Hi there! I noticed a mistake at 6:17. The judge says "guilty", however parties are not proven "guilty" or "not guilty" in civil cases, only in criminal. In civil cases, the defendant can only be "liable" or "not liable".
Thanks Craig! I've learned more about government and politics in a couple months of your show than 4 years of high school, 4 years of college and 4 years of military pol/mil training
At first, I wasn't sure I liked Craig Benzine as host of this series of Crash Course, but now I am sure that he is perfect. Keep that eagle in its place Craig!!!
We have a kind of common law in The Netherlands, too. It's called "jurisprudentie" here. It's basically the same thing. All decisions made by courts in the past which can be used to determine future decisions.
Craig, I'll be honest. I didn't think anyone could fill the CC void of John Green. As a nerdfighter and an addict of these kinds of videos, I decided to give your series a shot and Sir, GOOD WORK :) It's great to see you get comfortable in front of the camera and the eagle punches crack me up. Often. Cheers :)
At [4:52]: You don't just get to argue there was an error below. You also have to show that had the lower court not erred, there's a substantial likelihood the outcome of the case could change to your benefit. If fixing the error won't change the outcome, then it's harmless error and allowed to stand.
amazing video explained everything I needed! This was my first day in bus law and this guy...!! If you don't understand from him do more research cuz this guy here summarized EVERYTHING!
We have common law in france too, we call it "Jurisprudence" ! (I am aware it's an english term too, but it doesn't seem to mean the same in both languages). It doesn't act as actual laws, but they do play a very important role in trials !
Thank you for this video on the court system and how it plays a very important role in our lives the mainly civil court its role if i ever need to file a claim and the others what my next step would be if i loss my case in court appeal. Law writing is interpreted so when we go to read it we are able to understand it .
Becca Wells These courts are operating as brokerage house and collecting ROYALTIES from everything copyrighted & Patented-including but limited to our DNA!! That’s my educated guess. The only BETRAYAL worse than this is that of the father of my children -who sacrificed our family unit to continue operating as a TOOL for these THIEVES!!!!😳😱🤯😭 🤮☠️
Mortimer Zabi Technically, tax "laws" arent laws... they are regulations. This is because they are written by an administrative agency in the EXECUTIVE branch. Only the legislative branch (for federal, Congress) can pass laws but when Congress in a law gives that power to the executive, they write "rules and regulations" Although to be fair there are tax laws written by congress but they are very broad. However the vast majority of the tax system is composed of the regulations written by the IRS. They do have the "power of law" though, presuming they dont contradict with anything Congress has specifically written so its not uncommon to colloquially refer to them as "laws"
Actually my point was that the Internal Revenue Code by itself is hard to interpret PRECISELY because it is broad and thus you NEED to go into jurisprudence and administrative regulations, especially when it comes to ticklish topics like the proper situs of taxation for interstate transactions, how to substantiate taxable deductions, etc. I did not mean to go into a discussion of administrative tax regulations since they can be very, very complicated and are better understood by accountants, not lawyers. Anyhow, not once did I contradict the video in any way. The video never discussed the concept of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers in-depth and thus I never intended to venture into those topics since they're best discussed in a constitutional law course and not a general politics and governance course.
I see your administrative tax regulations and raise you with the complexity of EU law :D Mortimer Zabi Ddub1083 P.S. Tax law could be categorized as "law" and not only as regulations, as you suggested. :) It really depends on the jurisdiction, for example in the continental civil traditions you have taxation legislation, perscribed not only by agencies (with delegated regulatory/legislative powers) but also through the legislator itself. You also have tax laws stemming from EU law (e.g. Parents-Subsidiary Directive; Interests and Royalties directive; CCCTB), which are later being transposed within the national legal orders of the Member States again through the legislator. Moreover you could have national taxation laws stemming from the incorporation of bilateral double taxation treaties.
