A better understanding of the 14th amendment can be found in Government by Judiciary by Raoul Berger. He disagrees with the original meaning you attributed to the 14th...
Fine; where in Article I Section 8 is it authorized?
Don't look to the Supreme Court for guidance; they said that it was OK to steal property and give it to a big corporation, and that an innocent man jailed for 18 years due to multiple acts of fraud by multiple prosecutors doesn't deserve compensation.
@shanedk Well, I thought the buck stops at the supreme court when it comes to what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional. So I guess you believe that the supreme court doesn't pay heed to the constitution. That effectively makes the constitution a meaningless document; what's the point of a constitution if ALL branches of government ignore it?
States have no rights nor Sovereignty, nor could they claim such, for in was "We the People" that did "ordain and establish" the Constitution not the States nor any of the branches.
@PlainSight52 No, actually, it was the states. The states chartered the convention and ratified the Constitution. It's an agreement between the states.
@shanedk How dare you challenge me! Nah, Just kidding. I think debate among opposing as well all perceptions of opinion is one of the healtiest ways to learn, not only about subjects but also other people's points of view. Which enables us to experience more compassionate human traits such as sympathy, empathy etc.. And you have provided me with valuable insight. Thank You.
@shanedk But that charter was originally based upon the Articles of Confederation. And in an obviously technical sense "States" could not write, sign and ratify thereby "ordain and establish" anything only People from them could. That's also an important part which kinda has a dual meaning to Amendment X "nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." prohibits certain powers of the States individually, there is no restrictions on all the People.
Can you contact me please. I wish for you to do a lecture on Ex Post Facto and Bills of Attainder...Our Government is effectively using words to circumvent the above and create laws in violation of same.
@jesuslivesdotme I think the original breakdown began with the Judiciary. Seen as they were the first (I think) to assume an unenumerated power: "interpretation". Possibly the most detrimental to individual rights.
Where in the constitution does it state that the bill of rights is for further restriction of the government only? It is clear that the first and fourth clauses in section 9 can't be altered prior to 1880. Where does it clearly state that the bill of rights and the amendment process can't be used to increase or alter the enumerated powers of the government?
@SpamSpamNEggs NOWHERE in my lectures do I say that ANY clauses in Section 9 can't be altered until 1880. Either state directly where you're getting this claim, or at the very least stop lying.
"Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article
@SpamSpamNEggs First of all, that's 1808, not 1880. Second, it only applies to Clause 1 and not Clause 4.
The Bill of Rights are "declaratory and restrictive clauses." They do NOT confer ANY new powers. In fact, one thing they were worried about is people trying to claim that they did!
@SpamSpamNEggs You LIAR!!! I NEVER said that Article V specified that only amendments could be "declaratory and restrictive clauses"! I said THE BILL OF RIGHTS were such!!!
"The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added."
The BILL OF RIGHTS is declaratory and restrictive! Now STOP LYING!!!
@shanedk I'm not lying. I'm questioning your position. My questions have been met with accusations. Asking for proof is not lying. I have been asking for proof. Thank you for the quote. Now, where is that quote from? What article of the constitution or amendment? Is it part of some other binding document? Your almost there. One more fact and you can prove me wrong.
@shanedk Ok, the online copy I'm reading apparently is missing this. Second. Preambles are not binding. They have no standing in law. Your argument boils down to original intent, not what the document actually says in the binding portions of it. Had you quoted and cited the source in your first reply, we could have gotten here much faster.....and I'm the slow one.
@shanedk The 16th Amendment. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes" The 18th Amendment. "The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" Second, even if a power is not used does not mean it does not exist. We could amend the constitution so California has no electoral votes or seats in the House. No such amendment exists, but we could write and pass it.
@SpamSpamNEggs The 16th and 18th Amendments are NOT part of the Bill of Rights, you idiot! Oh, and BTW: the 16th Amendment is NOT a new power; it's an exception to the restriction in Article I Section 9 Clause 4. The 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st. There are no active amendments in the Constitution that grant any new powers to the government.
@shanedk ad hominem attacks and a moving target. Your argument has failed. I recognize when I am wrong, you changed my mind on the FDA and AMA. You need to do the same, recognize when you are wrong. You are very smart, but you are to rigid in your thinking. I have proven the authority to add power to the government. I have sited instances of this being done. I have proved my point. You can accept the truth or not. That is not in my power to change.
