Constitution Lectures 1: The Non-Consent of the Governed

[affidavitwriter]

this is good work. See how we are handling government bullies.  This is dealing with forced vaccines , but it is totally related to this work presented here. Have a look at opentoeshoes blog.

[787Bisurdaddy]

Since you mentioned habeas corpus, I was curious what your opinion of Lincoln is, and what you think about how history tends to portray him.

[phenagan001]

@787Bisurdaddy Article 1 Section 9 lists various limitations on the power of the Congress including "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Certainly the secession of Virginia and the possibility that Maryland would go too met the Constitutional criteria to suspend habeas corpus. The only question was/is does the power rest with Congress or the president?

[shanedk]

@phenagan001 How does that mean Lincoln gets to use it against NORTHERN citizens who protest the war?

[mrphoo67]

What do you think of social contract. And do you think that the word social contract should even be used. From what I understand from social contract that it is theory that government has authority n on the consent of the governed or something along those line.

[shanedk]

@mrphoo67 The REAL meaning of social contract is just stuff we informally agree to as part of a society, but isn't enforced. Like, when someone says, "How are you?" You're supposed to say, "Fine, thanks," even if you aren't. You aren't supposed to launch into a tirade about everything that's wrong with you today.

The term got co-opted to mean that they get to enforce whatever they want because they're a government of the people.

[EsotericThrone]

lol @ the scum who votebotted this.

[reapfreak]

I'm an anarchist and I feel there is no real justification for government.

[helltrackrider]

your youtube page is bad ass.

[UtubeMyAccountName]

Great series

I just wanted to further address the supremacy clause, State nullification, and Constitutional legitimacy. If you did already I missed it, sorry.

State law MUST supersede U.S. law for the Constitution to be legitimate, since the Constitution is itself, no more than a body of law authorized by the States.

The idea of U.S. law superseding State law is part of the backwards thinking that is leading us down the road to nationalism and totalitarianism.

[conspiracy777]

Correct ... the constitution was designed to restrict GOVERNMENT! This is a principle that president BO does NOT understand in any way shape or form. He has been quoted many times saying. The constitution says a lot about what the government can't do, it says nothing about what it SHOULD do for you. ??? He doesn't get it. GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES! Stop taxing my life, liberty and my property!

Well done sir!

[Seiku]

Those vote bots went crazy on your videos. Sorry that has happened to you.

[publicuse2]

I disagree with the statement: "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the government".

An unjust government could have consent of the governed, especially a dishonest and devious government.

Governments that are just, serve the people they govern, and serve them well.

As for "Governments derive their power", truth is whoever has the most power becomes the Government - no matter how they got it.

[FibonacciPrower]

By that very reasoning, wouldn't any *law* that restricts the people be illegitimate?

[hugesinker]

Not quite... legitimate restrictions are put in place to preserve the greatest degree of liberty. For example, you are restricted by government from yelling fire in a crowded theater because you have no right to put other people's lives at risk.

[FibonacciPrower]

But I never consented to being restricted in that way. Why should I obey that law?

Even if I accept your argument, it only applies to laws that aim to preserve freedom. For example, why am I restricted by government from sharing and downloading music off the internet, if that's not preserving any degree of liberty and I never consented to be restricted in such a way?

[hugesinker]

Sorry, I got ahead of myself. We are only talking about constitutional legitimacy, which is a higher standard than state law. However, The idea here is that it is a natural law by reciprocity--that is, you have a right to walk down the street and not get mugged, therefore you may not mug someone else walking down the street.

I don't know about sharing music off the internet specifically, but you can't steal someone's idea or livelihood by the same reasoning as you cannot steal their property.

[FibonacciPrower]

Surely constitutional legitimacy is a higher standard than state law, but the same discourse about consent and non-consent applies - did you ever agree to be governed by any existing law? I know I didn't - whether I agree or not with said law.

But let's accept for a moment reciprocity as a basis for law. When sharing music on the internet, I'm not stealing anyone's idea (I give full credit where it's due) or property (copying is not the same as stealing). Why is that illegal?

