The Bill of Rights: Every Amendment, Why it's important, and How it limits the government
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 вер 2024
- Student worksheet that accompanies this video: www.teacherspa...
More Bill of Rights activities here: www.teacherspa...
Check out my free resources for Civics here: www.teacherspa... Thank you to my teacher homies for supporting this channel through my TPT store!
This review video covers: The Bill of Rights, All 10 amendments with explanations, Why the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, Vocabulary for Due Process, Double Jeopardy, Eminent Domain (and more!), an Explanation of how individual rights limit the power of the government.
This video is designed for middle and high school level civics/government classes. I use these to teach, review for tests, or remediate after tests. Also used at the end of the year for EOC or final exam type state assessments. They can be done with guided instruction from the teacher or assigned individually (Works well with home connect or distance learning). Thanks for watching!
Please check out my channel for more civics/government content and be sure to check out my TpT site to get access to the keynote slides presentations and accompanying worksheets as well as my other lessons and materials. I appreciate all of your support!
Don't forget to subscribe for more civics based content!
Hi Civics Review! Thank you so much for the shout out----Very cool! I will definitely be sharing this video with my students. Done well---You make learning the Benchmarks for Civics fun and interesting and educational all at the same time. You ROCK!!!
Thanks for the great suggestion. I appreciate your support!
@@civicsreview5697 you show Lincoln with the founders
i didn't know he was there when the constitution was signed
@@robinsss Andrew Jackson is in that image too. It's actually an image of three presidents looking at a "Hamilton" advertisement, but I like the way they're examining the document. Good catch!
1:29 Amendments (The Bill of Rights) are not just 'changes' to the Constitution, they are 'additions' not included in the Constitution (which details the government structure, the Legislature, Judicial and Executive).
4:44 2nd Amendment - Involves Militia (an improvised army using armed civilians), "for security of the state" meaning national defense in 1791, when the US lacked a full-fledge army. The Militia Act of 1792 was revised and repealed in 1795 (read last line and look for "repealed"). It's not a popular interpretation with gun nuts, but it can be verified.
Defending the nation ("security of the state") is the job of the military. To fully enjoy the 2nd Amendment, you would need to join the National Guard or the Military to fulfill the "security of the state" text. The National Guard (part-time military), is the closest thing to a "Well Regulated Militia".
5:05 3rd Amendment - Is actually Property Rights. All you have to do is annotate it.
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house (property), without the consent of the Owner (property rights), nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
City ordinance/HOA contracts are actually unconstitutional and can not be enforced on private property. The appearance of the house is protected by the First Amendment (Freedom of Expression) and the Third Amendment (Property Rights).
- This is not a widely held view, but possibly very few judges and lawyers even knew about the 3rd Amendment - Property Rights.
Building Codes (are exceptions) - You can think of it as it's in everyone's interests.
5:13 The example listed is unlikely to occur, so technically it seems useless. But it's actually property rights and only useless if you don't know what it's actually about. It's come into focus as HOA and cities violate private property rights.
To bad all of you young idiots are just begging or allowing the government to strip us of are rights. You all better wake up or it will be you that inslave yourselves for the rest of your life!
One thing that I noticed. At least in one section you refer to the bill of rights as giving the people the right. Instead we should think of it as protecting an existing right. The government does not give rights, or only takes them away. That was the very reason for the bill of rights.
A great example of this is the 2nd amendment. It does not give the citizens the right to possess firearms, it denies the government any ability to take that right away from you.
@@salty_snowboarder this is exactly what people forget to realize this is not a document, stating what rights of people have. It’s a restriction on the Government.
The dumbest argument I’ve heard as of late…
The second amendment applies to the militia, which is the government. So why is it in the Bill of Rights that on multiple occasions clearly states the right of the people
You also need to remember, ANY gun law is an INFRINGEMENT ON OUR SECOND AMENDMENT!
Agreed
Precisely or to put it another way the government cannot take away your rights
It’s been decades since the Bill of Rights and the Constitution has been taught in schools for no other reason than an uninformed citizen is easy to control. A well educated free thinking citizen is a threat to society. Knowledge is Power.
Not a threat to society, a threat to those in power.
There was a time when the American people were well educated, understood how our government worked, and were responsible citizens. Those citizens could not be easily controlled by a government with authoritarian tendencies and were actually more likely to wipe it out. The solution is to make everyone stupid and gullible via the education system.
Knowledge is Power---so true, ,so true. Peace.
1976 7th grade social studies My teacher was a huge Guy retired NAVY officer Mr.Hanson ,he also made us do push-ups if he caught anyone running in his hallway , I did a few
It took the govt a long time and a lot of money getting the country this sick and stupid..... period!
You should take a high school government class. It is always taught and part of the curriculum.
As clear and straightforward as these are, it's sad how often today the government is getting away with violating them.
You can thank the corrupt Supreme Court for this
The Marxist lawyers outnumber Conservatives 99-1.
Arms means all arms, not just firearms. We're talking swords, mace, potato guns, Chinese throwing stars you name it. Now wheres my tank?? Haha
@TheJoshEoS the founders wanted the people to be as well armed as the military because they knew that power corrupts. They knee the government would eventually turn on the people so they wanted the people to be able to defend themselves when the time came.
The 4th has been carved into swiss cheese.
My 5th graders really enjoyed this video. And bonus....they actually understood and retained most of the information
Juries DO NOT determine innocent. Under the law you are presumed innocent. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty. The jury simply votes if the prosecution has met the burden of proof by voting guilty, or not guilty. They do not determine innocence.
I see you point - but it seems logically inconsistent. If the accused is presumed innocent - and a jury does not vote that they are guilty - then by default of the first position - the accused must still be presumed innocent as is was determined by the jury that the prosecution did not convince them otherwise. It seems a matter of semantics. Or perhaps a matter of perspective. The judiciary has no business assuming the accused is anything other than innocent in that case. I suppose individuals may evaluate it differently and objectively - maybe the accused is not innocent - but by the standards and perspective of the law - they are.