Love the subtle references to my all time favorite novel "1984" by my favorite author "George Orwell" and my all time favorite TV show " Game of Thrones". I guess being a poli sci. major isn't as big a coincidence as I thought 😁
Dildo Baggins so if it cant be applied to all countries dont talk about it, so absolutely nothing about government is ever allowed to be talked about in any way or infact anything at all. its a pbs show about the american legal system why you are shocked its about american laws shows your ignorance
Dildo Baggins I am from Slovakia (bet you don't know where it is :) and I can't agree 1. There are many CrashCourse Whatevers so you can choose what you like 2. I enjoy US Government and Politics
A smart man says "if you want to break the law first study the law learn how it operates and how it applies to you." quote by Rex Ferel from a book called "hitman technical manual"
is this summary of the US legal systems comparable to the legal systems in the UK and Australia? I get that there will be many minor differences, but, like, I'm from 'straya, sooooo it's basically the same, yeah?
America's legal system = the incredible hulks elastic pants. Much like D&D, many people consider civics instruction an unwinnable endeavor. Many people are wrong. You, good sirs and ladies of crash course, have have quite clearly won.
McKenzie855 There certainly is something in that cup... an estimated 400,000,000,000,000,000,000 (400 quintillion) molecules of air (oxygen, nitrogen, Co2 etc)
I'm an attorney and I'm a big fan of this video. Its general explanation of fed courts in America is excellent. However, when the speaker states "who decides what in a case doesn't matter," that is a woefully misguided opinion. It would take me an hour, several law review articles (i.e., legal scholarship in the form of academic publications), and a couple of books to explain why bench vs. jury trials--or even binding arbitrations (since fed courts are setting a precedent of favoring resolving private disputes via contractually binding arbitration)--while still frightening in practice due to unpredictability, are nevertheless starkly different, the differences of which are highly consequential in any given case.
I live in Louisiana, so what is Napoleonic code & how are our laws different from all the other states in the US? You could probably just do an episode on that.
HLandry428 The difference is as SpitfireMLG pointed out. Louisiana was originally a French colony and as party of the Louisiana land purchase they were granted the right to continue the use of the "Civil law" state legal system. Note that they didn't actually use the Napoleonic code itself, which was established in 1804 which was the year the land purchase was finalised. The Civil law system has two distinctions of note when compared to a common law nation (Great Britain and its former colonies such New Zealand and India) and the Civil law based on the Justinian Code. First judges can not bind a future court on there interpretation of the law. This is why it is said they only have statute law as only that based by the legislative is actual law. The second is the role of the judge in finding fact. The common law has something called the adversarial System, this is where the one side's legal representation fights in court over the "facts" and "law". The judge is neutral and only makes decisions based on what is shown by the opposing parties. In Civil law they have what is called the "inquisitorial system" where the Judge actually leads the investigation into the facts. Note that this a comparison of the theoretical systems and in practice countries have been know to adapt both.
What if a criminal steals your car and crashes it in a police chase. Do they get charged civilly so you can sue for repairs or do they just goto jail and you're left on your own with car damages? Is it double jeopardy to do both to them?