[hugesinker]

The idea behind legitimacy here seems like maximizing liberty for every individual in a society. One who wished to hurt others yet be protected themselves from the same harm would not consent, that's true. But I see no society forming around this idea.

I can't offer a constitutionally rigorous defense for copyright law, but if a group with money (or means to distribute) takes someone's idea, they may easily dilute the market and essentially steal value from the person who thought it up.

[321radmann]

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

[shanedk]

Thomas Jefferson. Give credit where it's due.

And poo on the guy who marked his post as spam!

[321radmann]

Thanks for reminding me. I have so much info, it's difficult at best to keep it all straight.

[quan2121]

Great StuFF!

[JohnHolmes3000]

"That government is best which governs not at all."--Henry David Thoreau.

[787Bisurdaddy]

@JohnHolmes3000

"There's no government like NO government."

[shanedk]

Yeah, I'd intended to start the series on Constitution Day, but stuff goes wrong...

[onlyAerik]

All the consent fallacies you expose also apply to rape. I could reference this in the future.

[ATL45]

pretty good!

one tiny correction--the presidential oath is outlined in Article 2, not Article 3.

now i'm going to watch the rest of the videos in this series.

[pierre1050]

The closer the country adheres to the US constitution, the more freedom and wealth.

The closer the country adheres to communism, the more suppression and poverty.

[LddStyx]

You Americans really don't seem to know anything about communism all you have is a straw-man. When ever has the USofA nationalised businesses or imposed mandatory work communes on the people :S

By that I mean that you think that communism is just some political world-view when in reality its a totalitarian tyranny.

PS: Socialism =/= Communism

[shanedk]

"When ever has the USofA nationalised businesses"

Um, what do you think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were, that are now having to be bailed out?

The US has nationalized a LOT of businesses...and turned them all into failures.

[8Marx8]

Constitution on slaves:"held to Service or Labor in one State ... escaping into another ... shall be delivered up...."

James Madison told a British visitor shortly after the American Revolution that he could make $257 on every Negro in a year, and spend only $12 or $13 on his keep.

Benjamin Franklin, writing as "Poor Richard" in 1736, gave advice to his readers: "Let thy maidservant be faithful, strong and homely."

I wonder what all these acts and intentions have to do with "TAXES"!!

[shanedk]

Now our Marxist buddy is going around claiming I've blocked him. I haven't. But that's fairly typical, isn't it?

[8Marx8]

You are not placing the act of drafting the constitution in the historical context of those times (1700s), with 55 mostly wealthy conclave of elites prioritizing their interests.

Readers see: "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of The United States" by Charles Beard before getting too involved in the philosophical myth of what was meant to protect property owners and elite interests.

[8Marx8]

I am disturbed by the fact that you overlook "WE THE PEOPLE" excluded slaves, red indians and indentured servants, and when you claim that "people" are not "restricted by it", there is a contradiction. Furthermoer, you say "people faught slavery although it was constitutional", remember that the government, specifically those who drafted the constitution, faught back slave revolts fiercely,and many were killed. JAMES MADISON LIVED AND DIED A SLAVE OWNER. Are we to forget Shay's rebellion!

[shanedk]

Oh, boy, a Marxist revisionist...

""WE THE PEOPLE" excluded slaves, red indians and indentured servants,"

No, it didn't. This is what the Socialists claim, but they're deliberately misreading the clause on apportionment. The ONLY purpose of that clause is to determine how legislators and direct taxes were to be apportioned. NOTHING MORE.

[8Marx8]

Your response is lame at best.

John J (Founding father):" The people who own the country ought to govern it"

Validate with facts not allegations.

Samuel Adams:"In monarchy the crime of treason may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."

George Washington turned down the requests of blacks, seeking freedom, to fight in the Revolutionary army

Respond with facts not allegations, labeling people"Marxists"

[shanedk]

I think debunking your nonsense is an exercise best left to the reader.

Here's one hint: over 5,000 blacks fought on the Patriot side of the Revolutionary War. All obtained their freedom. As did 100,000 others who didn't serve. That's a full ONE FIFTH of all the slaves on the continent.