You don't have any actual experience in our so-called justice system, do you? Let's start with this: If you're presumed innocent, why do the courts demand you be referred to as "defendant" instead of the word the constitution uses, "accused"? "Defendant" infers guilt! WHAT DID YOU DO THAT YOU NOW HAVE TO DEFEND?!
@@rkba4923You're defending against the accusation.
@@ahayseed654 Then you're not presumed innocent.
@@ameador01
Some jurors or even judges can be partial towards the defendant or prosecutors .
The racist South was known for that when race was involved .. the whites had that power over non whites !
The Rittenhouse case is also an example of a partial jury and Judge !
It does not limit the government when the government chooses to not abide by the constitution.
The 4th Amendment is now so eroded it barely exists.
You are guilty these days until you're proven innocent the cops the FBI are totally unreal today you don't know which ones you can trust and which ones you can't there's a lot of good ones out there but the 10% a-holes are out to get you no matter what so they can get recognition for themselves I have a son that's in this same situation he was accused human trafficking what she did not do however because he was in a chat room he was picked up by the FBI and has been sitting in jail since October 17th of 2022 he's got a public defender because he is poor and so are we you know that they don't try as hard as an attorney that you're paying if there's someone out there that can help us out please reach out to me by Google or whatever and I will respond to you thank you and God bless
That's what the 2nd is for.
The 2nd ammendment isnt about guns. Its purpose is to mention that the government can not tell you what weapons you can posess or use in any way at all. That is why it uses the word arms rather than specifically saying rifle or musket.
Arms is anything that can be used in warfare; something the people can and should own.
Facts
2A does not refer to guns. It refers to weapons and tools of war.
Guns, knives, clubs, tanks, swords, etc. Not just guns.
@realstatistician arms was defined in the 1755 Johnson dictionary to mean "weapons of offense or armor of defense." Very similarly defined in the webster dictionary post 2A ratification and in legal dictionaries of the time.
And also says "a well regulated militia"
@jorgemarmolejolu6222 except that doesnt mean what you think it means. Would you like me to break it all down?
@@donttreadonme1423 its straightfoward
@jorgemarmolejolu6222 I have read a great deal on the topic. I'm sure you would agree that language is always evolving and one must take the phrasing in context of the time correct? So let's look at the amendment first on wording and with historical context. The full text is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state*, the right of the of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The asterisk is being used here to separate the prefatort clause from the operative clause. The prefatory clause was merely establishing A, as in one of, why. The founders didn't want there to be an all powerful standing military. Why? Bc they had just fought against one and knew the history of this defensive model. The Prussian model of an all poweful centrally controlled military was horrible for liberty of the individual. They wanted instead no single entity to have the power over the masses. Meaning the power had to be with the people. So what did the wording mean? From the recorded writings of the founders during the ratification process it was quite clear that what the militia meant was merely the people. They explicitly stated this many times. The phrase well regulated simply meant "in working order" or "well prepared. " a common phrase in use at the time both before and after. A well regulated clock or a well regulated person. Nothing at all to do with laws or regulations. In fact, perhaps another discussion is the intent of laws and their origin. What we have today is not the original intent. Alas the prefatory clause does not say that there is a collective right nor does it imply limitations at all. Both of which would be at odds with the clear wording of the operative clause. The right is clearly of the people. The word arms was defined in the 1755 Johnson dictionary to mean "weapons of offense or armor for defense" and similarly defined in the webster dictionary post 2A ratification to include "for defense of the body" after the armor portion. The phrase shall not be infringed is also quite clear where infringe meant even a small encroachment. There is not a single recorded bit of history to suggest that the founders intended arms ownership to be a collective right during the time of ratification. Not a single bit of evidence to support that claim. It also wouldn't make sense given the context of the history. Nor would it make sense to interpret the ammendment such that the prefatory and operative clauses were at such odds with each other.
THANK YOU for actually explaining the real meaning behind the 2A (the most important).
And by the way, these rights ARE UNLIMITED. “Shall not be infringed” literally means “cannot be limited”
And....... yet they are.
This administration is trying their best to take away freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.
Unless they Profile you a Prohibited Possessor, such as an ex convicted felon, a combat veteran, mentally ill person or SMI... Then your Equal Rights and Protection all go out the window.. ..
@@artfimbres576 exactly, which is unconstitutional
It is actually the right of the individual to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS of our own on our own property and elsewhere, not just to BEAR arms. Some argue that we have a right to BEAR arms only as a member of the militia, which might have the arms locked up in an armory.. That is not the meaning.
There are a lot of police officers that need to watch this, and understand it.
As an ex-cop I think you should talk to the toads about breaking the law and not being civilized.
@@groomngirl Y do some ppl get to make laws that the government employees don't follow or have immunity
Liberals as well.
lots of lawyers and judges do too
There are many politicians in the GOP who need to listen and understand as well.
It's clear we've lost the Fourth Amendment; Law enforcement routinely search homes without warrants, and have no consequences for doing so.
Please give me an example. Generally a warrantless search is by either exigent circumstance, or by consent
There are examples all over the internet including here on UA-cam.
@Billstoutsellscars "cop came in without a warrant and ricky Bobby was ready" search that on yt
@@Billstoutsellscars posted yesterday
Depends what judge you ask lol
In the name of the law take down all pride flags on government land on government flag poles to stop their overthrow of government atempt . 🇺🇸
You should delve into the US Code.
As a gun owner that is seeing the constant assault on the Second Amendment by Democrat run cities and states, I refer to Title 18 Section 242. That specifically speaks about anyone who deprives anyone of their rights under color of law, as violating these statutes. Punishment can be as severe as death. We all know that many of the Democrat run states violate this code by infringing on the Second Amendment. The problem is WHO can enforce the US Code, when we've seen New York and New Jersey do everything they can to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling on Bruen.
Title 18 Section 201 prohibits bribing a public official (Congress, President, Cabinet, Military etc)...SO why does Congress leadership get away with bribing their counterparts to get votes on certain legislation...It is ILLEGAL but it occurs with great regularity.
Why couldn't they be sued for a constant attack and violation against our civil rights?
This was excellent! My 5th graders will love it. Thank you for being funny, yet appropriate, and for putting this tough stuff on a 10 year olds level!