@SpamSpamNEggs YOU'RE the one who made an argument--that the Bill of Rights conferred new powers to the government. You have NOT backed that up. You have LIED and you have moved the goalposts. This is on you, not me.
@shanedk Now we have ad hominem and shifting the burden. Where is the binding clause that says "can not" or "declaratory and restrictive" or any other such restrictive language. You have shown the bill of rights did not. Did not was never my argument. The lack of can not was always my argument, even if I was silly enough to include the bill of rights that did not.
@SpamSpamNEggs I have not ONCE made an ad hominem. Stop LYING.
Second, we are talking about YOUR claim. The burden is on YOU. I know you tried to move the goalposts after I shot you down, but that doesn't change the FACTS.
You have LIED AT EVERY TURN. You have tried to claim that I said NO AMENDMENT could ever grant a new power; that was a LIE. You tried to claim that I said "declaratory and restrictive clauses" referred to any and all amendments, not just the Billl of Rights.
@shanedk A third party helped clarify this argument for me. Hopefully I can shorten it to fit in 500 words Your argument: "Declaratory and restrictive" are describing the first 10 amendments. (let me know if I'm wrong with this) My argument: "Declaratory and restrictive" does not appear in the constitution. It is not a legally binding statement for any amendment. "Declaratory and restrictive" are good descriptors of the first 10 amendments, I agree with this.
@shanedk Two restrictions exist on amendments. Equal suffrage in the Senate, and one that expired in 1808. These are the only two restrictions on amendments. The full text of these are found in article 5. This is my assertion. If there are more restrictions, such as "Declaratory and restrictive", they are not in article 5:Amendments. If there are more binding restrictions on amendments I have not seen them. Preambles are not binding. This is as clear as I can make it.
@shanedk Well it's not exactly what I originally said. I included the corrections of 1808 instead of 1880 and the second restriction, suffrage in the senate. I Included the source, Article 5. Finally I rephrased my first questions about restrictions into an affirmative statement. This conveys the same messages as my first post. If you are reading a difference, the difference is your interpretation of my words. The message is the same.
@SpamSpamNEggs Then I am completely unable to divine the purpose of your criticism, as you're not saying anything that I (or the video) disagree with.
@shanedk I put forth a poorly worded question, and you started to attack me. I attacked back. It escalated from there. Not every comment I make is a criticism. Most first comments I make are questions. In lecture 8, you make "declaratory and restrictive" sound binding (my interpretation) You refer to this video for more information. I did not find that info, so I asked, but worded it poorly.
@SpamSpamNEggs I need to amend previous comments. The restriction expired in 1808, not 1880. Sorry I was reading quickly. There is a second restriction as well. "and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." This is only note worthy because it does not include restrictions on House seats or electoral votes. Apparently we can amend the constitution to deprive states of these without their consent.
Pursuant to the nondelegation doctrine, do you then think that all executive regulations and administrative laws are unconstitutional? Do you think it is illegal for the President to submit a budget instead of Congress taking the initiative? Do you think that all operations other than war are illegal? And most importantly, do you think these things not because of an interpretation of the Constitution but because you politically believe in minimalist government - or is that just a coincidence?
1. Congress needs to write the laws. They don't have the authority to just create an agency and tell them to do what they want. Hence DownsizeDC's Write the Laws Act.
2. The President can submit all the budgets he wants. It's Congress's decision whether or not to pass them; all the President can do is sign or veto whatever they send to him.
3. Post offices, roads, and lots of other things are specified in Article I Section 8.
@Surhotchaperchlorome because of its overlying message; that is, the federal gov't doesn't really care to make sure that what it's doing is constitutional, so long as no one has a problem with it.
Yes, despite the overly litigious society we live in, no1 in the entire country really cares except Shane, Glenn Beck & their small band of merry men. That's it. Just the way the evil conspiracy wants it. It couldn't possibly be that other people, particularly legal scholars & people who actually practice law for a living, have a firmer understanding of the law. Nope, Shane's the true expert here. No room for reasonable & civil disagreement. The libertarians hold the one, true interpretation.
"The libertarians hold the one, true interpretation."
It's funny how riled up mjr256 gets when his faith is attacked. He will try anything to keep government on a pedestal which he can bow before and worship. The shear hostility he has for mentioning the idea that government should be expected to follow the law is mind boggling.