Hiphop101ize You can be charged with a crime AND sued in a civil suit for the same act! In your scenario, that criminal could be charged with theft, and you could also sue them for the tort of "conversion" or "trespass to chattels." Lots of torts are also crimes -- for example, assault and battery. It's a crime for me to break your shins with a crowbar, so the government can choose to charge me if I do. But you, as my victim, can also choose to sue me for battery. It's not considered double jeopardy because the concept of "double jeopardy" just refers to criminal law. There are MANY differences between criminal and civil cases, and this video touched on some of them. But one big one is that the burden of proof usually different. In most criminal cases, the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." (I'm sure you've heard that phrase before.) That means that the jury needs to be very convinced of the defendant's guilt -- it's a tough standard because the stakes are so high in criminal cases. But in most civil cases, the burden is called a "preponderance of the evidence" standard. This is a lower standard! The fact-finder (judge or jury) only has to be, like, more than halfway convinced. Soooo that means that sometimes, when a person is criminally charged and civilly sued for the same act, there can be DIFFERENT OUTCOMES. This happened with O.J. Simpson! The jury in his criminal trial found him not guilty of murder. But he was also sued by the family of his alleged victim, and the jury in his civil suit ordered him to pay $25 million in damages to the family. These different results make perfect sense when you realize that the jury in the criminal case had to be VERY sure he did it to convict him, while the jury in the civil case only had to be PRETTY sure he did it to make him pay up. So you might be wondering why more criminals aren't charged *and* sued like O.J. was. The reason is that most criminals aren't multi-millionaire ex-football stars. In fact, most criminals are not wealthy at all. That means that it doesn't make sense for their victims to take them to court, because it costs a lot of money to hire an attorney, and the victims won't be able to recover much (if any) money even if they win their case. (Lawyers call this the "judgment-proof defendant" problem.) But don't worry. In criminal cases, if the defendant is convicted, the judge often orders the defendant to pay restitution to the victim. That's great because the victim doesn't have to spend their own money suing the defendant, and they can still recover some money. So in your stolen car scenario, you still might get some money back even if you chose not to sue in civil court. That is, if the person who stole your car has any money to pay you.
Any chance we as viewers, could be provided with further reading tailored to the specific video. I feel this would help any viewer who is not currently studying the particular topic in college or university, thereby allowing us to gain a deeper understanding.
3:33 This is why settlements are kept out of the courts and off record. This is why so-called “justice” in our so-called “courts” has become infinitely illusive.
Is there any chance the next video on the Legal System will talk about Magna Carta and be released on June 15, 2015? Anyone know the significance of that? *punches eagle*
do you think this video is helpful for a person who wants to study law in the U.S. ??? can you please give me some helpful sources of learning if you know any books , videos ...
The thought bubble has the judge saying guilty when discussing a civil case. Bad thought bubble! Bad! Generally, we don't speak of civil cases in terms of guilt or innocence, but in terms of liability. It may seem a pedantic point, but lawyers get worked up about these kinds of things.
DoggySpew The "federal" judges often represent the politics of those who appointed them. They do act independently & sometimes unexpectedly. Once on the bench, they're beholden to no one.
Jacob Drum I think they meant that "also called torts" bit to refer to "personal injury" only, NOT to the whole phrase "contracts, property, and personal injury." But I agree that it could have been worded more clearly. Or Though Bubble could have punctuated it differently somehow.
Hi there! I noticed a mistake at 6:17. The judge says "guilty", however parties are not proven "guilty" or "not guilty" in civil cases, only in criminal. In civil cases, the defendant can only be "liable" or "not liable".
Thanks Craig! I've learned more about government and politics in a couple months of your show than 4 years of high school, 4 years of college and 4 years of military pol/mil training
At first, I wasn't sure I liked Craig Benzine as host of this series of Crash Course, but now I am sure that he is perfect. Keep that eagle in its place Craig!!!
This guy helped me pass my American government class! Thanks a million. Because I hardly understand the book😭
We have a kind of common law in The Netherlands, too. It's called "jurisprudentie" here. It's basically the same thing. All decisions made by courts in the past which can be used to determine future decisions.
Eagle punches 3:25 and 7:35; one of these times that Eagle is going to punch back
Craig, I'll be honest. I didn't think anyone could fill the CC void of John Green.
As a nerdfighter and an addict of these kinds of videos, I decided to give your series a shot and Sir, GOOD WORK :)
It's great to see you get comfortable in front of the camera and the eagle punches crack me up. Often.
Cheers :)
At [4:52]: You don't just get to argue there was an error below. You also have to show that had the lower court not erred, there's a substantial likelihood the outcome of the case could change to your benefit. If fixing the error won't change the outcome, then it's harmless error and allowed to stand.
