I spent three hours reading through my school text and still had no idea what Judicial Review really was or why we have it. I watched your eight minute video and feel like I now have a much better understanding. The videos are awesome, please keep making more of them!
I'm glad they keep making these videos. Its the only way to learn about US politics since how the system seems to work in all the news is very confusing!
This is essentially circular reasoning. The Supreme Court has the right to make rulings on the constitution because the Supreme Court has passed a ruling stating that it has this right.
Eugene Khutoryansky Which it had the right to do under Article 3. They have all the judicial power (except impeachment), and the Supreme Court has the highest judicial power. Meaning they get to dole out the justice, and if they (the court) decides that a law is not a Just and legal law (under the Constitution), then they can decide that it is not a part of the judiciary system and it is not a part of the Constitution. It really isn't that complex as to how judicial review came about. It may not be explicit in the Constitution, but it is definitely there.
Eugene Khutoryansky We the People of the United States decided to enact a government in which we the People get to self-determine the government's laws, because we decided to determine that for ourselves. Authority derives from itself always, but some authorities are more functional than others. One can appeal to reason, passion or ethics to make that circular argument more useful and tied to greater aspirations than power. In the case of the function of Judicial Review, it was not derived in a vacuum, but was called upon to address a major failing of the Constitution to protect citizen liberties against majority rule. Its appeal has been at various times all three: reason, passion and ethics.
Eugene Khutoryansky No. If you read Marbury v Madison, the Supreme Court said that its duty was to interpret laws, which is in the Constitution. Part of this power of interpretation is the power to decide which among 2 or more conflicting laws is superior. This is common sense-lawmakers will pass so many laws that inevitably they will cover the same areas. Conflicts will always arise, and the Judiciary's duty is to resolve them. In the Marbury case, the Court had to decide if the Constitution was superior to the Judiciary Act of 1789. In deciding that it was, the Court said that it was just using its interpretative powers. And the idea of constitutional superiority is rooted in the idea that it's the most basic statement of the union's underlying legal principles. Thus no future law can violate it--the Constitution is the law upon which all laws must be based. Thus, in a way, Judicial Review WAS in the Constitution. It was not explicit, but it was implied. You cannot interpret laws without deciding issues between conflicting laws--including conflicts with the Constitution.
I know it's been a long minute since these came out, but I want to say that these videos are instrumental in helping me through my first law related class. As someone thinking about going to law school, the intimidation of a whole new field with a new set of skills that I have never encountered before is immense, and often makes me feel overwhelmed and out of my league with the vast info I'm told to learn and read. These videos break things down for me in such a way that I feel like I can begin to understand things in my own way, and for that I'm so grateful to Mr. Benzine and everyone at Crash Course. Keep being amazing guys; you're helping people go after their dreams
ILLUMINATI ,ILLUMINATI ILLUMINATI Are you a business man, Actress,Actor, footballer,Politician,desire wealth,power fame .As our role we are here to help those in struggle against hardships,and poverty ,that's why we have come to save your soul from this rigid CONFINEMENT.whatsap us on +2376 80 17 63 48
Miranda V. Arizona made it so that police have to read the Miranda Warning only when they have a person who is in custody and being questioned about the incident. If you are in custody (e.g. being arrested) the police don't have to read the Miranda Warning unless you are also being questioned. Also, if you are in custody but not being arrested at that time (rare) the police must read you the Miranda Warning.
Time for an annotation guys. In fact the majority of arrests don't require the suspect to be marandized as the police have no need to question them. You drive drunk and blow 0.2 on a breathalyzer and fail a sobriety test, they don't need to ask you questions. If a cop sees you commit a crime (and especially if he gets it on camera), he doesn't need to ask you questions. They've got all they need.
Adelphos0653 - I was about to say that but decided I should scroll through to find out if someone already did. LOL Glad to see it was there already because you explained it better than I would have. I tend to get wordy.
***** Not sure what state you could possibly be talking about... but miranda never required cops to read the warnings in every case, only in those where they will be in custody and questioned. Since that may occur in every case, even if the testimony is not needed, cops read the miranda warnings just as a safeguard for anything further. But if they wish to use the suspect's statements to police, they must read miranda rights. A state CANNOT make a law against this.
You got a bit about the Miranda rights wrong. Law enforcement must state the Miranda rights before custodial interrogation, not immediately upon arrest. Getting information from TV cop shows is not usually a good idea.