3:07 The press does not refer to media. "The press" refers to an actual printing press. The printing press was the newest technology of the time and the founders were guaranteeing the people the right to own a press and discriminate the written word. Nowhere in history before the mid 1800's was media, news papers, or journalists ever referred to as press. The first time press was used in writing was in some british dude personal letter to some other guy. From the late 1400" until mid 1800" the press was used in writings was always in reference to a printing press or a press for pressing food for wine.
The lack of knowledge in this world even after the entire history is placed into our hands with palm sized internet devices is astounding to me. You people are all so easily brainwashed into believing completely ignorant things it no surprise you all can not even define a woman.
What Does the Word “Arms” Mean in the 2nd Amendment?
By: TJ Martinell|Published on: Jun 30, 2016|Categories: 2nd Amendment, Constitution 101
Previously I’ve examined what the phrase “bear arms” meant in the Second Amendment. The evidence makes it obviously clear it referenced both military and civilian use of weapons.
But what did the word “arms” mean at the time?
Today the word “arms” refers collectively to offensive or defensive weapons. The word’s meaning has changed little since it was first used seven hundred years ago. It’s definition has never restricted civilian use of military weapons, including when the Second Amendment was approved.
“Arms” comes from Middle English and originated from the Old French word “armes,” which meant “weapons of a warrior.” This word dates back to 1300. “Arms” also originates from the Latin word for “weapons,”arma.” This word was also first used in the 14th Century.
(On a side-note, the word “firearms” popped up around 1640 to describe weapons that used gunpowder compared to other arms like bows and arrows)
It’s clear the meaning allowed for a very broad definition of what constituted “arms.” The Bill of Rights of 1689 states that the “subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”
The last part of the sentence is very telling. It’s a conditional phrase meant to limit the type of “arms’ allowed by Protestant subjects. The limitation imposed meant that the word “arms” had a definition permitting a very wide range of weapons including those the document’s authors decided could be restricted by law.
From this we can conclude that the word “arms” referred to weapons found among contemporary military arsenals.
In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”
Again, the meaning does not exude military weapons.
Since the word “arms” means the same thing today as it did centuries ago it’s only logical the authors of the Second Amendment meant the same thing. And unlike the English Bill of Rights, there are no limitations placed on the right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution.
Not that it would matter, since it is a natural right not a privilege granted to us by the government. But it removes this one final argument a gun control advocate might make to justify restrictions.
But most importantly, the same people who advocated for the Second Amendment preferred an armed populace over a standing army.
During the Virginia Ratifying Convention anti-federalist George Mason said the following (bold emphasis added):
No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,-yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,-what chance is there for preserving freedom?
If you don’t believe your country should have a standing army, it would make sense to advocate a populace have military weapons capable of warding off invasion or mobilizing for war rather than disarming the people and hoping the army doesn’t become a threat to freedom.
It’s also why Mason referred to “militia” as the ‘whole of the people, except for a few public officials.”
We do not need to explain why we should be allowed to keep weapons used by the military. Those who believe we should have a permanent military with exclusive access to certain types of firearms need to explain how such an arrangement will ensure liberty in contradiction of both common sense and the warnings of founders like Mason.
It’s common to hear gun control advocates argue that the founders wouldn’t have included modern firearms under their definition of “arms.” At best this is amusing speculation at best and at worst an argument made in bad faith. It could also be used to justify Internet censorship under the claim the founders were only referring to an 18th Century printing press in the First Amendment.
It’s obvious to the intellectually honest that in using the word “arms” the Second Amendment’s writers acknowledged the right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear the same weapons used by soldiers in the military. Our rights are not and should not be be based on the technology at the time those rights were acknowledged.
Those few public officials have morphed into several MILLION.
Cops are not ordinary citizens either.
Excellent explanation.
Arms are not firearms and US citizens have no rights.
One of the things you feel to touch on the fifth amendment domain is they cannot take your property for non-public use which means if they're going to build a new school in your properties there yes they can take it if they're going to build a highway yes they can take it however they cannot take your land and then sell it to McDonald's or Burger King or a gas station or a manufacturing plant or any other thing it has to be public use this cost the state of Connecticut over 150 million a few years back because the landowner sued they were going to build a highway going through his land when that highway project fell through because they had to move it 20 miles away due to some swamp lands that they would have ran into they took the turnaround and sold that land to developers who put McDonald's Burger King Wendy's and a couple of other stores and restaurants and a few gas stations there the man turn around and sued them and won.
Also the punishment has to be cruel and unusual so if public shaming is the way the judge sentences people a lot then it's not cruel and unusual it is just cruel there was a judge not too long ago who was taking people that were getting convicted of speeding in a construction zone and he made them stand along the highway with signs that said please go slow construction workers ahead and they were giving 5 to 10 days of doing that out there it became unusual but it wasn't cruel it actually started to become unusual because more judges started to get on that bandwagon was it cruel and unusual no you can have something unusual like I'm going to make you repaint the building that you graffitied is it cruel and unusual no it's just unusual however you cannot give somebody a cruel punishment such as we're going to draw on quarter you because that would cause physical harm putting somebody in The stockade was used all the way up into the 1940s in the United States it was declared common not cruel or unusual public shaming has a way of fixing a lot of bad behavior up until the 1970s parents could sit on the front porch of their house and spank their children for petty things it's cruel because yeah you're embarrassing the heck out of them but it wasn't unusual up until the 1980s almost 85 I think the principal and teachers of a school could spank a child neither falls under the cruel or unusual and they could do it at an assembly in front of the whole student body
You mentioned a “fair & speedy trial”. All I could think about was the J6 political prisoners…
And when it says a “right to a fair & impartial jury”. They should find a way to make sure cases involving politics have equally different voting parties. So in NY, DC & Cali all republicans wouldn’t be guaranteed to be guilty regardless of the
Lack of evidence.
The first part of your statement I agree with but will you please quit trying to cause division with this Left Right Republican Democrat crap!
@@janetbaker7848 would be easier if the LEFT quit saying everyone that doesn't agree with them is a fascist, nazi, terrorist etc, etc, etc.
@@janetbaker7848 Someone needs a hugggggggggggg...
AGREED!