This dude talk hella fast.. can't even take no notes😂
Lashay Little Listening it at .75x can help you take notes better
fact: craig doesnt need to have a reason to punch the eagle.
Ikr it is a free country🤓
I call animal cruelty
So did this guy tease John Green's Turtles All The Way Down in 2015, two years before it was released?
2:24 Craig predicted John’s book more than 2 years ago. Nice one
2:24, was that a possible hint at john green's book 2 years before its release???
Turtles all the way down is a fairly common phrase meaning infinite regression. Though it's no coincidence for John to use the expression.
At 6:10 You wouldn't use the term guilty in civil cases. The defendant can only be held liable for damages. Other than that, great video!
This was very interesting but god does he speak fast (plus he doesn't articulate so much). I'll have to watch this video a few time to really get it
Tancri Von Bouzin actually, he speaks fairly normally.
Mr.chang cooler I'm having a worse time than when John Greens speaks for instance
Try watching it at 0.5 or 0.75 if you must.
+Tancri Von Bouzin Lots of info. Go back and re-listen.
+Tancri Von Bouzin Lots of info. Go back and re-listen.
My teacher showed us the crash course series and now everyone in my class is hooked.
Dang your videos are great, CC!
There really just needs to be a crash course law show
amazing video explained everything I needed! This was my first day in bus law and this guy...!! If you don't understand from him do more research cuz this guy here summarized EVERYTHING!
i’m literally never going to forget that elastic pants analogy thankyou
We have common law in france too, we call it "Jurisprudence" ! (I am aware it's an english term too, but it doesn't seem to mean the same in both languages). It doesn't act as actual laws, but they do play a very important role in trials !
i think this guy has the most entertaining crash courses
Is that a mention of turtles all the way down in 2015? Nice prediction Craig!
This is very informative. The use of the animations made it all the better. Thank you. 🤝
Craig Benzine together with Hank Green is my favorite.
Great sense of humour. Love it.
Thank you for this video on the court system and how it plays a very important role in our lives the mainly civil court its role if i ever need to file a claim and the others what my next step would be if i loss my case in court appeal. Law writing is interpreted so when we go to read it we are able to understand it .
This is easily my favorite CC--and the other ones are pretty good, too!
"turtles all the way down"
Hayoung Park, 🤭 The ’TURTLES’ on Turtle Island ..??🤔
Was he referring to the states/(e)states /the people !?!?
Becca Wells These courts are operating as brokerage house and collecting ROYALTIES from everything copyrighted & Patented-including but limited to our DNA!! That’s my educated guess.
The only BETRAYAL worse than this is that of the father of my children -who sacrificed our family unit to continue operating as a TOOL for these THIEVES!!!!😳😱🤯😭 🤮☠️
@@dorothyhome577 it was just a reference to a book by one of the hosts, calm down
then he says sorry lower courts haha
Moscow Mitch is a turtle. I hate that turtle.
WE WANT MORE CRASH COURSE HISTORY!
i like the bit when he punches the eagle... every time :D
Yay advertising - When Craig says he's going to "bring the heat", there was in fact a crematorium service ad being displayed over him. :^P
kellyloganme That said, Craig was really on this episode. Literally LOL at "Turtles all the way down..." :^D
I had to use a piece of legislation in an essay and I literally got headaches from trying to interpret it properly
phoenixthecookiemonster and probably you did it wrong :D
It requires lots and lots of practice. Also some laws are harder to read than others (I'm looking at you, tax law).
Mortimer Zabi Technically, tax "laws" arent laws... they are regulations. This is because they are written by an administrative agency in the EXECUTIVE branch. Only the legislative branch (for federal, Congress) can pass laws but when Congress in a law gives that power to the executive, they write "rules and regulations"
Although to be fair there are tax laws written by congress but they are very broad. However the vast majority of the tax system is composed of the regulations written by the IRS. They do have the "power of law" though, presuming they dont contradict with anything Congress has specifically written so its not uncommon to colloquially refer to them as "laws"
Actually my point was that the Internal Revenue Code by itself is hard to interpret PRECISELY because it is broad and thus you NEED to go into jurisprudence and administrative regulations, especially when it comes to ticklish topics like the proper situs of taxation for interstate transactions, how to substantiate taxable deductions, etc.