Yeah, I've never understood how so many people arguing for the "rule of law" will not only NOT apply it to government, but insist on what is effectively political anarchy.
I like these videos and they are very informative, but I do wonder if all of these things are truly unconstitutional why are they not challenged? I find it hard to believe there isn't a loop hole or something you missed that allows for these powers
No thanks, Shane. Seeing how biased this lecture is, I don't see the point unless the former lecture includes you saying what you say in future lectures is biased & not to be taken as serious, objective reporting of facts.
No serious legal scholars are as unwilling to recognize the legitimate debate over the meaning of its broader terms like "general welfare." as you are.
I'm sorry you can't admit error or that nuance exists in the law but suck it up.
It's like arguing w/ a creationist. The Constitution is not the be-all, end-all of the law. It's not practical to demand strict adherence to every word. Do we really need a jury to settle civil small claims cases? Even Biblical literalists aren't so strict in their adherence to scripture to devote their every waking hour to stoning sinners to death
If you want to start a religion that worships the Constitution as divine scripture, go nuts...or break the unconstitutional laws & see what happens
The Constitution CAN supersede every single other law in the country provided that a case is ruled to fall within its purview. It's a living document & uses broad language that's subject to interpretation. And it's the job of judges and juries to determine if a specific case does or does not fall within its purview. If you want "supreme law" join a religion.
"Try that one in court."
Nobody "tries" anything. That's how its done. Talk to a lawyer, not your supreme Constitution deity.
No it is not. This is an excuse used by government worshipers to justify their faith.
"And it's the job of judges and juries to determine if a specific case does or does not fall within its purview."
No it is not. It is job of the states to enforce the contract between the states. However, all this got fucked up with 14th amendment (not to mention the civil war).
"Talk to a lawyer, not your supreme Constitution deity"
"No it is not. This is an excuse used by government worshipers to justify their faith."
No, this is what people who actually practice law every day use to debate over how particular cases should be ruled by the court because the law isn't a black & white abstract concept but something that requires critical thought & nuance. No "government worship" required.
"It is job of the states to enforce the contract between the states."
What do you think judges & lawyers do all day anyway?
"No, this is what people who actually practice law every day use to debate over how particular cases should be ruled"
So, they use the idea that a document is alive to figure out how a case should be ruled? It would seem easier to just read the law to see how a case should be ruled.
"What do you think judges & lawyers do all day anyway?"
Which I'm sure sounds super easy to someone who doesn't actually practice law but most cases aren't so easy to decide as flipping a coin.
"Steel, rape, pillage, and split up the booty."
Yeah, my point exactly. You have no respect for the legal system or critical thought & just want to worship a bunch of stone tablets w/ absolute commandments written on them. As I said before, if you want to start a religion, then feel free. But don't expect the rest of us who care about nuance to sign up.
"It is the SUPREME law. It supersedes EVERY SINGLE OTHER LAW IN THE COUNTRY. "
It CAN supersede every single other law in the country provided that a case is ruled to fall within its purview. The Constitution is a living document and uses broad language that's subject to interpretation. And it's the job of judges and juries to determine if a specific case does or does not fall within its purview.
And lastly, our entire democratic system is designed for the purpose of allowing those elected by the people to make make changes to the laws when deemed appropriate because the Founders recognized that they couldn't think of everything. Hell, that's what the amendments are for in the first place, to amend any problems discovered over the course of our nation's history.
If you want an unchanging system of absolute laws, join a religion.
Again, you deliberately dodge a point in order to make a moot one. We are indeed a republic but we do democratically elect representatives to gov't to act in our interests such as change laws when apt. & while difficult to change the Constitution (for good reason), it's not impossible, nor necessary to enact new laws & statutes
Your stuck on Constitutional absolutism while ignoring the entire history of our legal system
SS was legally enacted under "general welfare" whether you agree or not.
Was that a serious question? I'm not a mind-reader, Shane. All I or any legal authority can do is interpret the law (all of it, not just 1 document) & justice to the best of our abilities. Even if we could know the Founders' precise intent, their intent's not the final arbiter of the law as they were as flawed as any1 in gov't today. Rational people recognize the Constitution is just a framework, not a perfect document & that complex legal decisions require nuance, not adherence to blind dogma.