🤗
On the forth not only search and seizure but the government is limited to search only where the warrent alows and only for what is in the warrant. Can't just have a open warrant.
Amazing I was a lefty until I read and understand the constitution. Who’s like me???
Miranda Rights are not part of the Fifth amendment but are also called the Miranda warning and they stem from a 1966 Supreme Court case: Miranda v. Arizona.
In the original case, the defendant, Ernesto Miranda, was a 24-year-old high school drop-out with a police record when he was accused in 1963 of kidnapping, raping and robbing an 18-year-old woman. During a two-hour interrogation, Miranda confessed to the crimes.
Lawyers would contend that Miranda had not been clearly informed of his rights to have a lawyer and against self-incrimination. Their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court forever changed U.S. criminal procedure.
This is a great distinction to make! The original amendment pertains to Due Process and the rights of the accused but does not include 'Miranda Rights'. The basis of the Miranda v. Arizona case did use the 5th amendment to claim Ernesto's rights were violated during the police questioning.
Thanks for pointing that out!
Thank you for the basic education on the Bill of Rights.
God Bless and Much Love to all of our American Patriots World Wide who defend our American Rights and liberties every single day in every court in the land . Thank you . We appreciate the work and the sacrifices you make for the average person!
They make the government more powerful.
@@Bill-cb4bh Might be talking about Defence Attorneys, "every court in the land". Not all Patriots wear a uniform.
No patriot has a costume on only actors or employees of the corporation.
Not just “FIRE” arms…
*_ANY_* ARMS.
**UP TO AND INCLUDING AR-15s**
also included:
Sticks -ANY SIZE
Stones -ANY SIZE
Bricks
Shards of glass
Knives, Swords, cutlasses, sabers, spears, bows and arrows… etc…
ANY AND ALL FIREARMS INCLUDING MACHINE GUNS.
And any sort of future laser weapons or any such weapon that has yet to be developed that currently only exists in concept or video game. Period.
Don't forget the opening phrase of the 2nd Amendment.
@@dmnemaine are you speaking of a group made up of every able bodied citizen over the age of 17 to the age of 45 that are not currently serving in state or federal military?? That part, that includes all of us? Maybe it's that part
@@codyharney2997 No. A militia is a state run and regulated organization. Hence the words "well-regulated" in the 2nd Amendment.
This is why we need to look at the original meaning of the wording when the second ammendment was written. Well regulated did not mean controlled by the government, it meant well a well operating or functioning militia. Not that it matters as this clause is explanatory in nature. It does not give the states a right to raise a militia. If the founders intended that they would have said so. It protects the people's right to keep and bear arms. The wording itself is clear on that point. If you read the other writings by the framers of the constitution, it is quite clear that they were protecting an individuals right.
@@dmnemaine incorrect. A well regulated militia in the language back then meant well equipped and well functioning... Not the same regulation you're referring to today. It's funny how communists and Marxists' first goal in conquering a country is to control its language isn't it? Funny how that works. If you knew basic English language composition you would understand the militia is made up of the people and for that to be possible they need to have arms. Hence "shall not be infringed". That clause alone refers to regulation in your meaning and how it is unconstitutional to do so. Please read more and get educated, not just indoctrinate with propaganda. However it's understandable why a government that can be overthrown by its citizens would want to remove our RIGHT to keep and bear arms. All you need to do is look at the first two paragraphs of the declaration of independence to see this. It is our duty to throw off such government and secure new guards for our future. How would this be possible if not for the right to keep and bare arms? It wouldn't be now would it? Again try using context and history to form your conclusions, not state run propaganda aimed at securing their place forever in power.
The best way the 9th was explained to me is it's the legal clause "Side effects include, but are not limited to, ..." but for rights.
"This is not by any means an exhaustive list of all of our rights."
I think a good fact to add is that our rights listed and explained within the Bill of Rights were not given to us. They are preexisting as an American citizen. I think all law enforcement officers should be required to pass an extensive test on the Bill of Rights. Based on the hundreds of videos I watch I would say 50% of them could not pass a test on the first 4.
Correct
06:45 Great video! The only thing I'd adjust is: A court does not find innocence. They only declare the absence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A not guilty verdict does not mean innocent. It's nitpicky, but I've been educated for saying the same thing and figured I'd help pass on that line of thought. Cheers!
Good video the only thing I believe you missed was on the 10th amendment it says, or to the people which means the people have the right to disagree over whatever the state say. They hate when you know this everyone will try to tell you you’re wrong any amendment you try to invoke you will get bullied and be told a lie saying you actually don’t have that right
Are you the original, or just useing the name 🤨🌎🇺🇸⚖️🦅😉😎✊, Ayuh
The very first Right is found in the Declaration of Independence . The Right of the people to alter or abolish their government.
It's about time Americans abolished government COMPLETELY.
@@calysagora3615 I disagree. Its bad enough having a corrupt government that takes bribes from corporations. If their was zero government then on day one employees would be kidnapped and held in direct slavery.
Dude this is an awesome presentation!! One thing I think that should be noted is that the "well-regulated" part of the 2A didn't mean then what the Supreme Court reinterpreted it as. George Washington saw that many of the farmers were untrained and unskilled in the use of firearms when fighting the British, so he wanted it to be mandatory for people who choose to use a firearm to learn *how* to use a firearm - thus "well-regulated". It didn't imply that the government could choose who can and can't own a gun - that was a modern (possibly intentional?) misinterpretation.
As for Eminent Domain, that's where the federalists went wrong. They gave the government way too much power, and introduced a contradiction to the right to own property.
I've had a couple of comments on eminent domain and it's misuse. It does seem like an overreach on the governments part. Thanks for the comment!
I also think this is a great introduction to the Bill of Rights. On the 2nd Amendment, though, it's only been in the last 15 years that the Supreme Court discovered a personal right to own a gun unconnected with militia service. That would be in the Heller and McDonald cases, and they overruled more than a century of precedent. Before that, for example, Chief Justice Burger had called the idea of a personal right a "fraud" invented by the gun lobby.
On the comment rather than the video, well-regulated in the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean well-trained. Training is dealt with separately in the Constitution, and the word regulate (or cognates) is used many times and never to mean train. (And under Heller and McDonald, well-regulated basically means nothing at all.)