I did not mean to go into a discussion of administrative tax regulations since they can be very, very complicated and are better understood by accountants, not lawyers. Anyhow, not once did I contradict the video in any way. The video never discussed the concept of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers in-depth and thus I never intended to venture into those topics since they're best discussed in a constitutional law course and not a general politics and governance course.
I see your administrative tax regulations and raise you with the complexity of EU law :D
Mortimer Zabi Ddub1083 P.S. Tax law could be categorized as "law" and not only as regulations, as you suggested. :)
It really depends on the jurisdiction, for example in the continental civil traditions you have taxation legislation, perscribed not only by agencies (with delegated regulatory/legislative powers) but also through the legislator itself. You also have tax laws stemming from EU law (e.g. Parents-Subsidiary Directive; Interests and Royalties directive; CCCTB), which are later being transposed within the national legal orders of the Member States again through the legislator. Moreover you could have national taxation laws stemming from the incorporation of bilateral double taxation treaties.
"Turtles all the way down" cracked me up
0:27 Is that "Colonel Doctor" from "Scrubs"?
Love the subtle references to my all time favorite novel "1984" by my favorite author "George Orwell" and my all time favorite TV show " Game of Thrones". I guess being a poli sci. major isn't as big a coincidence as I thought 😁
Videos like this alienate your international viewers
Dildo Baggins
Duly noted, and expected.
Dildo Baggins So the fuck what?
Dildo Baggins so if it cant be applied to all countries dont talk about it, so absolutely nothing about government is ever allowed to be talked about in any way or infact anything at all. its a pbs show about the american legal system why you are shocked its about american laws shows your ignorance
psrdirector Fucking Europeans, I swear.
Dildo Baggins I am from Slovakia (bet you don't know where it is :) and I can't agree
1. There are many CrashCourse Whatevers so you can choose what you like
2. I enjoy US Government and Politics
Craig makes even boring topics at least smirk-worthy.
First of all, CRASH COURSE CIVICS??? I'm confused. However, I use Crash Course to study for my classes, very helpful stuff. Thanks Craig!
I dont care what people say, I love Craig's jokes!
Okay, that eagle punch was actually funny. Credit where it's due.
I think, maybe, I learned something from this video. It's hard to say, it went by so fast!
That "turtles all the way down" joke caught me completely by surprise.
A smart man says "if you want to break the law first study the law learn how it operates and how it applies to you." quote by Rex Ferel from a book called "hitman technical manual"
why would own a book on how to be a hitman???
is this summary of the US legal systems comparable to the legal systems in the UK and Australia? I get that there will be many minor differences, but, like, I'm from 'straya, sooooo it's basically the same, yeah?
you really save my life a lot of times
America's legal system = the incredible hulks elastic pants.
Much like D&D, many people consider civics instruction an unwinnable endeavor. Many people are wrong. You, good sirs and ladies of crash course, have have quite clearly won.
Put something in that cup. Why are you holding it?
McKenzie855 Now I can't help but notice it
EXACTLY what I was thinking -.-
Advertising ;)
McKenzie855 There certainly is something in that cup... an estimated 400,000,000,000,000,000,000 (400 quintillion) molecules of air (oxygen, nitrogen, Co2 etc)
What? He doesn't need a reason to hold the cup
I'M THE LAW... well, I'm not, but for a thing so complicated who wants to be a law?
davidkimlive I am a bill. Yes, I'm only a bill. And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Jeronimo Torres With that rhyme, I believe you are a poet yet did not know it.
Hollth ummm its from a song... So Im pretty certain the rhyme was intended...
... Bob Dylan. The name of the song escapes me.