@ Only a loser would whine about settled cases in an educational video about the Judiciary system. If you have balls, take your LSAT, admitted into law school and fight to overturn Obergerfell. Btw pavan vs smith was a case denied by SCOTUS which would have challenged Obergerfell. Guess who voted against even to hear the case ? Chief Justice John Roberts ! So Good luck !
Judicial review is implicit in the Constitution, if you pay attention. It stems from the combination of the grants of power given to Congress or the president, the limits on those powers, the prohibitions placed on each branch, the Jurisdiction Clauses in Article III, and the Supremacy Clause in Article VI. While not explicitly stated, all the tools are there. It's akin to my giving you all the disassembled parts you would need to make a flashlight, telling you to make something with the parts, and you putting together a flashlight.
J.D. Montgomery Well, that's a good summary of Marshall's reasoning in the opinion. (Not the flashlight bit though... it would have been pretty wild if he had mentioned flashlights in 1803.)
Yep: “No doctrine can be sound that releases a Legislature from the controul of a constitution. The latter is as much a law to the former, as the acts of the former are to individuals and although always liable to be altered by the people who formed it, is not alterable by any other authority; certainly not by those chosen by the people to carry it into effect. This is so vital a principle, and has been so justly the pride of our popular Government, that a denial of it cannot possibly last long or spread far.” James Madison, Letter to George Thompson, dated June 30, 1825 (quoted in The Complete Madison, p. 344)
Before reading this, please know that I love love love Crash Course… my teenage son and I watch it all the time and I constantly refer my Intro PoliSci students to it. And I really hope I don't come off as one of those obnoxious people who loves to snipe every little thing I see. In spite of all of that, though, I would like to ask you to consider reframing Judicial Review with some facts that I think are important and suggest it was just a given to the Founders that the court would have this power. I think it's an important point because political opportunists just love to get people worked up with the claim that court *took* this power in Marbury as opposed to it being *conferred* to it in the Constitution. Anyhoo, here are those facts... First, in the Ratification Debate, Judicial Review was clearly anticipated. A plain reading of both sides make it pretty clear that the debate took Judicial Review as a given and centered on what the court would do with the power. (Please see the Federalists Papers, Nos. 78 - 82; Brutus XI - XV; Centinel XVI; The Federal Farmer XV.) Second, SCOTUS exercised Judicial Review in its formative period; well before Marbury. It is important to bear in mind that even though SCOTUS did not invalidate the statutes at issue, it did rule on their constitutionality and never hinted that doing so was a function outside of its purview. (Please see Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796) and Calder v. Bull, 3 US 386 (1798).) Finally, it is also important to recall the prestige the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (later, Supreme Court of Virginia) held in the early Republic and Justices Nelson’s and Tucker’s seriatim opinions in Kamper v. Hawkins, 3 Va. (1 Va. cases) 20, (1793) that are pretty clearly talking about the court's *duty* to review. Anyway, thanks for letting me sound off :)
***** the House can impeach the justices if it wants to. Its stated clearly in the Constitution although only 1 justice has ever been successfully impeached, but he was not convicted
***** sir you are wrong,y AP history books say different you need to retake the class lmao. Don't know wtf you're talking about. Look up check and balances. I didn't get a five for nothing. Whoever favourited your comments is an idiot
RELEVANT. From today's Court Opinion upholding gay marriage: "Of course, the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, so long as that process does not abridge fundamental rights. . . The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. . . The idea of the Constitution “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.” ... This is why “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
I get where you're coming from but you're wrong. For exams slavery was ended by a vote by Congress. The idea of a small unelected group of people with near limitless power that they hold for life is the exact opposite of democracy. Also you say these rights are decided by no election is wrong. The president appoints supreme Court justices as Im sure you know. If a republican had won the ELECTION of 08 the democratic judges Obama appointed never would have been instead there would likely be republican judges who would have ruled against gay marriage. The supreme Court is decided by elections but not in a way people can control. It is by far the worst part of American government.
Alexander West weeeelllll not really. The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in areas that had seceded from the us and was in a way more of a war tactic. Slavery was banned with the 13th amendment passed by congress shortly after the war's end. Besides like I said the proclamation only applied to areas where the us had no control and therefore no authority to free the slaves there. Very few slaves actually gained their freedom direction from the emancipation proclamation as it only applied to slaves living in confederate controlled lands. Even in confederate lands that the us controlled slaves were not freed. Its purpose was really more to officially change the purpose of the war to ending slavery rather than just restoring the union,the document itself really did very little.