Training is dealt with in the powers of Congress set out in Art. I, Sec. 8: “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of *training* the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
As for cognates of the word “regulate,” they always mean the same thing: to govern by rules (“reg” being Latin for “rule”). Examples:
Art. I, Sec. 4:
“The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such *regulations*, except as to the places of choosing Senators.”
Art. I, Sec. 8:
“To *regulate* commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
***
To coin money, *regulate* the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;”
***
To make rules for the government and *regulation* of the land and naval forces;”
Art. I, Sec. 9:
“No preference shall be given by any *regulation* of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another:”
Art. III, Sec. 2:
“In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such *regulations* as the Congress shall make.”
Art. IV, Sec. 3:
“The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and *regulations* respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States;”
@@Patrick-qed you can't form a militia without THE PEOPLE. Hence "the right of the people to keep and bare arms, shall NOT be infringed". What is it you tyrants don't understand? English? Or the fact in the declaration of independence they specifically say it's our duty, THE PEOPLE, throw off such government and secure new guards for our future. All which would not be possible without.... Drum roll... ARMS. As a Marine vet it disturbs me that people like you exist to further government propaganda and lies. One day, and it will eventually come, we will need those arms to remake the government. Who knows, maybe even you'll understand at that point. It usually takes people a seriously scary event to wake up to what human beings are capable of. I hope you wake up sooner rather than later.
So if these were the Bills of Rights why did the 16th amendment pass that violates these rights and also violates the 13th amendment. Then the supreme court has multiple times upheld the right of the government lay tax on income which is a seizure of property even though we have not been duly convicted of a crime and violate due process as with the IRS you are guilty until proven innocent. I just do not understand how they can right Congress has the power to lay tax on income and ratify it without respect for the Bill of Rights that the language of the 16th amendment violates and additionally makes every single person in the United States a involuntary servant of the federal and state governments in violation of the 13th? The 13th also specifically mentions any jurisdiction where the US government operates therefore making state income taxes illegal. Taxing income is taxing labor per the federalist papers and was considered a form of slavery which is why the 13th amendment that ended slavery specifically mentions involuntary servitude along with making slavery illegal. It is clear that the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights for a reason and the tyrants in the last 120 years have ignored them and have paid off legislatures and courts to keep that power they have taking illegally.
indeed. The 16th just makes the con-stitution a con and an implicit universal slave contract. The articles of the federation were MUCH better. The founding fathers were vehemently against the con-stitution, and they were very right.
Channel deserves much more subscribers... Still long way to go.. Keep it up Bro!
Well done! Thanks for going through the entire Bill of Rights
Our National emergency is the people can’t read! But this helps.
As a public school teacher, I can confirm this is a national emergency
Your videos have helped my class so much! Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the comments! It means a lot!
You overlooked some very obvious facts. The first is that only 39 of the 55 delegates to the constitutional convention were willing to sign the finished document. The second is that the Bill of Rights was presented to Congress with a preamble, which stated EXACTLY its purpose.
There is no such thing as "Miranda Rights." Miranda was a case where the Supreme court decided that a person being accused of a crime, must be advised of his rights prior to questioning by law enforcement.
yea, named after a rapist that the government set free... what a joke
It would be interesting for you to review all the rights that the Jan 6 defendants are being denied
They are political prisoners being held to make an example of those who dare question democrats and their fraudulent elections.
💯 %!!!
I hope they rot in jail, inbreeds! Trump’s going to prison 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The way you explained Grand Jury is probably the reason people so often get confused with jury, grand jury, federal jury, and federal grand jury. Grand jury indites- jury convicts... I don't get why people are still not clearly explaining this... and by clearly I mean just quoting what is written and explaining it in a way that basically is not really the nature of a grand jury and is going to convolute things... may be what they meant in the constitution... but it confse people.
For a criminal case, we have a jury of equals (12 )to the accused. For a civil case we have a judge alone,but a jury can be required in a civil case. In both cases, there are 12 jurors to vote guilty or not guilty. The judge's vote is number 13.
The grand jury is a special jury of 23 jurors. They hear evidence presented by the prosecutor alone to determine if there was a crime. If there was a crime, then the accused goes to trial.
Same thing happens at a federal level. Of course,of the little bit I know about the legal system, that is about it,and there are exceptions and special circumstances.
Anyone can bring evidence to a grand jury when they are in session, not just the prosecutor.
Since you mentioned that education was not mentioned in the Constitution, why are some of my taxes going to fund the federal Department of Education? And a bunch of other stuff?
it shouldn't it is unconstitutional we need to fix it
Clear and concise.
Since you asked, how about the Federalist Papers?
How about the anti-federalist papers you mean? The founding fathers were vehemently AGAINST the con-stitution and having a federal government. Anmd they were RIGTHT. The constitution is evil garbage that created a parasitical ruling class with a monopoly on theft and violence. It is an implicit universal slave contract.
Top Secret: WTP have the power to nullify. You'll never hear it from the bench, and probably better off not discussing it while you're involved with jury duty etc.
But every American needs to have some idea of it. 🦅
I am so very glad you included that Dave Chappelle skit on the 5th Amendment because that was exactly what I was thinking of what to come after the 4th Amendment.....
Overall good breakdown. I would add one thing to the 2A that “arms” is to mean any weapon of offense or armor of defense (although people generally only think of it when it comes to guns).
THE CITIZENS THAT STAND UP FOR THEIR RIGHTS NO GOVERNMENT OR COURT WILL NEVER LET OUR RIGHTS BE TAKEN AWAY BY ANY ONE ; EVEN IF IT COME TO BATTLE TO KEEP OUR RIGHTS ! TO MANY DIED TO KEEP OUR RIGHTS OF SELF DEFENSE AND PRIVITE PROPERTY RIGHTS!...
Needed this refresh of my Rights History is Coool!!! Thanks for the Video🙏🏽🙏🏽
As important as the Amendments is not misusing them to wage lawfare against political opposition. 9-0, baby! Sorry, Colorado, Illinois, Maine.