Your the one worshiping the government. You seem to believe these people are all powerful gods which have no restrictions on them.
All Shane is stating is that there is a contractual agreement which has been made and it should be honored. Contracts are not religion.
Believing governing officials to be above the law and not bound by anything is a form of worship. You are just practicing a new age version of the divine right of kings.
It most certainly is not a straw man. Even the Federalist Papers show that the Founders hadn't reached consensus as to precise meaning. You're going for a more Madison viewpoint and I'm going w/ a more Hamilton interpretation on the meaning of "general welfare." But even if they did agree, they weren't divine kings and their authority does not rule us from the tomb.
A republic is a democracy, why do people have such a difficult time understanding that? This is probably the hundredth time Ive seen this comment. A republic is simply a subset of democracy.
Not really. Although the words have been blurred in recent times in their usage.
A Republic mainly infers the idea that the majority is bound and not free to do as it pleases. Such as 51% can't kill the other 49%.
A Democracy originally (colonial times) referred to direct-democracy. As this was the ancient Greek form of democracy, and representational-democracy had not been invented yet.
Yes, and we all need to be reminded of the difference between a democracy & republic constantly lest we accidentally make a mistake and go on a killing spree, which is exactly what would happen if pretentious individuals didn't feel the need to sidestep actual contentious issues to clarify this semantic distinction in order to show up their opponents in a superficial way.
Perhaps kosmoincalgary doesn't actually know there is a difference. Perhaps kosmoincalgary actually cares about knowledge and would appreciate being informed of what the difference is. Just because you (mjr256) do not care about knowledge or learning. Doesn't mean the same is true for kosmoincalgary.
If you cant understand the definitions of words, then you make silly arguments like "the US is not a democracy, its a republic" which in turn makes you look dumb. Obviously its not the end of the world, but getting the meaning of words correct is important.
But yes, I will agree with you that in today's terminology it is kinda splitting hairs to draw a major distinction between democracy and a republic.
However, for those who spend time reading older texts, their may develop a larger distinction in their minds. But, this is because the distinction exists in the texts that they are reading.
Yeahhhhh, lecture 4 is coming and we can begin all of this again.
Will mjr256 be back with another ridiculous argument? Will the anarchists be back to trash statism? Find out in our next episode. Same Shane Time. Same Shane Channel.
No really, from a purely political science perspective, a republic is a form of government in which the citizens elect representatives and the state is not headed by a monarch. That is all. A democracy however is simply a form of gov where the citizen elects representatives or directly votes for policy. In Canada for example we have a constitutional monarchy, but we are still a democracy.
Yes, the terms have converged recently. However up until about the 1900's democracy purely meant direct-democracy.
Back in colonial times there are quite a few quotes of the founding fathers talking about how crappy democracy is, and how much better a republic is because you elect representatives instead of directly voting.
In studying the history of political science it is important to know these terms differed more in the past. Else you may read the documents incorrectly.
Definitions of words change, that is why it is important to use the current day definitions. In academia, a republic is a form of democracy in which there is no monarch as head of state.
"In academia, a republic is a form of democracy ..."
Actually, in academia a republic usually doesn't refer to a democracy. That is more of the colloquial sense of the word. In academia there are several definitions of republic. For instance, if I were talking about colonial America I would probably be using James Madison's definition meaning representative democracy. But, if I were talking about The People Republic of China, then republic would have nothing to do with democracy what-so-ever.
Madison's definition was a bit more nuanced than that. I go into this a bit, but basically an oligarchy is too few representatives per population size and democracy is too many. Too few representatives, they're easily swayed by special interests. Too many, and the people can vote whatever they want.
"Madison's definition was a bit more nuanced than that"
Yeah, I had that in the original message, but it got cut trying to get it down 500 chars. It's good that you mentioned it for anyone that doesn't know and is interested.
I also had a part about in present day America a Republic has been defined by the supreme court to have "equal rights" and "be chosen by the people". In "US vs Cruikshank" and "In re Duncan" respectively.
P.S. I have been watching Red Dwarf ever since your comment earlier
no, in a poli sci class when someone uses the word republic it is understood that it is a state that has no monarch as head of state and permits citizens to vote for representatives or policy or both. Just because the chinese call themselves a republic doesnt make it so, much like the democratic republic of east germany wasnt democratic. Using 18th century definitions in a 21st century conversation doesnt work if the definition has changed.