I think the argument of the Court, which -- again-- is not my argument... is that in defense of fundamental rights, the courts need not wait for the legislation to assert those rights into law in order to make those rights the law of the land. The courts may (as in criminalizing segregation), but they may not (as Thomas Scaer says, in the case of slavery). See again: "Of course, the Constitution contemplates that democracy [read legislative action] is the appropriate process for change, so long as that process does not abridge fundamental rights." Which is essentially the Judicial Review argument: Courts have the authority to overpower legislatures when their laws violate constitutional rights, but legislating those changes is the preferred way of deciding.
But in not using a democratic method to gain those "fundamental rights" they are taking rights away from other people. And the right taken away from us is the most fundamental right! The right to vote!
Judicial Review did not exist prior to Marbury v Madison in 1803. The founding fathers were well aware of the concept of judicial review and did NOT include it in the constitution. The supreme court bided its time and made a political decision to establish judicial review when they thought they could get away with it. Jefferson and others saw though judicial review. They believed it placed too much power in the judiciary and threw checks and balances out of whack. They rightfully criticized it but the decision held. The court initially treated the power of judicial review as a nuclear option and never again used it to invalidate a law passed by congress until Dred Scott in 1857. That’s right. You know how the modern court strikes down laws all time time? Back in the early 1800’s the first and second cases were separated by 54 YEARS!!! The reason is because the early court knew the concept of judicial review was problematic and therefore tenuous. They rightfully feared the other two branches reasserting their power and overturning judicial review. Perhaps with something equally absurd, like legislative review or executive review. Could that still happen? Maybe. Or perhaps the other two branches will just stack the court with fifteen justices, as was proposed by several presidential candidates earlier this year.
In 1977 WQED TV Pittsburgh created a great TV series, "Equal Justice Under Law" dramatizing the decisions of the Supreme Court during John Marshall's time, including Marbury v. Madison. It was as good or better than prime time drama series of the time.
slut4berniesanders It had a lot of "I know that face" character actors but the only one I recognized by name was James Noble as a very volatile Thomas Jefferson. He played Gov. Gatling in the sitcom "Benson" back in the 80's and was in the movie musical "1776" as New Jersey rep. Rev. John Witherspoon. All very different performances.
Not sure you're technically right about Miranda. One can be arrested and not "Mirandized" when the police have no intention of questioning the arrestee or detainee. If they subsequently decide to question the individual, he must be made aware of his rights. Please correct me, if I'm wrong.
wholeNwon You're right. Police can Mirandize you anytime, but they only HAVE to Mirandize when you're in custody AND you're being questioned. Custody + Interrogation = Miranda.
1. Why have we not made judicial review a explicit power of the Supreme Court through an amendment? Wouldn't things be safer that way? 2. How did the other founding fathers feel about this power?
Thank you for this video. I've been disappointed with other videos on this channel for having a clear, progressive bias. You actually did quite well here. I've not seen this host before and maybe he's just more honest than the other host I've seen on here. Keep that up. I like how you separate fact from opinion here. I very much disagree with you that it's a good thing that the constitution can be changed by interpretation rather than amendment but at least you stated that as an opinion. I came across this video after having a discussion with many progressive friends on facebook who insisted the power of judicial review was in article 3. Thank you for being an example, in this case at least, of how you can be a progressive and not have to be dishonest about history. Hopefully after watching this video they'll learn that real study of history is very different that what is taught in Jr. high and very enlightening.
They did a series on Chemistry already and it's pretty cool! You should check it out under the playlists for the Crash Course channel. I don't believe they've done one for microbiology though. Regular biology...I think so.
All very well but just a small detail: NO, police are not required to read Miranda rights to all they arrest. Federally, they are required to read Miranda rights when the individual is in custody and is being questioned about the crime they're in custody for. It varies among jurisdictions and some officers opt to unnecessarily read Miranda rights at time of arrest, but it isn't federally required.
The judicial review process is just that: signaling to the legislature and executive branch that the courts will not defend that piece of legislation it find unconstitutional. With the enforcing power of the court gone, that law is toothless and unuseable regardless whether they remains on the books or not.