Huh??
wonderful, brief, comprehensive and delivered beautifully
Unfortunately, our rights are basically meaningless now. Some places in the US have outlaws guns (Chicago for example if memory serves), 3a voilated during covid, 1st 2nd and 4th regularly violated by cops, etc. all without the gov employees responsible being held criminally liable. Which means the bill of rights has been mitigated to the bill of legal defenses.
The government is a corporation that has no rights.
The problem with the 5th is the fact that when the Government get the case wrong and gets a hung jury they will take you back to court until they get all their T"s crossed and I's dotted
How about a video about Constitutional Convention?
We need to have one.
We cannot trust the current regime or crop of politicians with then opening of our constitution. Way too much corruption and propaganda to low that to happen.
Unfortunately, the Constitutional Convention was illegal since it was to Amend the Articles of Confederation not create a new form of Government.
Thank you for making this video
The Bill of Rights is something I know I need to know but have not taken the time to do so
Used this for Section 2.4 with my students. We all absolutely loved it. Excellent job as always! Keep up the great work!!!
This comment made my day! Thanks for the awesome comment! =)
He got it wrong! OMFG!
Before I became a citizen (Canadian) I couldn’t wait to say “I know my rights” glad to say I finally did
The 2nd amendment right to bear arms goes WAY beyond just fire arms. Not only does it include anything that could be considered a weapon or a method of protection against a weapon, like bullet proof vests, helmets, knives, bows, cannons, etc. It aslo includes any aspect of a fire arm which a person may desire to augment or accessories their fire arms. This would include sites, scopes, magazines or clips, grips, etc., and yes obviously ammunition. While some goverment agencies have attempted to restrict access to certain accessories and even ammunition claiming that they are not protected under the term "arms", historically these continue to be overturned by higher courts on a regular basis. New York state recently passed an obviously illegal law restricting a person to purchasing no more than 120 rounds of riffle ammo every 6 months. Obviously this is an "infringement" of the right of the people in New York to "bear" or own arms in the form of ammunition. I'm sure they think that if people can't buy more ammunition then less people will die. The sad reality is that while this law will no doubt be quickly squashed by higher courts the entire basis of the law is beyond ridiculous. First 120 rounds can still kill more people than any mass shooting in US history. So no rational person would even pretend to imagine that this law will somehow reduce deaths in shootings. On the other hand it will seriously impact the ability of law abiding citizens from practicing with their fire arms so that they are safe operators when outside of the shooting range. It would be the automobile equivalent of restricting student drivers to no more than 30 minutes of driving practice every 6 months, then expecting them to pass a driving test. The main difference being that driving is not a constitutional right but bearing arms is.
Furthermore, the 2nd amendment does not say we have a right to "own fire arms". It says "bear" or "own arms". That's arms of any kind. Historically this amendment was put in place specifically to allow the population to own equivalent or even greater combined arms than the military charged with their protection. They had just fought a long and blood war against a dictatorship which used its military to subjugate the population and were all to well aware of the risk of another tyrant possibly turning our own military against the population in the future. The right to bear arms had NOTHING to do with hunting rights. Considering that according to multiple credible reports a US president on his way out just a few years ago seriously considered attempting to stay in power via a military coup under the guise of martial law, I would say that this amendment has certainly proven its worth. Literally ALL of his military advisors told him that it would be impossible that the people wouldn't stand for it. Does anyone think that military advisors and generals were afraid of peaceful protests? No, they understand that the citizens of this country are so well armed that they could never hope to subjugate them in mass. People love to talk about the 700 or so that die in "mass shootings" every year but they like to ignore the MILLIONS that would die in a civil war if another president tried to take over our country like that.
Juries don’t find you innocent; they find you not guilty or guilty. Not guilty doesn’t mean innocent; it means the government didn’t prove your guilt. If new information is found that proves your guilt; you can be tried again.
Always support 2nd!
As soon as you don’t have it, guarantee you’ll wish you did.
The 2nd protects all the other amendments. The 2nd wouldn't be such a hot topic today if the OPPOSITE of "cruel and unusual punishment" didn't happen so much.
You have the rights to pay bills. (Simplified)
Such a great video. Thanks man.
Thank you for being so concise, yet thorough enough to explain our God given rights and how they are limited by the states & federal gov.
EXCELLENT video!
Excellent video, Thanks for the refresher course.
The 2nd Amendment also contains the phrase, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...". The 10th Amendment also contains the phrase, "... or to the people". Just thought those were worth a mention, since you glossed over them. Also, the argument isn't whether or not there is a right to bear arms, the argument is whether or not that right should be subject to regulation.
Good points! Thanks for mentioning. Cramming everything into a video is tough before students lose their attention spans. Both points you mentioned I blabbed for a long time about and ended up cutting to reduce the run time. There's so much to these amendments to discuss and only so little my students need to know for their state test.
"Well regulated" has no relationship to laws restricting, or banning of what arms are available to the people. The phrase "well regulated" was understood, at the time of ratification, to mean, roughly,, suitably equipped, and in good order. Also, the militia, at the time of ratification, is understood to be comprised of all citizens capable of bearing arms. Irrespective of military service, or active participation in the militia.
While government has the authority to hold individuals accountable for the criminal, or criminaly negligent abuse of this right; the government has literally no authority whatsoever, to regulate what arms the people can aquire, posses, and carry.
@@jimhoman6752 That's certainly the current gun lobby interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately, it's incorrect, and was never interpreted that way by the courts until fairly recently.
@@dmnemaine Several states are going to have the opportunity in the near future to prove why their laws pass constitutional muster. Fortunately, their arguments will fail because of the Supreme Court's originalist (and correct) interpretations in 4 critical cases: Heller v District of Columbia (2008), McDonald v Chicago (2010), Caetano v Massachusetts (2016), and NYSRPA v Bruen (2022). The West Virginia v EPA is going to wind up slapping the ATF around a bit, as well. Sorry to rain on your optimism. It may be that the anti-2nd amendment crowd's only recourse is to attempt to, well, repeal the 2nd amendment. Good luck with that.