Who cares. A freshman poli sci class is NOT academia. Your class doesn't get to define words for the entire world. You are simply incorrect in you assertions.
In case you missed it, the Supreme Court has ruled that a republic has "equal rights" and is "chosen by the people". In "US vs Cruikshank" and "In re Duncan" respectively.
So go tell the Supreme Court that they are wrong and your political science class is right.
Article I, Sec. 8 states that The Congress shall have Power To lay & collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts & Excises, to pay the Debts & provide for the common Defense & "general Welfare" of the US.
Social Security & public education CLEARLY fall into the general welfare category.
Further, the Constitution was never intended to be treated in such literalist, black & white terms. Our legal system is built on the doctrine of stare decisis, where precedence matters.
The Constitution was never intended to be viewed in literalist, black & white terms. Our legal system is built on the doctrine of stare decisis, meaning precedence matters. You're ignoring the entire history of the our legal system
To suggest that the amendments, such as the 1st, were not intended to have any exceptions is just silly. I'm all for getting rid of Obscenity Law but no libel law? What about matters of national security or when speech interferes w/ the rights of others?
Moot point. It's still the legal system of the U.S. gov't regulating speech, which you implied was never acceptable. I also mentioned cases of national security, which WOULD fall under criminal law.
My point was only that the Constitution does not exist in a vacuum and reasonable and legal exceptions to its amendments do exist.
Lecture 7 covers General Welfare. Read that before you go spouting ignorant things again.
SS is ABSOLUTELY NOT General Welfare. It's SPECIFIC welfare. Welfare given to seniors--the RICHEST demographic--at the expense of their children's incomes and by saddling debt on their grandchildren.
Also, Clause 1 is NOT a separate clause in and of itself; it's there to limit the scope of the powers that follow.
It's not necessary to watch every video you ever made in order to address misinformation presented in THIS video. You clearly state in THIS VIDEO that Social Security & public education are unconstitutional when in fact they are not. Both were introduced through the regular legal process. And sorry, but you don't get to change the definition of "specific" or "general" to fit your ideology. "General Wellfare" does not discount the existence of conditions.
"General Wellfare" does not discount the existence of conditions.
From your statements you seem to think the term "General Welfare" means that congress can do whatever it deems appropriate. If this is the case then why define the powers of congress at all. Why not just say congress can do whatever it deems appropriate and leave it at that.
If you interpretation is correct, then the constitution make no sense what-so-ever. Therefor you must be wrong.
"Article I, Sec. 8 states that The Congress shall have Power To lay & collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts & Excises, to pay the Debts & provide for the common Defense & "general Welfare" of the US."
This say that congress has the power to collect taxes for the general welfare.
This does NOT say congress has the power to make legislation for the general welfare.
The rest of section 8 deals with what legislation congress is allowed to create.
amcnea, that would be the "Spend" part of "Tax & Spend". Congress has the power to pass all laws necessary & proper to execute their laws. No list of what constitutes "general welfare" is necessary as even the primary authors of the Federalist Papers disagreed over its implications.
But if you want to get technical, the Commerce Clause potentially gives Congress limitless power so long as they can justify how something helps or hinders trade.
'that would be the "Spend" part of "Tax & Spend"' Where does it say spend? Are you injecting words into the constitution? A) The Congress shall have Power To lay & collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts & Excises, TO B) pay the Debts & provide for the common Defense & "general Welfare" OF C) the US A) Deals with what congress can do B) Deals with what purposes congress can do it for C) Deals with where it can be done. Bottom line: There is a difference between interpretation and disregarding
Even the Federalist Paper authors debated the meaning of "general welfare." Hamilton took the broader view that spending is an enumerated power that Congress may exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education.
And Madison disagreed w/ him. That's fine. But to pretend there's only one interpretation when even the Founders disagreed on it is dishonest.
"But to pretend there's only one interpretation when even the Founders disagreed on it is dishonest."
Hamilton wasn't there. He is not an author of that clause. Madison was. Madison participated in the debate.
The Federalist Papers do NOT define the constitution. If you want to know what the constitution means, GO TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATES. Not the Federalist Papers.
Many states wouldn't of ratified if they believed Hamilton's view. Changing the meaning after the fact is dishonest.
