is worded the way it is. Much of the wording was explicit to avoid allowing or restricting the citizens in their own actions so long as they do not infringe upon others. "The Federalist Papers" are a collection of the writings, correspondence etc of the Founding Fathers that goes into more depth about what they wished to secure or prohibit. There are also tons of references to not wanting many political things that have happened though they were not addressed specifically because they did not want them but also did not want any more restrictions on the "people" than necessary.
You didn't even mention the most obvious one.... "democracy".
@@dand33911 This guy gets it.
unfortunantly republic in word but law of the jungle in practice.
Need to review the difference between republic and democracy . In short, a republic stands on a basic foundation of law and principle. A democracy erases and rewrites the foundation any time 51% wants a change. There by minority has no basic rights unless majority agrees they should have them.
Steve, I believe the original draft did not have "in the year of our Lord" in article 7 but I downloaded an image from www.archives.gov which clearly shows it on the final signed iteration. Any thoughts on the discrepancy?
I thought it was there.
@@stevelehto my mistake, had to review again to realize you were supporting that.
Thomas Jefferson originally wrote "subjects" somewhere on the Declaration of Independence. Old habit; subjects of the KING. He went back and changed it.
The Library of Congress discovered the change about, oh 15 years ago during routine care for the document. I think it was found by infrared light.
Also not in the constitution a right to one phone call when arrested
Speaking of travel, what's your thoughts on the Transportation Security Administration requiring citizens to have a passport to travel within the United States for certain citizens of certain states? This was to be implemented January 22, 2018.
Could you provide more information or a reference for this?
www.skyscanner.com/tips-and-inspiration/editorial/passports-required-for-domestic-flights
www.skyscanner.com/tips-and-inspiration/editorial/passports-required-for-domestic-flights
Requiring a passport for flight in lieu of state driver's license or state IDs for certain states
@@lisanewton8237 Thanks, That's what I thought it was - that some states have not yet implemented the "real" ID program.
All the jurors in a jury of one's peers should have a peerage.
Sorry, all we are entitled to is a jury of impartial jurists to decide our fate.
"Clouds of Witnesses" by Dorothy Sayer. 👀
Old mystery novel. A British Duke is accused of murder. Sayers carefully researched and wrote out all the rigmorale that would be required, including, yes, a jury of Dukes and Earls, members of the House of Lords.
Partly because her novel spelled out all the complexities, the British changed the law! They now receive citizen juries like everyone else.
It's a great read.
Great episode Steve.
The Federal Reserve is a private company, not a part of the government. The u.s. doesn't print paper money.
The employees of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing might disagree with you on that one.
@@willy480able that is a privately owned business too.
The Federal Reserve tells the US Government how much and when to print dollar bills or "Federal Reserve Notes". All the those notes, are delivered to the Federal Reserve Banks per instructions of the Federal Reserve board.
The Federal Reserve board has the job of keeping the economy in check by controlling how much money is available at any given time.
That being said, the Federal Reserve does not control coinage. The Federal Government is allowed to mint as many coins it wants. This came about because most coins were originally worth their weight because they made of silver or gold.
Nowadays, coins are minted with cheaper metals like copper/brass, zinc, nickel and some have a thin (clad) cosmetic covering of silver or in the case of 1 cent pieces, brass. This makes the coins look like their previous versions.
With the Federal Government still able to mint as many coins as they want and in whatever denomination they want, at one point, when the national debt reached 1 trillion dollars, there was talk of minting a 1 trillion dollar coin to pay off that debt.
Luckily, it was never really considered because it would have caused super high inflation.
@@jbtcajun5260 Nice try, but wrong. The bureau of engraving and printing is part of the US Government.
@@davidmikolajczyk4766 hmm I was under the impression they were federal like the post office. Have to reinvestigate.
Thanks for hitting upon Life, Liberty and Property. Which was a point of contention when drafting the Declaration of Independence - "Happiness" was substituted to have a more philosophical appeal, but then changed back to Property as the protected tangible. - *** keep in mind women were legally property back then, thus making the pursuit and possesion of a Wife an inalienable right. Along with her dowry and any inherited lands.