@@GT3186 Again, this is not about being "anti-2nd amendment". This is about regulation, not prohibition. All rights must be tempered with common sense laws and regulations, otherwise there is anarchy. The original intention of the 2nd Amendment was not a free-for-all own a firearm without regulation, and that was never how the Amendment was interpreted, not even from Day One. That is a fairly new interpretation of the 2nd Amendment promoted by the gun lobby, as evidenced by the dates of the court cases you cited. Firearms are dangerous objects, and dangerous objects require regulation.
In 1982 you could not graduate from high school without passing US government class. It was very thorough. I hope it’s still is.
Great video, wish it existed when learned about civics and government - geek moment; impartial jury of your "peers" who have the same knowledge, training , etc. to assess reasonableness of the defendents actions and behavior... good luck finding those during jury de-selection process used to remove the knowledge experience requisit and impartial mindset in jury pool cattle call.
Hard to find jurors that have all those items.
Especially the knowledge part lol
Most jurors are dumber than a box of rocks.
Something I've always been curious about this one(6th), the right to see your accuser.
When someone phones in an "annonimous tip" to "crime stoppers", how does the 6th ammendment play into that? into that?
2:41 How about using PAPRS?
We the people..we have more power then government..if not they are fired n we will find someone new to do the job 💯
True that but when we try tell people you have freedom to say what you feel it is like so.
That’s what elections are for
Obviously that is not correct. Look at how Government is being Abused to go after anyone they disagree with for any reason.
@@PastaMakerCordy-qy4uz There are four boxes from which we can fight. The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and finally the cartridge box. What the OP is talking about is if the first 3 boxes fail and the people are still not being represented. The final box is a last resort.
Then, why does this damn democratic government get away with so much shit that neither are any of us could get away with Hunter Biden one good example
I think you should do one on the real jurisdiction of the United States Government and the reality of the superiority clause and the real meaning of the commerce clause.
Great video. Short and interesting. Kept their attention.
The 4th Amendment also pertains the seizure of your person. Meaning you cannot be detained without Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of committing a crime. The 6th Amendment also pertains to your right to have an attorney present during any questioning by law enforcement.
Why is it considered trust passing when you're unlawfully in someone's private property but not if you're an undocumented citizen breaking into somebody's? Country then you get free room and board anywhere and everywhere in the Royal red carpet laid out for you.
I assume you mean 'Trespassing'.
@@mickturner957 yeah that's it trespassing trespassing into the country
@@mickturner957 I guess on the flip side and their defense if they have shirts that said Biden lettuce in it then they were invited therefore they are not trespassing
Learning about the bill of rights (US civics in general) is hard, because every teacher or instructor has personal political bias and tells you stuff in their own way that might be wrong.
Yes. I experienced this in Jr college in the 70's. I was in my mid 20's, so I was more grounded than the rest who were 18 and 19. Political Science instructor was definitely a leftist. Barely got through that class. I was a democrat back then (Mom & Dad were, soo,) but I knew something was up. I challenged him and he didn't like it.
correct them
Love your video, I’m studying ahead for the police academy. Taking notes 💪🏾💪🏾👩🏽✈️
If you get accepted, don't follow their teachings and what other officers do cuz you'll be Violating Americans Rights.
The cops don't recognize the Bill of Rights. They don't like cops who do, either.
One thing I would like to add here. The Bill of Rights doesn’t give rights to Americans, it restricts governments from passing laws. Our founders believed that we are endowed by our Creator (big C) as described in the Declaration of Independence.
The bill of rights before democrats.
The Bill of Rights after Republicans
How, exactly?
Patriot Act, machine gun ban, bumpstock ban... nah, Republicans are just as bad.
This has not stopped the government from legislating against the Bill of Rights. All of these Rights have been legislated against both at the State and Federal level.
How funny! In 1795, after lawsuits were holding public officials who ignored the revolution and continued to abuse power, they created a constitutional right so that the BILL of RIGHTS would not punish them for using the power to punish enemies or steal property from private citizens. In fact, the Pennsylvania Bankruptcy act would actually require debtors who could not pay back victims to slice their ear free from a nail attaching their ear to a post [the early version of a bad FICO score].
This constitutional amendment was the first amendment congress created, and it had nothing to do with preventing abuse of power and preventing government from committing human right violations. What it did was to grant "sovereign immunity" to all public officials even police.
So from that day on, the Bill of Rights were ended, yet nobody told the "We the the People" about this event.
What do you call a nation of people who celebrate a bill of rights where if the government violates them the criminals caught in government are given immunity? The King of England had no such power. Invisible Irony! This is the most diabolically brilliant democracy scam the human race his ever witnessed, although, to be fair, the witnesses have all died and people who refuse to research this believe they have rights. Total Irony!!!!
I'm a victim of the Caldor fire. They kicked everyone that lost their hotel or temporary homes at freeway park and rides or were evacuated out of shelters to make room for firefighters. So your horse manure missive about the bill of rights just keeps perpetuating human right violations when there really are not rights in USA. In fact, the 5th amendments taking clause is also a joke. I mill timber and own timber that was in perfect condition for lumber. They stole 189 trees valued at 1 thousand to 4 thousand dollars per tree. They didn't give me a penny, and threatened to steal my property through abatement if I objected.
I listened to this horse manure for decades and believed in our justice system. But it is all lies and the deck is stacked in their favor in the game of life. People like this guy spread this bs and people think they have rights. It's bs we have no rights without 10s of thousands of dollars for attorney's and there is no guarantee because there is no rule of law. Judges do not get in trouble for ignoring laws that protect you. Abuse of power under the color of law was abolished for judges, see Stump v. Sparkman US, judges have "discretion" to ignore laws, and there are no rule of laws!
Sorry to hear about that (both the fire and the loss of property). And thanks for sharing. Students learning about the Bill of Rights need to hear both how it is intended to be used and how rights violations still occur in the US on a daily basis. I'm sure a class action suit will be filed if you and others were taken advantage of. Hopefully, you'll be given what you're owed.
@@civicsreview5697 they have 11th. Amendment immunity. The odds are in their favor.