Just watched this (Dec. 2019), you have an error to correct. Miranda Rights do not have to be given to 'everyone arrested', it must be given before interrogating a person in custody. If I have not arrested someone and ask a question or I arrest someone after witnessing or finding direct evidence of a crime, no Miranda must be given if I don't interrogate the person.
roguedogx When the Court publishes an opinion, it contains the majority opinion, any concurring opinions, and any dissenting opinions -- in that order. You just have to scroll down. A quick breakdown: The majority opinion is the actual binding opinion. It's the part that matters. Concurring opinions are written by justices who voted for the majority, but who want to add their two cents for some reason (probably because their reasoning differed from the majority somehow, even though they reached the same conclusion). Dissenting opinions are from justices who voted against the majority and want to explain why they disagree. Concurring and dissenting opinions are totally optional.
It has still never been satisfactorily explained how SCOTUS in Marbury v Madison had the power to unilaterally give itself a power that it did not have nor was it authorized in the Constitution.
The police do not have to read your Miranda warning any time you are arrested, only in certain situations such as being interrogated while detained, at least where I'm at in Alabbama
Appellate court decisions are binding on government agencies and legislatures. And it's not *like* the common law; it *is* a common law system. (Sorry to keep quibbling, I actually like this series.)
ILLUMINATI ,ILLUMINATI ILLUMINATI Are you a business man, Actress,Actor, footballer,Politician,desire wealth,power fame .As our role we are here to help those in struggle against hardships,and poverty ,that's why we have come to save your soul from this rigid CONFINEMENT.whatsap us on +2376 80 17 63 48
I spent three hours reading through my school text and still had no idea what Judicial Review really was or why we have it. I watched your eight minute video and feel like I now have a much better understanding. The videos are awesome, please keep making more of them!
I'm glad they keep making these videos. Its the only way to learn about US politics since how the system seems to work in all the news is very confusing!
This is essentially circular reasoning. The Supreme Court has the right to make rulings on the constitution because the Supreme Court has passed a ruling stating that it has this right.
Eugene Khutoryansky Which it had the right to do under Article 3. They have all the judicial power (except impeachment), and the Supreme Court has the highest judicial power. Meaning they get to dole out the justice, and if they (the court) decides that a law is not a Just and legal law (under the Constitution), then they can decide that it is not a part of the judiciary system and it is not a part of the Constitution.
It really isn't that complex as to how judicial review came about. It may not be explicit in the Constitution, but it is definitely there.
Eugene Khutoryansky We the People of the United States decided to enact a government in which we the People get to self-determine the government's laws, because we decided to determine that for ourselves. Authority derives from itself always, but some authorities are more functional than others. One can appeal to reason, passion or ethics to make that circular argument more useful and tied to greater aspirations than power. In the case of the function of Judicial Review, it was not derived in a vacuum, but was called upon to address a major failing of the Constitution to protect citizen liberties against majority rule. Its appeal has been at various times all three: reason, passion and ethics.
Eugene Khutoryansky Welcome to bureaucracy!
Eugene Khutoryansky No. If you read Marbury v Madison, the Supreme Court said that its duty was to interpret laws, which is in the Constitution.
Part of this power of interpretation is the power to decide which among 2 or more conflicting laws is superior. This is common sense-lawmakers will pass so many laws that inevitably they will cover the same areas. Conflicts will always arise, and the Judiciary's duty is to resolve them.
In the Marbury case, the Court had to decide if the Constitution was superior to the Judiciary Act of 1789. In deciding that it was, the Court said that it was just using its interpretative powers. And the idea of constitutional superiority is rooted in the idea that it's the most basic statement of the union's underlying legal principles. Thus no future law can violate it--the Constitution is the law upon which all laws must be based.
Thus, in a way, Judicial Review WAS in the Constitution. It was not explicit, but it was implied. You cannot interpret laws without deciding issues between conflicting laws--including conflicts with the Constitution.
I love ur videos!
Craig, you’ve become my new best friend this finals season. Thank you for your heroism.
Good timing releasing this today.
Who's watching this for online school? I would like online school if we didn't have more work than any other school.
Who’s watching this for online classes for covid-19 or corona virus .... I officially like school and hate online school
John-Emren me
online school is way better
Me
Me
Brother! I would hug you if it weren't for social distancing.
American Gov?
I know it's been a long minute since these came out, but I want to say that these videos are instrumental in helping me through my first law related class. As someone thinking about going to law school, the intimidation of a whole new field with a new set of skills that I have never encountered before is immense, and often makes me feel overwhelmed and out of my league with the vast info I'm told to learn and read. These videos break things down for me in such a way that I feel like I can begin to understand things in my own way, and for that I'm so grateful to Mr. Benzine and everyone at Crash Course. Keep being amazing guys; you're helping people go after their dreams
The timing of this series is impeccable! Thank you!
whose watching this for homework?