The Federalist Papers are regarded by legal scholars as a primary source for interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. I'm sorry you don't like the facts but feel free to keep making some up that are more to your liking.
"The Federalist Papers are regarded by legal scholars as a primary source for interpretation of the U.S. Constitution."
Before you said judges and juries get to interpret. Now all legal scholars get to also? Just like a Christian, move the goal post.
I guess if you DON'T want to know what the decisions made by the peoples representatives were, and would rather read the OPINIONS of people who weren't there, then it makes sense to go to the Federalist Papers.
Though I find it hard to agree, I find it hard to disagree. You lay out a great case and I think this series was a good idea, and very educational. Good job.
No, the general welfare clause is the pretext that is commonly used for things like Social Security and bank bailouts. In reality, payments, loans, or other benefits that apply to a subset of individuals and corporations are not GENERAL anything, they are specific benefits to those individuals and corporations getting them.
The Americans and their constitution, they'll always baffle me.
Is there any other country in the world that puts its constitution on such a high, untouchable, holy pedestal? Its not that I dont like the US constitution, hell, its probably one of (if not the) most groundbreaking & defining legal documents in history.
But Guns on a second amendment? Really? In 2010? And there lies the problem, amending this thing, even for obvious/already instated reasons, would cause a conservative uproar.
This is a kind of meaningless talk because the federal gov completely disregards the constitution in many, if not most instances and the 3 branches of government mutually protect each other from the constitution. For example, the congress transferred their power to coin money and delegated to the a non-government entity and the other 2 branches of gov did NOTHING.
The bill of rights have been watered down so bad as to be next to useless. The government routinely denies people the rights in the bill of rights. The states and gov even have dirty little tricks like dropping things for people who have the money to fight. As of a couple years ago, none of the states with 3 strike rules would allow a prisoner with the money to do it, a right to be heard as they simply let them out of prison before allowing a trial to go to high courts.
In some ways, it can be even WORSE in a country like Canada. We have a written Constitution (badly written, that is, with clauses that have resulted in the precise opposite of the writer's known intentions in some cases, since there's just NO WAY we could EVER use the same wording as the US does), but it's so poorly written that we can't actually determine the totality of the text of the thing. For instance, is the law setting up our Supreme Court in or out?
Hmmm, strange. When you read the actual court case that you quote, one notes that it actually disagrees with your assertion.
"But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described."
Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word 'expressly,' and declares only, that the powers 'not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people; thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest, has been delegated to the one government, (cont)
or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument.
McCollouch vs Maryland.
Strange that you omit that. Also strange is the statement of Social Security being non-constitutional given that it was enacted under the broad power to levy taxes and spend the money "to provide for general welfare". A Supreme Court case upheld that such an act was within the powers of the Federal Government to enact.
Not general welfare? Then what is it? Regardless of any definitional meandering that one might engage in, the system provides a social payment to individuals whom have retired. That is very close to a definition of a social welfare program and since it is open to the entire population, any argument, regardless of how reasoned it may appear, is little more than shuffling ones feet regarding the meaning of words.
Not at all. Any act engaged by the government must meet the test of the consitiution, but as in the case against Maryland, the Government is not bound by a strict reading of the tenth amendment. This is seen clearly in the omission of the word "expressly" from that amendment. The rule was added to quell those that disliked the idea of a central government. Again, as in the case against Maryland, the Government was found to be the Supreme Power in the sphere it operates in.
Given that it is the Supreme Power, the Supreme Court found that the State of Maryland does not have the right to abridge the rights and abilities of a Federally enacted agency (in this case, a bank) from conducting business within its borders. The Federal power overrides the State power in that case. Even more significantly, the powers not granted directly to the Central Government are not automatically given to the states out of hand. It says that it is to the state or the people.
That strongly implies that any power that the states abdicate to the people are within the jurisdiction of the constructed government of the people to operate within, that government being the Federal Body of the country. This is still subject to the constitution, but given the broad nature of the powers it was invested, it is hardly a stretch to think that welfare or the FBI or FEMA or any similar agency or program is outside of its capacity to create and direct.
This can be seen in the case of the FBI. The states are incapable of policing matters that fall outside of their own borders. The Federal government, as per your Section 8, is able to enact rules and create agencies to do this. Just because you may not agree with the broad reading of the powers invested into Congress as per that Section does not make it wrong or unconstitutional.