Finally some more abstract stuff.
"Turtles all the way down" did Craig Benzine every go to Beloit College is Wisconsin, because thats our mascot and slang slogan
Someone please explain the difference between common law and statutory law (Australia)?
I'm an attorney and I'm a big fan of this video. Its general explanation of fed courts in America is excellent. However, when the speaker states "who decides what in a case doesn't matter," that is a woefully misguided opinion.
It would take me an hour, several law review articles (i.e., legal scholarship in the form of academic publications), and a couple of books to explain why bench vs. jury trials--or even binding arbitrations (since fed courts are setting a precedent of favoring resolving private disputes via contractually binding arbitration)--while still frightening in practice due to unpredictability, are nevertheless starkly different, the differences of which are highly consequential in any given case.
Do they post transcripts somewhere?
omfg i just laughed my ass off at the turtles thing
Very helpful, very funny. Thanks folks!
Thank you! This helps me study for my business law exam.
I don't find the first episode of the series, help me out, please
This will have you on point. Watching all of these.
loved this
A very informative and entertaining video.
So, is it false that once litigation begins, it must be carried out to a resolution by a judge or jury????
Two eagle punches make this episode doubly good.
I live in Louisiana, so what is Napoleonic code & how are our laws different from all the other states in the US? You could probably just do an episode on that.
HLandry428 The difference is as SpitfireMLG pointed out. Louisiana was originally a French colony and as party of the Louisiana land purchase they were granted the right to continue the use of the "Civil law" state legal system. Note that they didn't actually use the Napoleonic code itself, which was established in 1804 which was the year the land purchase was finalised. The Civil law system has two distinctions of note when compared to a common law nation (Great Britain and its former colonies such New Zealand and India) and the Civil law based on the Justinian Code. First judges can not bind a future court on there interpretation of the law. This is why it is said they only have statute law as only that based by the legislative is actual law.
The second is the role of the judge in finding fact. The common law has something called the adversarial System, this is where the one side's legal representation fights in court over the "facts" and "law". The judge is neutral and only makes decisions based on what is shown by the opposing parties. In Civil law they have what is called the "inquisitorial system" where the Judge actually leads the investigation into the facts.
Note that this a comparison of the theoretical systems and in practice countries have been know to adapt both.
Hey these are actually interesting and useful videos!
What if a criminal steals your car and crashes it in a police chase. Do they get charged civilly so you can sue for repairs or do they just goto jail and you're left on your own with car damages? Is it double jeopardy to do both to them?
Hiphop101ize You can be charged with a crime AND sued in a civil suit for the same act! In your scenario, that criminal could be charged with theft, and you could also sue them for the tort of "conversion" or "trespass to chattels." Lots of torts are also crimes -- for example, assault and battery. It's a crime for me to break your shins with a crowbar, so the government can choose to charge me if I do. But you, as my victim, can also choose to sue me for battery. It's not considered double jeopardy because the concept of "double jeopardy" just refers to criminal law.
There are MANY differences between criminal and civil cases, and this video touched on some of them. But one big one is that the burden of proof usually different. In most criminal cases, the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." (I'm sure you've heard that phrase before.) That means that the jury needs to be very convinced of the defendant's guilt -- it's a tough standard because the stakes are so high in criminal cases. But in most civil cases, the burden is called a "preponderance of the evidence" standard. This is a lower standard! The fact-finder (judge or jury) only has to be, like, more than halfway convinced. Soooo that means that sometimes, when a person is criminally charged and civilly sued for the same act, there can be DIFFERENT OUTCOMES. This happened with O.J. Simpson! The jury in his criminal trial found him not guilty of murder. But he was also sued by the family of his alleged victim, and the jury in his civil suit ordered him to pay $25 million in damages to the family. These different results make perfect sense when you realize that the jury in the criminal case had to be VERY sure he did it to convict him, while the jury in the civil case only had to be PRETTY sure he did it to make him pay up.