Jack in Black me
+1
I have a speech tomorrow and I chose this subject.
Me
AP GO PO... yup
How am I supposed to do an assignment is if I can’t understand or even keep up with what he’s saying!
Slow him down on .75 audio speed. It helps a bunch! ;)
As a HIGHSCHOOL student I’ll settle the debate on the quickness of the video.
It is a perfect speed to take notes on!
ILLUMINATI ,ILLUMINATI ILLUMINATI
Are you a business man, Actress,Actor, footballer,Politician,desire wealth,power fame .As our role we are here to help those in struggle against hardships,and poverty ,that's why we have come to save your soul from this rigid CONFINEMENT.whatsap us on +2376 80 17 63 48
@@daddyp2692 I lost braincells trying to read that, dude.
Miranda V. Arizona made it so that police have to read the Miranda Warning only when they have a person who is in custody and being questioned about the incident. If you are in custody (e.g. being arrested) the police don't have to read the Miranda Warning unless you are also being questioned. Also, if you are in custody but not being arrested at that time (rare) the police must read you the Miranda Warning.
Exactly
Time for an annotation guys. In fact the majority of arrests don't require the suspect to be marandized as the police have no need to question them. You drive drunk and blow 0.2 on a breathalyzer and fail a sobriety test, they don't need to ask you questions. If a cop sees you commit a crime (and especially if he gets it on camera), he doesn't need to ask you questions. They've got all they need.
Adelphos0653 - I was about to say that but decided I should scroll through to find out if someone already did. LOL
Glad to see it was there already because you explained it better than I would have. I tend to get wordy.
Adelphos0653 Sadly my state passed legislation so that police are not required to recite the Miranda Warning upon arresting an individual.
***** Not sure what state you could possibly be talking about... but miranda never required cops to read the warnings in every case, only in those where they will be in custody and questioned. Since that may occur in every case, even if the testimony is not needed, cops read the miranda warnings just as a safeguard for anything further.
But if they wish to use the suspect's statements to police, they must read miranda rights. A state CANNOT make a law against this.
You guys should do a crash course on the stock market! I've always been a little confused by how it all works and how it affects me, the citizen.
"Jesus had two dads and he turned out fine."
-quote from one of he protesters
I can’t stop looking at it
How timely! Judicial review was used awesomely just today.
0:53 0:59 1:00
1:04 1:58 2:19
2:44 3:06 3:19
3:34 4:05 4:20
5:14 5:26 6:15
6:42 7:19 these helped me do my work
It's not ironic, it's apt!
Nolan Thiessen *insert "THANK YOU" gif here*
Nolan Thiessen But it is ironic that he said "ironic."
This video's timing is just too perfect to not be planed.
For those who came for an explanation of Marbury v. Madison case it starts at 3:30
Great video. Just a hint: avoid wearing striped shirts: they cause aliasing effects on low resolution monitors.
The perfect day for this video
You got a bit about the Miranda rights wrong. Law enforcement must state the Miranda rights before custodial interrogation, not immediately upon arrest. Getting information from TV cop shows is not usually a good idea.
Additionally, and most importantly, I really really love your energy in this one! Great video guys!
I love the Daredevil analogy, it actually made the whole thing alot easier to understand
Binging for finals!
lol same
@@TrevorDaniel Is this the real Trevor Daniel??
I loved the Daredevil reference.
English French and German comparative law
Dare Devil = BEST way to teach politics. Keep up the good work!
This episode is extremely timely, given the past two days of SCOTUS decisions!
so the Supreme Court essentially used the "because I said so" tactic
because LOGIC!
Sheena A is that V on ur profile !!!
Annie Stephens yes it is!
Thanks. This really helped me to understand the Marbury vs. Madison case and so that I could write my essay better.
to those arguing about same sex marriage, to quote Mr. Rogers: "I like you just the way you are"
@
You are a strange person
@
Honestly didn't think you'd respond, as this is a year old, but it seems you haven't changed your views. Kinda sad tbh
@ Only a loser would whine about settled cases in an educational video about the Judiciary system. If you have balls, take your LSAT, admitted into law school and fight to overturn Obergerfell. Btw pavan vs smith was a case denied by SCOTUS which would have challenged Obergerfell. Guess who voted against even to hear the case ? Chief Justice John Roberts ! So Good luck !