For those in the audience at large, the actual text of opening of section 8 is: "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States"
Common defense and general welfare. These are not to be narrowly construed. If you've read the full court cases you quote, in each case, the Supreme court has upheld that any attempt to narrowly interpret this power granted is rejected.
Shane, you should consider auditing a Constitutional law class at a local law school. I think a lot of what you present in this series is pretty spot on, there are a few areas you've glossed over, though you may get to them later. Many of the laws some deem unconstitutional fall under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the General Welfare Clause, or the Interstate Commerce Clause. You may disagree with how the court came to its conclusions, but there's often more below the surface.
the bill of rights got seriously assraped since 9/11 hahaaha
managarm1349 2 months ago
all in all a very good presentation.
OregonTAC 7 months ago
A better understanding of the 14th amendment can be found in Government by Judiciary by Raoul Berger. He disagrees with the original meaning you attributed to the 14th...
OregonTAC 7 months ago
What is the best way to respond a comment from a user who says there is no war in libya.
mrphoo67 10 months ago
@mrphoo67 Smack him upside the head? Ask him what you call it when a military goes into a country and starts killing people?
shanedk 10 months ago
Social security is NOT unconstitutional. Helvering v. Davis.
shchpendrop 10 months ago
Fine; where in Article I Section 8 is it authorized?
Don't look to the Supreme Court for guidance; they said that it was OK to steal property and give it to a big corporation, and that an innocent man jailed for 18 years due to multiple acts of fraud by multiple prosecutors doesn't deserve compensation.
shanedk 10 months ago
@shanedk Well, I thought the buck stops at the supreme court when it comes to what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional. So I guess you believe that the supreme court doesn't pay heed to the constitution. That effectively makes the constitution a meaningless document; what's the point of a constitution if ALL branches of government ignore it?
shchpendrop 10 months ago
@shchpendrop "Well, I thought the buck stops at the supreme court when it comes to what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional."
Wrong. See Lecture 6.
shanedk 10 months ago
States have no rights nor Sovereignty, nor could they claim such, for in was "We the People" that did "ordain and establish" the Constitution not the States nor any of the branches.
PlainSight52 1 year ago
@PlainSight52 No, actually, it was the states. The states chartered the convention and ratified the Constitution. It's an agreement between the states.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk How dare you challenge me! Nah, Just kidding. I think debate among opposing as well all perceptions of opinion is one of the healtiest ways to learn, not only about subjects but also other people's points of view. Which enables us to experience more compassionate human traits such as sympathy, empathy etc.. And you have provided me with valuable insight. Thank You.
PlainSight52 1 year ago
@shanedk But that charter was originally based upon the Articles of Confederation. And in an obviously technical sense "States" could not write, sign and ratify thereby "ordain and establish" anything only People from them could. That's also an important part which kinda has a dual meaning to Amendment X "nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." prohibits certain powers of the States individually, there is no restrictions on all the People.
PlainSight52 1 year ago
@PlainSight52 That was part of the agreement: the states agreed that they would give up certain powers in exchange for being part of the union.
shanedk 1 year ago
what about the constitutional amendment about alcohol? isn't that nonsensical if it only applies to the people representing the government?
morthim 1 year ago
@morthim No, because it granted another power to the government. (That power was repealed by the 21st Amendment, of course.)
shanedk 1 year ago
Can you contact me please. I wish for you to do a lecture on Ex Post Facto and Bills of Attainder...Our Government is effectively using words to circumvent the above and create laws in violation of same.
jesuslivesdotme 1 year ago
@jesuslivesdotme I think the original breakdown began with the Judiciary. Seen as they were the first (I think) to assume an unenumerated power: "interpretation". Possibly the most detrimental to individual rights.
PlainSight52 1 year ago
so the states are allowed to abridge free speech?
krakatoa0mikel 1 year ago
Comment removed
Gameboygenius 1 year ago
Where in the constitution does it state that the bill of rights is for further restriction of the government only? It is clear that the first and fourth clauses in section 9 can't be altered prior to 1880. Where does it clearly state that the bill of rights and the amendment process can't be used to increase or alter the enumerated powers of the government?
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Huh? Where are you getting THAT from???