So you might be wondering why more criminals aren't charged *and* sued like O.J. was. The reason is that most criminals aren't multi-millionaire ex-football stars. In fact, most criminals are not wealthy at all. That means that it doesn't make sense for their victims to take them to court, because it costs a lot of money to hire an attorney, and the victims won't be able to recover much (if any) money even if they win their case. (Lawyers call this the "judgment-proof defendant" problem.)
But don't worry. In criminal cases, if the defendant is convicted, the judge often orders the defendant to pay restitution to the victim. That's great because the victim doesn't have to spend their own money suing the defendant, and they can still recover some money. So in your stolen car scenario, you still might get some money back even if you chose not to sue in civil court. That is, if the person who stole your car has any money to pay you.
This guy is awesome!
I was wondering why Marbury v. Madison did not get a passing mention, then realized that it was already discussed in Crash Course US History.
“I love money” LoL
Love the reference
Isn't it David Banner? Who is Bruce?
Omg that Turtles All the Way Down hint!
The photo of Lepke made my day!
I thought you couldn’t appeal if it was legally binding
Showed this video to my Law class. The video was very informative. However, the presenter spoke way too fast.
Brilliant video.
Any chance we as viewers, could be provided with further reading tailored to the specific video. I feel this would help any viewer who is not currently studying the particular topic in college or university, thereby allowing us to gain a deeper understanding.
We don't need no stinkin' reasons to punch eagles!
This is helping me more than any book
Captain Possible I suggest you read a book.
Crass Frazier Are you half and stupid?
You guys are awesome. Thank You.
This is very good information.
3:33
This is why settlements are kept out of the courts and off record.
This is why so-called “justice” in our so-called “courts” has become infinitely illusive.
can yall make a video just defining legislators, senators, statutes, and all these terms?
Thanks to crash course, I won't be failing my test today 😂🙌🏽
Awesome, thanks.
6:17 🔨guilty!
Cant stop laughing
iris martinez I like the way he sounded
I love this guy.
I have a final in 15 minutes and this is all the studying I have done
Big brother is watching? 1984 reference?
Michael M probably
Yea it is
Michael M Are you double thinking?
Teen Hankgst
no... [SHIT the thought police are onto me, guess I just got to join the brotherhood]
Is there any chance the next video on the Legal System will talk about Magna Carta and be released on June 15, 2015? Anyone know the significance of that? *punches eagle*
This might be the first educational video I actually have to slow down the speed.
Here in Manitoba (province in Canada) if you sue someone and lose, you pay the defendants fees.
Thank you
Very interesting. Thanks :-)
do you think this video is helpful for a person who wants to study law in the U.S. ??? can you please give me some helpful sources of learning if you know any books , videos ...
how about the constitution
The thought bubble has the judge saying guilty when discussing a civil case. Bad thought bubble! Bad! Generally, we don't speak of civil cases in terms of guilt or innocence, but in terms of liability. It may seem a pedantic point, but lawyers get worked up about these kinds of things.
2:40 through 2:50 Judges pointed for life, without reduction in pay, to keep them independent from politics? They are not independent from politics.
DoggySpew The "federal" judges often represent the politics of those who appointed them. They do act independently & sometimes unexpectedly. Once on the bench, they're beholden to no one.
LAW SMASH!
NO! Cases about contracts or property are called contracts or property. Torts are torts; those other ones are really, really different.
Jacob Drum I think they meant that "also called torts" bit to refer to "personal injury" only, NOT to the whole phrase "contracts, property, and personal injury." But I agree that it could have been worded more clearly. Or Though Bubble could have punctuated it differently somehow.
Maybe. Also, many many federal crimes missed.
Actually, on reflection, you're right; I was wrong. But not about federal crimes.
Love thee videos!!
2:24 lol this is now a john green reference
Oh my god Turtles All The Way Down. 2:24 Wow that foreshadowing was BEAUTIFUL. Thanks for reminding me to pick up my copy.