[8Marx8]

I have been quoting the founding fathers' words not mine. If you consider those quotes "nonsense", hey great and congradulations, because I think so too...

[shanedk]

And the opinion of individuals are MEANINGLESS to the meaning of the Constitution. If you'd actually paid attention to the lecture, you'd know that.

Besides, you lied about blacks in the Revolutionary War; how do we know you didn't lie about the quotes or take them out of context? In a very short time you've shown you can't be trusted.

[8Marx8]

Oh yeah, and here I forgot to count "Women" bieng excluded too. What do them have to do with "apportionment".

John Adams, defense attorney for the BRITISH soldiers after Boston Massacre described the rebels as "a motley rabble of saucy boys, negroes, and mulattoes, Irish teagues and outlandish jack tarrs."

[TheMetzMachine]

My, my... Although I certainly enjoyed this, I must say "legitimate" is certainly quite an ambiguous word, is it not? By legitimate, you mean to denote any policy/law that does not seek to preserve the rights of the people? If I got that right, then I am having trouble seeing "legitimacy" in the black-and-white, right-and-wrong, true-or-false terms that you seem to be implying. Government is not science. Certain laws, for example, infringe upon our freedoms in order to preserve other freedoms...

[shanedk]

Legitimacy has to do with preserving rights. You don't have a right to murder someone, so laws against murder do not take any rights away.

[superfisto]

Lawyer here. And I'm learning!

[hugesinker]

Great video.

Of course, according to this, the 18th amendment to the constitution was always unconstitutional, since it imposed restrictions on the liberties of the people without consent. The people never agreed to be bound by the constitution, hence should never have been bound by prohibition.

What about consent to local laws? I never consented to be restricted by pulic indecency laws, yet I will still be arrested if I walk to the curb to get a newspaper in the nude. Justify that :P.

[shanedk]

Well, not unconstitutional, but illegitimate, just like slavery.

In all honesty, I can't justify "decency" laws as there's nothing about them that prevents the use of force against another.

[hugesinker]

I was just coming back to say that :). I meant illegitimate, even though it was constitutional. It's funny that with prohibition of other substances, they didn't even bother to amend the constitution. These are both unconstitutional and illegitimate.

So what makes decency laws legitimate?  Even though I may not want to see it, is it wrong to put a guy in prison just because he likes to show off his wang?

[hugesinker]

I really would like you to explain when/how any law can be legitimate when it restricts the people.

[shanedk]

The only legitimacy laws have when restricting the people is when they prevent those same people from restricting the rights of others. As I said above, I don't see how decency laws can be legitimate in that light.

[hugesinker]

This is a great concept, but how far can we apply it?

What about a sicko that walks up near women jogging on the sidewalk, drops his pants and starts masturbating (without threatening or touching anyone but himself). Can anything be done about that?

[PissedOffTV]

well why would you watch that, your dirty boy hahahahah shit honestly, cencorship is a cop out for people being too lazy to take responcibility into their own hands, thus helping lead to de-evolution we see today, peace

[bigjon1359]

watch Michael Badnarick's constitution class

[Seiku]

This needs to be shown to the politicians.

[amcnea]

I am interested in your ideas. I am wondering if you have any sources which you can site? I am most interested in what court cases have applied to this subject. What the rulings were, and the resons for those rulings. I did a couple of google searches but came up with very little. Any help you could give in this area would be most appreciated.

[shanedk]

My main sources are the Constitution itself, the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers, Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution, and a more modern scholarly work, Restoring the Lost Constitution by Randy E. Barnett.

[bigjon1359]

watch Michael Badnarick's constitution class

[82abhilash]

By this logic, the constitution merely records what actions where considered legitimate for the government at the time when it was written, so if at a later date we decide that those actions are illegitimate, we should try and change the constitution?

[shanedk]

Through the process of amendment, yes.

[82abhilash]

Daniel Dennett needs to see these videos. He is a great philosopher and his idea machine will bring out many new ways of using this knowledge legitimately.