Natalie Jones my auto probably did it but u won't believe me so I don't care uwu
@ marriage is between man and women and that's how it should be
Judicial review is implicit in the Constitution, if you pay attention. It stems from the combination of the grants of power given to Congress or the president, the limits on those powers, the prohibitions placed on each branch, the Jurisdiction Clauses in Article III, and the Supremacy Clause in Article VI. While not explicitly stated, all the tools are there. It's akin to my giving you all the disassembled parts you would need to make a flashlight, telling you to make something with the parts, and you putting together a flashlight.
J.D. Montgomery Well, that's a good summary of Marshall's reasoning in the opinion. (Not the flashlight bit though... it would have been pretty wild if he had mentioned flashlights in 1803.)
slut4berniesanders Alrighty, then: "here's 4 wheels, two axles, and several planks of wood... oh, you've built a wagon."
J.D. Montgomery haha better :)
Yep:
“No doctrine can be sound that releases a Legislature from the controul of a constitution. The latter is as much a law to the former, as the acts of the former are to individuals and although always liable to be altered by the people who formed it, is not alterable by any other authority; certainly not by those chosen by the people to carry it into effect. This is so vital a principle, and has been so justly the pride of our popular Government, that a denial of it cannot possibly last long or spread far.”
James Madison, Letter to George Thompson, dated June 30, 1825 (quoted in The Complete Madison, p. 344)
love this guy ! way better than the economics ones
Before reading this, please know that I love love love Crash Course… my teenage son and I watch it all the time and I constantly refer my Intro PoliSci students to it. And I really hope I don't come off as one of those obnoxious people who loves to snipe every little thing I see. In spite of all of that, though, I would like to ask you to consider reframing Judicial Review with some facts that I think are important and suggest it was just a given to the Founders that the court would have this power. I think it's an important point because political opportunists just love to get people worked up with the claim that court *took* this power in Marbury as opposed to it being *conferred* to it in the Constitution. Anyhoo, here are those facts...
First, in the Ratification Debate, Judicial Review was clearly anticipated. A plain reading of both sides make it pretty clear that the debate took Judicial Review as a given and centered on what the court would do with the power. (Please see the Federalists Papers, Nos. 78 - 82; Brutus XI - XV; Centinel XVI; The Federal Farmer XV.)
Second, SCOTUS exercised Judicial Review in its formative period; well before Marbury. It is important to bear in mind that even though SCOTUS did not invalidate the statutes at issue, it did rule on their constitutionality and never hinted that doing so was a function outside of its purview. (Please see Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796) and Calder v. Bull, 3 US 386 (1798).)
Finally, it is also important to recall the prestige the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (later, Supreme Court of Virginia) held in the early Republic and Justices Nelson’s and Tucker’s seriatim opinions in Kamper v. Hawkins, 3 Va. (1 Va. cases) 20, (1793) that are pretty clearly talking about the court's *duty* to review.
Anyway, thanks for letting me sound off :)
The Supreme Court is kind of like congress and the presidents parents?
Kinda but not really since at any time congress could change the jurisdiction or impeach the members
***** yeah, that is true in a sense, even though it's the congress and the White House that appoint the judges.
***** the House can impeach the justices if it wants to. Its stated clearly in the Constitution although only 1 justice has ever been successfully impeached, but he was not convicted
***** sir you are wrong,y AP history books say different you need to retake the class lmao. Don't know wtf you're talking about. Look up check and balances. I didn't get a five for nothing. Whoever favourited your comments is an idiot
falloutjustcause just like teenagers can get legally emancipated from their parents
RELEVANT. From today's Court Opinion upholding gay marriage: "Of course, the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, so long as that process does not abridge fundamental rights. . . The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. . . The idea of the Constitution “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.” ... This is why “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
I get where you're coming from but you're wrong. For exams slavery was ended by a vote by Congress. The idea of a small unelected group of people with near limitless power that they hold for life is the exact opposite of democracy. Also you say these rights are decided by no election is wrong. The president appoints supreme Court justices as Im sure you know. If a republican had won the ELECTION of 08 the democratic judges Obama appointed never would have been instead there would likely be republican judges who would have ruled against gay marriage. The supreme Court is decided by elections but not in a way people can control. It is by far the worst part of American government.
But the slaves in the south were freed by presidential act, not vote.
Alexander West weeeelllll not really. The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in areas that had seceded from the us and was in a way more of a war tactic. Slavery was banned with the 13th amendment passed by congress shortly after the war's end. Besides like I said the proclamation only applied to areas where the us had no control and therefore no authority to free the slaves there. Very few slaves actually gained their freedom direction from the emancipation proclamation as it only applied to slaves living in confederate controlled lands. Even in confederate lands that the us controlled slaves were not freed. Its purpose was really more to officially change the purpose of the war to ending slavery rather than just restoring the union,the document itself really did very little.