Hahah Steve trying to trigger the masses LOL
Great points Steve. You might want to do a video talking about the differences between the bill of rights and the constitution.
The “bill of rights” is just the first ten amendments to the constitution. So the constitution includes the bill of rights, plus other stuff. 😁
Steve I think the right of privacy is from the 4 amendments saying that or property and papers are secure with out a warrent
Never realised I was one of "the other people who speak English". Will be visiting NJ in the near future, think I must get a T-shirt made with that slogan.
They speak JOISEY in New Jersey...
My problem with the flag and I hope this doesn't trigger you Steve. The black white and blue flag. If law enforcement wants a flag fine but make one don't just recolor the The nations flag.
No law against it.
Still shouldn’t deface it
It’s a multicolored piece of cloth that means....whatever.
That is the flag of the impending police state.
If this is a joke it's funny. If it's not it's a scary thought.
I think your intention is somewhere in the middle.
Does Article 1 Section 9 prohibition against titles of nobility apply to the title "Esquire"?
No, for a variety of reasons. 1) The "title" of Esquire is not granted by the US Gov't (which is what is constrained by the Constitution); and 2) "Esquire" is not a title of "nobility." But thanks for asking since I get asked that about once a week by some sovereign tinfoil hat wearing nutjob. I should be good for another week or so now.
@@stevelehto Of course you would deny it. Lawyers?!?! jk Do you own the prototypes of thos model cars?
Just cut a weeks worth of history class down under 15 minutes. Class dismissed.
Interesting that the "Jury of your peers" phrase from the Magna Carta is still used by people in the nation that constitutionally eliminated the concept of peerage.
The word God was not in the pledge of allegiance until the 1960s. Look it up. Also the word is not in the Constitution of the US. When in doubt do you own research.
And In God We Trust was not on coinage until the 1860s.
Front Matter of US Codes contains the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Northwest Ordinances and COTUS.
Why WOULD God be mentioned in any U.S. law. We are a nation- not a religion.
We have the Freedom of Religion :D
@@josephbill937 But they were trying to avoid the mistakes of Britain's government which was involved in religion. That's why they kept religion and government separate in the United States giving us freedom of religion.
@@josephbill937 Heil Trump? Thomas Jefferson treat of Tripoli 1797 "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Jefferson to his closest friend(When the weren't at war with each other) John Adams in 1823 “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. … But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding…. “
@@josephbill937 You were never smart enough for this conversation.
@@josephbill937 What does their being Christian have to do with the Constitution?
I think the 'separation of church and state' thing is hinted at in Article VI: " . . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. " Just means you can't be required to have a particular (or any) religion in order to take part in government, not that you can't have religion and be in government.
@@rkba4923 Very true. And there are a whole lot of SCOTUS decisions that expand on the idea of 'establishing' a religion that have expanded that to also mean the government may not 'endorse' or 'prefer' a particular religion over any other. So while the constitution does not explicitly claim 'separation of church and state', it's been well established that the first amendment means government almost always has to avoid mixing in religious affairs.
@@rkba4923 Wrong. It also says, as Gibson pointed out, there is no religious test for office.
Not much different from the bible. The folks who thump it the most know it the least.
Amen.
"God Helps Those Who Help Themselves"
(Not in the Bible and some would argue the Bible says the OPPOSITE. "I can do all things through Christ who strengheneth me.")
Various levels and different punishments in Hell.
(Actually in Dante's Inferno/Divine Comedy. Bible describes Lake of Fire and/or Outer Darkness. New Testament pulls hell out Classical Mythology. Old Testament Jews never heard of such a place.)
Satan as a monstrous goat-legged, horned beast-man with pitchfork.
(Bible says he's deceptively angelic. The popular picture is really Pan from Classical Pagan Mythology carrying Neptune's Trident.)
3 Wise Men/Magi and Star of Bethlehem.
(Bible says they brought 3 GIFTS-gold, frankincense, myrrh-could have been 2 Magi, could have been 11. Angels told Shepherds where to find Jesus in Bethlehem. Star leads Magi to Jesus location when Jesus would have been around toddler-age. Magi and shepherds don't visit Jesus, Mary, and Joseph at the same place or time.)