[shanedk]

I really like Daniel Dennett (he is one of the Four Horsemen, after all), but he needs to understand that his plan for Federally-mandated religious education is every bit as unconstitutional as teaching creationism.

The STATES could do it, but not the Feds.

[82abhilash]

I get it. But Dennett is a philosopher, not a lawyer or politician. But if he (and those that admire him) can appreciate what the US constitution really means and stands for, they can make more intelligent decisions in the spirit of the values that it upholds. These are very talented individuals, they specialize in something else.

[shanedk]

I know. I'm not saying Dennett's an idiot--far from it, I admire him greatly. But this is something that few Americans understand, and we ALL should.

[82abhilash]

There is an important reason why I hope Dennett would understand this. Because he is an excellent philosopher. The type of person who can zero in on the original meaning of the constitution. He even has a thinker tool for it called heterophenomenology. Once he understand this he can put forward practical proposals that are constitutional.

[Tony63efc]

Could it not be argued that the right to own a gun infringes on the rights of someone wanting to live in a gun-free society?

[Tony63efc]

Sorry I should have said that I found this very informative.

[shanedk]

No, because a right is not something you can force on others.

Otherwise, the first amendment would infringe on my "right" to live in a religion-free society!

[Tony63efc]

OK I see what you're saying.

[prokkets]

Wow this is lib antisemite terrorist propoganda.We need 2fight the iranins in iran so we dont have 2fight thm hre.Ulibs need 2b detained untl ucan prove u r not a teroist.Ifany iraqi tries 2take myFREEDOM I will blowup his cave cmd cntr.IranNchina hve been stckpling WMDs2 useaginst us an our Israeli friends in th form of a mushroom cloud in th global wr n terror.When market crash and final nuke/bio battle come we need worldgovt+world bank+hive mind+every1 get microchip so prs bush cn kep us safe

[jawtheshark]

Great stuff... Not being an American, it does help to understand you guys better.

[netkrash]

I feel exactly the same, I'm not an American but I'm deeply interested into their issues, I think I know USA better than my own country :)

[kjlg74]

That was very interesting! Can't wait to see the rest of the lectures.

[zrice03]

I think a good way of learning what any important historical document means is by actually reading it and translating it into modern, everyday English (or whatever language you're most comfortable with). I did this with the Declaration of Independence this past 4th of July and realized how elegant and brilliant it actually was. Just sitting down and reading it in it's "old style writing" can be confusing, especially to students.

[shanedk]

Actually, Lecture 2 deals with that very issue.

[WareSquirrel]

That is a very important point that a lot of people seem to miss. The Constitution is **a restriction on governmental power**. It does not tell the people what they can do, it tells the government what *it* can (and can't) do.

[shanedk]

There are a LOT of points like that. The tough part is figuring out which one to do next.

[AbbeyNormal]

Wonderful! I like most Americans am pretty uneducated about our Constitution. I was never required to read the whole thing (only highlights) and they never really told us what it was all about. I think you've brought a lot of light into it with just this short segment. I can't wait for the next one!

[KIDiotequeA]

Excellent post...cheers mate.

[FTLNewsFeed]

If that's true then why don't lawyers argue before the supreme court on a subject matter's unconstitutionally? Could an argument before the court be to the effect that something that's not in the constitution is legal until a law or amendment makes it illegal?

[shanedk]

It depends on whether it's Federal or state law. In Federal law, the only constitutional powers are the ones expressly granted. It has to be in the Constitution to be a power of the Federal government (and even then it's limited by many clauses).

However, with the states it's a different matter. There, it is the way you say: they can do what they want unless they're restricted by the Constitution.

[leporidus]

★★★★★

Can't wait for the vids to come...

[oggjy]

oo im first

hmm im not american but i think i know your constitution better than most americans hehe

[shanedk]

The sad thing is, you're probably right. Hence the need for these videos.

[oggjy]

well its not massively complicated thought i decided to look into it after i saw a video on some american politician denying your probable cause thing (which we dont have here i can get arresting just for looking suspicious)