I think the argument of the Court, which -- again-- is not my argument... is that in defense of fundamental rights, the courts need not wait for the legislation to assert those rights into law in order to make those rights the law of the land. The courts may (as in criminalizing segregation), but they may not (as Thomas Scaer says, in the case of slavery). See again: "Of course, the Constitution contemplates that democracy [read legislative action] is the appropriate process for change, so long as that process does not abridge fundamental rights." Which is essentially the Judicial Review argument: Courts have the authority to overpower legislatures when their laws violate constitutional rights, but legislating those changes is the preferred way of deciding.
But in not using a democratic method to gain those "fundamental rights" they are taking rights away from other people. And the right taken away from us is the most fundamental right! The right to vote!
You should do a video on Miranda rights. The police are no longer required to read them, in some cases.
Judicial Review did not exist prior to Marbury v Madison in 1803. The founding fathers were well aware of the concept of judicial review and did NOT include it in the constitution. The supreme court bided its time and made a political decision to establish judicial review when they thought they could get away with it. Jefferson and others saw though judicial review. They believed it placed too much power in the judiciary and threw checks and balances out of whack. They rightfully criticized it but the decision held. The court initially treated the power of judicial review as a nuclear option and never again used it to invalidate a law passed by congress until Dred Scott in 1857. That’s right. You know how the modern court strikes down laws all time time? Back in the early 1800’s the first and second cases were separated by 54 YEARS!!! The reason is because the early court knew the concept of judicial review was problematic and therefore tenuous. They rightfully feared the other two branches reasserting their power and overturning judicial review. Perhaps with something equally absurd, like legislative review or executive review. Could that still happen? Maybe. Or perhaps the other two branches will just stack the court with fifteen justices, as was proposed by several presidential candidates earlier this year.
In 1977 WQED TV Pittsburgh created a great TV series, "Equal Justice Under Law" dramatizing the decisions of the Supreme Court during John Marshall's time, including Marbury v. Madison. It was as good or better than prime time drama series of the time.
RMoribayashi I'd like to watch that!
slut4berniesanders It had a lot of "I know that face" character actors but the only one I recognized by name was James Noble as a very volatile Thomas Jefferson. He played Gov. Gatling in the sitcom "Benson" back in the 80's and was in the movie musical "1776" as New Jersey rep. Rev. John Witherspoon. All very different performances.
I actually sneezed when you sneezed 'statues'.
Aurora Jahid LOL 😂
coincidence
i think NOT
Lier
impressive... like one in a billion chance... i need my brother to check that for me but it's a close approximation i think.
Not sure you're technically right about Miranda. One can be arrested and not "Mirandized" when the police have no intention of questioning the arrestee or detainee. If they subsequently decide to question the individual, he must be made aware of his rights. Please correct me, if I'm wrong.
wholeNwon You're right. Police can Mirandize you anytime, but they only HAVE to Mirandize when you're in custody AND you're being questioned. Custody + Interrogation = Miranda.
1. Why have we not made judicial review a explicit power of the Supreme Court through an amendment? Wouldn't things be safer that way?
2. How did the other founding fathers feel about this power?
Thank you for this video. I've been disappointed with other videos on this channel for having a clear, progressive bias. You actually did quite well here. I've not seen this host before and maybe he's just more honest than the other host I've seen on here. Keep that up. I like how you separate fact from opinion here. I very much disagree with you that it's a good thing that the constitution can be changed by interpretation rather than amendment but at least you stated that as an opinion.
I came across this video after having a discussion with many progressive friends on facebook who insisted the power of judicial review was in article 3. Thank you for being an example, in this case at least, of how you can be a progressive and not have to be dishonest about history. Hopefully after watching this video they'll learn that real study of history is very different that what is taught in Jr. high and very enlightening.
Such a well-timed video
Watches Crash Course as a "dip of the toe" before I read Cornell Law's version of this explanation.
My, "for dummies," senses are strong lol.
Will you be doing an episde on Miller v. California?
what influenced the Supreme Court to deal with this case ?
These videos are saving me! Thank you so much!!
They misspelled unconstitutional at 4:18
PLEASE DO A SECTION FOR MICROBIOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY.