Noah's family and animals on Ark for 40 days/nights.
(Rain lasted 40 days/nights. It took months for the Ark to reach dry land)
Adam and Eve ate apple.
(Unknown fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil)
Jonah was in a Whale.
(Bible says great fish. Old Testament Jews may have seen a whale, but wouldn't have known it was a sea mammal not a fish. Kosher diet says not to eat lobster, crab, oysters or anything else without fins, but whales have fins and Jews of the time would only have known of fish and what seafood they were forbidden to eat. Same diet for Muslims today, minus wine.)
Money is the root of all evil.
(Jesus said LOVE OF money was evil and to pay taxes to the secular government and to give money to the poor.)
Most Controversial. Christians HATE THIS:
Humanity started with just two people made by one god-Adam and Eve.
(Genesis-4,000 years of Jews and no Christians-originally said a god, Yahweh blew air into the dust and made Adam and made Eve out Adam's Rib. God is translated from Elohim first. Elohim is many gods making man in "OUR image". God is then translated from Yahweh, 1 god specifically creating Adam and Eve. They are Cain and Abel's parents. Cain kills Abel, then takes a wife. Cain's wife was from the people created by other Gods.)
The Bill of Rights almost didn't make it in the constitution because most of the people in the Philadelphia Convention thought it was common sense seeing as how they didn't give any such authority to the government.
“Separation of Church and State”
This comes from Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. Ironically even here, what he describes is the constitution protecting religion from intrusions by government. People have flipped this concept on its head. They now have it bass-ackwards to believe it protects government from religion.
The First Amendment does two things. 1)Keeps the Gov't from establishing a religion and 2) keeps the gov't from restricting any religion. ("no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.) What you are describing is the second of the two clauses.
Steve Lehto
Thanks for your reply Steve. I enjoy watching your videos.
There is also the Religious Test clause in Article VI, clause 3 which protects office holders from having to take a religious test.
Sadly, it does not include a provision prohibiting exclusion from taxation.
"We the people" need to be protected from religion. Look at how religion has harmed us. We're in a pandemic and churches are demanding they be given special rights which winds up spreading COVID around. Consider how religion has attacked the rights of LGBTQ+ and people outside their faith.
I belive Jefferson wrote about a wall between Church and State
e in a letter to the Dunbury Baptists. Of course the could have expressed the same sentiment. I wouldn't have clue as to who they would be, or who was the first.
You need to run for US President. I want to see the commercials by your opponents using snippets from your videos to misrepresent (or perhaps in some cases, accurately represent) your positions. And I want to listen to you verbally eviscerate reporters and debate opponents. Most of all, I covet having someone with your level of no-nonsense tackle our common problems. Where's your exploratory committee?
You mentioned the first amendment... the wording of it leads me to believe that the only one(s) bound or restricted by it, is congress... does that mean that state and local governments have no such restrictions? or am I missing something?
Also, the 14th Amendment extended many (though not all) 'Constitutional' protections to states as well.
See: Supremacy Clause. Article VI Clause 2
The 3 branches of Government, judicial system, and inscription on the Liberty Bell all come from the 1611KJV Bible, which is the Word of Almighty God.
I am quite familiar with the KJV but was unaware of this argument until you made it just now. Give me the citations for "3 branches of gov't" and our "judicial system" coming from it. By citations, I mean book, chapter & verse.
Your, "familiarity" with the KJV is void of knowledge. The 3 branches of Government come from : Isa_33:22 For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.the judicial system comes from the OT Judicial system before Israel came into the land when Moses was the Judge for Israel.
@@hiramabiff4035 Nice idea but judges predate the books of the bible.
@@hiramabiff4035 But we don't have a King we have an executive. There is a difference. The founders were adamant about this.
@Cryptonymicus No they do not, that is one of the most ignorant thing I have yet to hear about the Bible.