If you are referring to the 11th amendment, it only prohibits FEDERAL courts from hearing cases in which a state is sued by a person who lives in another state or country. If you are a California resident, you have the right to sue. I just looked up a couple of law firms online giving free consultations to determine whether or not you qualify for compensation (one which requires no fees unless you are compensated). What have you go to lose? 10 minute phone call. Fight for your rights!
I cannot confirm when the deadline to file a claim is but it is not indefinite. File asap! Best of luck.
@@civicsreview5697 your wrong, read Hans v Louisiana. The 11th amendment grants immunity to state an federal and local. Qualified immunity is for local. It was worded for foreign jurisdiction after Chisholm v Georgia but modified after Hans. The only way any official is sued or prosecuted requires the consent by the state to be sued or prosecuted. Alden v Maine US 199 asserted all officials are "sovereign" and not held under law to Article VI of the constitution.
Imagine what on earth would necessitate the need for this amendment? Compare it to 13th or 19th. What travesty existed to warrant such an amendment? If the state actor destroyed your life, you don't question why they are not deterred with punishment? A suit deters corruption and restores damage done to a plaintiff.
Your response is typical without any actual knowledge of the amendments history. This amendment has created a sociopathic government, yet it is never researched or discussed in academia.
You could sue the King in England in 1776. But you can't sue officials in USA? What was the purpose of the revolution?
@@homesculptor you're not wrong... It's sad to be honest. Pathetic people with zero honor or morals. All governments have one goal... To control its citizens completely. The country died after the civil war. It was no longer a republic, but became an empire, and the citizens its slaves.
The Bill of Rights are the most important. Also the Founders put them in order of importance !!!!!
Great Video!! 🙏🏾
🤔 EXCEPTION of these rights as they do not apply in Family Courts!!
For what reason do these RIGHTS Not apply in Family Courts across the Nation?
There would be great value & appreciation if you could do a video for the (Equity)Family Courts!! The majority of men & women collectively have an Ingrained belief or undisclosed confidence that they will be given ALL of the same in regarding course however, the truth is; Family Courts "do not" adjudicate law the same at all!
Surprisingly, the facts remain undisvlosed.. Over 1/2 of the population Exploited.
The divorce Rate in the US is 45.1%! Now this doesn't take into consideration all couples that have never been married yet they have offspring, so this would drastically increase the total number of men & women that may find themselves on a family court stage.
The violations to the said rights hetein, ARE STAGGERING!
Great point! The majority of the rights in the Bill of Rights that have to do with courts are only for those accused of crimes. Rights in a civil trial are much different.
In addition, family law is run by the state governments and not the Federal court system. I have made a video about the dual court system (federal and state) but I have not made one about Family Courts specifically. Great suggestion!
@@civicsreview5697 You should do one on the constitutional validity (legality?) of the FISA court.
@@civicsreview5697 Family court - Submit a Writ of Quo Warranto.
FAMILY COURT IS NOT A LEGAL COURT SYSTEM, it was made up by attorneys for attorneys $$$$ , and hides itself behind the power of the county court system, it operates by chargeing the state trillions of tax dollars, while extorting millions of $$$ from the unfortunate familys that fall into its system, the children are the ones who suffer worst from this malice of justice , if a family court judge ( attorney appointed a judgeship by his peers,) with no child psychiatrist training, no lic. in any child care feild at all '' can tell whats in the best interest of a child '' WELL HELL WE SHOULD CALL EVERY DRUG DEALER ON THE CORNER A DOCTOR '' just the same '' practicing without a lic. or knowledge of the same.
“A law repugnant to the constitution is void” Chief Justice Marshall Marbury vs. Madison 1803
6:45 Courts don’t find you “innocent”. You are innocent until proven guilty. They find you “guilty” or “not guilty”. “innocence”, is presumptive🙃.
Not the way our current government works.
Thank you one million times 🎯🎯🎯
I'm new to the channel, but if you could do a review of how the Supreme Court works that would be super. Come to think of it a review of the Judiciary in general would help. Too many people don't understand how the courts work and as a result view them as just an extension of the various parties and the Supreme Court is NOT that.
You
Got your Right 1 2 4 And 5 Bill about Your Right
You also failed to mention In the 2nd amendment that extends to not just guns but knives and tasers ect. And in the 4th amendment they cannot search your house you're persons in this also extends to your cars
overall good video few areas of descent. @ 3.55 this is not trespass; trespass is without authorization or consent of owner. @5.21 3rd says without consent of owner, saying please let me in, is a request, if you allow in that is consent. @5.58 seize is to hold.
@6.55 Double jeopardy, new evidence is when a 2nd trial IS allowed, can't just try to keep having a trail on same information hoping for a different outcome. @ 8.42 Site source? time until trial depends on a complicated number of factors, speed trail does not set a time limit only that it is done asap
I think the third amendment should be modified to include economic migrants, or illegal immigrants. Because there have been many examples of the federal government getting close to forcing people to house others regardless of the homeowners wishes. The federal government has already forced certain hotels to do that, and is only one step away from forcing private citizens to do that with their homes as well. It wouldn’t be nearly as useless an amendment.
I 2nd that 3rd modification. 😉
Good video.
Great work
2:50 sounds like it was widely violated in 2020.
Excellent video! Brief but thorough
i love this man do one on the 27 amendmends
Loved It! Found myself cracking up too.. Thank You for making the Constitutional Fun... lol
Technically 27th amendment is also part of Bill of rights. Reason for that is that there was originally 12 amendments passed by congress and senate but only 10 were ratified at the time by states. This didnt however mean the other two amendments did not pass as unlike modern day amendement proposals they did not include time limit for ratification so original 2nd amendment was simply waiting for 200+ years before it was ratified but instead as 2nd as 27th. The other of the twelve amendments can also still get ratified but it is highly unlikely
Is the existence of the IRS constitutional?
Would have been nice to have discussed the two that did not make the cut, especially since one came back later.
The right to keep and bear ARMS applies to far more than just firearms. It applies, as stated by law, anything that can be worn, or held in the hands to be used offensively or defensively (truncated) which was affirmed by Caitano v MA.
Could you do one on The Pros and Cons of The Electoral college?
Excellent! Civics are important! Thanx.
There is 1 case that I have found that made it to the 2nd Circuit concerning the 3rd Amendment.