They did a series on Chemistry already and it's pretty cool! You should check it out under the playlists for the Crash Course channel. I don't believe they've done one for microbiology though. Regular biology...I think so.
All very well but just a small detail: NO, police are not required to read Miranda rights to all they arrest. Federally, they are required to read Miranda rights when the individual is in custody and is being questioned about the crime they're in custody for. It varies among jurisdictions and some officers opt to unnecessarily read Miranda rights at time of arrest, but it isn't federally required.
if you think it's too fast. try slowing down the video to .75 speed! it will mess up the quality, but it makes it a pretty perfect speed
What did Marshal do it for? I don't understand.
Whoa I seen your channel just for the first time recently. welcome to texas dude!
Governing by implied rules exists in the UK too, they're called conventions.
Convenient timing for this lesson
Damn do you talk fast 😭 i had to listen to you at x0,75
I agree, but am glad it's this way rather than the other way around with a slow and boring person- which tends to be the case on these subjects.
This is such a great video! This guy is so entertaining! :)
The judicial review process is just that: signaling to the legislature and executive branch that the courts will not defend that piece of legislation it find unconstitutional. With the enforcing power of the court gone, that law is toothless and unuseable regardless whether they remains on the books or not.
Good video on the role of the Supreme Court in America!
Good luck, everyone!!!
How do I cite your video for my paper? Thanks for all the info BTW
did you guys plan this timing?
I love these videos
THANK YOU!! Your videos helped me pass a final test and an entire course! :)
Anyone have the answers to every worksheet that corresponds with this video?
Just watched this (Dec. 2019), you have an error to correct. Miranda Rights do not have to be given to 'everyone arrested', it must be given before interrogating a person in custody. If I have not arrested someone and ask a question or I arrest someone after witnessing or finding direct evidence of a crime, no Miranda must be given if I don't interrogate the person.
I can think of four Judges that should watch this video. Did anyone else read the dissenting opinions?
BiPaganMan those were made public? where can I read them?
roguedogx When the Court publishes an opinion, it contains the majority opinion, any concurring opinions, and any dissenting opinions -- in that order. You just have to scroll down.
A quick breakdown: The majority opinion is the actual binding opinion. It's the part that matters. Concurring opinions are written by justices who voted for the majority, but who want to add their two cents for some reason (probably because their reasoning differed from the majority somehow, even though they reached the same conclusion). Dissenting opinions are from justices who voted against the majority and want to explain why they disagree. Concurring and dissenting opinions are totally optional.
It has still never been satisfactorily explained how SCOTUS in Marbury v Madison had the power to unilaterally give itself a power that it did not have nor was it authorized in the Constitution.
This is fascinating.
You should make a crash course politics and explore the political spectrum etc etc
i like how he knew id be disappointed.
Really this is a good application to learn politics
The police do not have to read your Miranda warning any time you are arrested, only in certain situations such as being interrogated while detained, at least where I'm at in Alabbama
they have to read your rights.
Can they exercise judicial power over small loans of a million dollars?
Perfect timing, how apropos!
Appellate court decisions are binding on government agencies and legislatures. And it's not *like* the common law; it *is* a common law system. (Sorry to keep quibbling, I actually like this series.)
6:15 Why
I dock you 3 points for the shot of Bobby Jindal.
Unconstitutional**
4:17
great timing!
Where's CC G&P #22?
HOW DID HE KNOW I WAS SLEEPING 0_0
ILLUMINATI ,ILLUMINATI ILLUMINATI
Are you a business man, Actress,Actor, footballer,Politician,desire wealth,power fame .As our role we are here to help those in struggle against hardships,and poverty ,that's why we have come to save your soul from this rigid CONFINEMENT.whatsap us on +2376 80 17 63 48
I’m watching this to review for my ap gov test literally 30 mins before the test
i was scrolling thorough hoping someone made a transcript
any chance of you guys making videos about uk law and government?
I love all the Marvel references in these videos. :)
AP Testing?
Good work
It might not have been clear but mandamus still exists in the U.S.
Can someone link me to his channel? I got unsubbed from him on accident and I don't remember the name
Hey, Wheezy, it seems like a long time since you uploaded a video on your channel.
Hey you know what? Good job Craig & staff! Ya, good job :)
Who’s watching this for the online AP test?
Homieee! Good luck!
Oh, SCOTUS...
bless you
2022(G) “Respect and dignity.” Furthermore:
Please can you bring out a government and politics but UK addition. please, please, please
This really helped me with the class I’m taking. Thank you