The right to travel (aka Movement) dates back to the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union in article 4. The drafters of the Constitution thought of this right as fundamental and did not believe it needed to be included. There is plenty of case law reiterating the right to travel. It is not specifically stated but Article IV Section 2 Clause 1 has been interpreted as granting such a right. In Hendrick v. Maryland (1915). The court stated( In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may prescribe uniform regulations necessary for safety and order in respect to operation of motor vehicles on its highways, including those moving in interstate commerce.) So much for the right to travel by automobile with no license or registration crowd.
The Articles of Confederation were specifically over ridden by the Constitution. Citing them is pointless in almost any setting.
funny he brought this up, I seen a show from englands, it is ficitional story anyway one episode had a group of people fighting for their right to roam, meaning you can fence off your property but must leave a walkway for roamers, kind of funny because the cuyahoga valley parks system (used to be call recreational system) has alot of trails that pass through some of peoples property (usually near the end but a few do go right through almost the middle) no doubt taken by emient domain maybe? anyway made me think of this right to roam, maybe there is something to this, some people were complaining people were walking on their yards and stuff letting their dogs roam on their yard, because some peoples yards actually rub up against the towpath trail, for me I would just put up a fence to keep them off the yard, other than that just step out the door and you will be on the towpath trail that leads to alot of beautiful lakes and streams and heron nests areas and bald eagles nests, sounds like paradise to me.
@@stevelehto Stating a fact and citing are completely different. The fact is it was included in the Articles of Confederation. I never once said that it still holds water. It is though a US historical document left behind for us to examine. The historical nature of it shows there was indeed a right of movement before the signing of the Constitution. A question i would have is. - Since the right of movement was in-fact previously secured by the people before the signing of the Constitution wouldn't it then fall under the Ninth Amendment?
Political parties are not in the constitution.
They're not forbidden. They are implied by the freedom of association.
@@timberwoof they are also not mandated to exist.
There was a federal court that ruled that the declaration of independence was a legal document can't find that ruling anymore when Google searching but I remember that case
a legal document to who? the colonies? the people want ing to get separated from britain? since the us was not established at the time it was written it wasnt for the us. adding it to the us would have been a big event, which i dont remember ever happening. a judge may have said that, there are a lot of judges that want to take over the legislators right to write laws. judges dont get to write laws.
There's caselaw it's the foundation for our country and lists rights that have been used over and over again in court. "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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
@@scottmcshannon6821 it's the foundation of our country the foundation for the bill of rights
@@scottmcshannon6821 think about it all thirteen states unanimously ratified it. It basically was the instrument formed the us government apart from Britain. I know it had a different version initially but that could also be said about the restructuring act of 1940
@@scottmcshannon6821 and the constitution can be rewritten if ratified the declaration of independence can't which lists all men are created equal and endowed with an unalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness that can not be undone. Maybe people's opinion of what that looks like.
Next you’re gonna tell me that Ben Franklin was never president of the United States! :-)
..and that we never rode electric kites to get around the place.
Steve Lehto, you forgot one thing thats not mentioned in the constitution and its mentioned only in the declaration just like life liberty and the persuit of happiness. This would make it eleven things not mentioned in the constitution, here it is "All men are created equal" and I'm glad because that rubs me the wrong way but hey when something you dislike and not mentioned in the document coincide, nothing to cry about. Equal protection of the law is however mentioned at the end of the 14th amendment which was put there during or following the civil war (long after the first ten upon the revolutionary war) another one after the bill of rights (first ten) was the thirteenth amendment which got rid of slavery in the United States.
True, people are not equal in any reasonable measurement. "Equal before the law" is pure genius. Something that everyone can grasp and aspire to. Similar to a man's home is his castle- another pervasive myth
The "all men are created equal" (written by a man who owned slaves) referred to a rejection of the government-sanctioned social classes of nobles in European countries and England. There people had different legal standing based upon the social class into which they were born. Jefferson was stating that we are all born with the same legal standing.
We know what it is like to have an even number of justices (8) for close to a year thanks to some shameful politics played during 2016.
The absolutely correct actions of the Republicans 😊