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
1:10 of Lecture 8 in your Constitution series.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs NOWHERE in my lectures do I say that ANY clauses in Section 9 can't be altered until 1880. Either state directly where you're getting this claim, or at the very least stop lying.
shanedk 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs
The only restriction I found on what
amendments can be made is the first
and fourth clauses of section 9 can't be
amended prior to 1880. You didn't say this,
it's in the constitution.
At 1:10 in lecture 8, you say "The bill of rights
confers no new powers to congress, it only
restricts congress"
Where is this restriction in the constitution?
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs @shanedk WHERE in the Constitution?
QUOTE IT!!!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
"Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article
Article 5 has this restriction.
Where is your restriction "The bill of rights
confers no new powers to congress"
QUOTE IT!!!
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs First of all, that's 1808, not 1880. Second, it only applies to Clause 1 and not Clause 4.
The Bill of Rights are "declaratory and restrictive clauses." They do NOT confer ANY new powers. In fact, one thing they were worried about is people trying to claim that they did!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Like our friend
SpamSpamNEggs is doing now.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@shanedk
Where in the constitution does it say this?
I have seen no such restriction. The
amendment process was made difficult to
prevent abuses and a hugely growing federal
government, but I did not see where it is
written that they may only be "declaratory and
restrictive clauses".
Where in the constitution is such a statement
made?
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs You LIAR!!! I NEVER said that Article V specified that only amendments could be "declaratory and restrictive clauses"! I said THE BILL OF RIGHTS were such!!!
"The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added."
The BILL OF RIGHTS is declaratory and restrictive! Now STOP LYING!!!
shanedk 1 year ago
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Sigh...it's from the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.
Geez, and I thought Moon Hoaxers were slow...
shanedk 1 year ago
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Well, now you're just talking around yourself!
Can you specify ANYWHERE in the Bill of Rights where a new power is granted or not?
shanedk 1 year ago
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
shanedk 1 year ago
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs YOU'RE the one who made an argument--that the Bill of Rights conferred new powers to the government. You have NOT backed that up. You have LIED and you have moved the goalposts. This is on you, not me.
shanedk 1 year ago
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs I have not ONCE made an ad hominem. Stop LYING.
Second, we are talking about YOUR claim. The burden is on YOU. I know you tried to move the goalposts after I shot you down, but that doesn't change the FACTS.
You have LIED AT EVERY TURN. You have tried to claim that I said NO AMENDMENT could ever grant a new power; that was a LIE. You tried to claim that I said "declaratory and restrictive clauses" referred to any and all amendments, not just the Billl of Rights.
You are a LIAR.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Now we have insults and more shifting the
burden.
This is obviously not going anywhere.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs It's going nowhere because YOU won't stop lying and support your assertion--which you DID make.
shanedk 1 year ago
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs That was NOT the start of the discussion. That was in response to YOUR assertion, which is when you started with your LIES.
Can you back up your assertion or not?
shanedk 1 year ago
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Again, NOT what you said originally.
shanedk 1 year ago
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Then I am completely unable to divine the purpose of your criticism, as you're not saying anything that I (or the video) disagree with.
shanedk 1 year ago
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs States don't
HAVE suffrage in the House or the
Electoral College. That's the people.
States only have suffrage in the
Senate, and that was arguably taken
by the 17th Amendment, making that
amendment possibly invalid under
Article V.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
The note was that there are not restrictions
on amendments to restrict without consent
the house seats or electoral votes. Only
the Senate was protected.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs What does that have to do with whether or not the Bill of Rights confers new powers?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Mostly it was amusement at the lack of
restrictions for amendments.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
@SpamSpamNEggs Okay, now that you've "clarified" your position, maybe you can explain what the hell it has to do with what you were saying?
shanedk 1 year ago
Pursuant to the nondelegation doctrine, do you then think that all executive regulations and administrative laws are unconstitutional? Do you think it is illegal for the President to submit a budget instead of Congress taking the initiative? Do you think that all operations other than war are illegal? And most importantly, do you think these things not because of an interpretation of the Constitution but because you politically believe in minimalist government - or is that just a coincidence?
clownpenisfart 1 year ago
1. Congress needs to write the laws. They don't have the authority to just create an agency and tell them to do what they want. Hence DownsizeDC's Write the Laws Act.
2. The President can submit all the budgets he wants. It's Congress's decision whether or not to pass them; all the President can do is sign or veto whatever they send to him.
3. Post offices, roads, and lots of other things are specified in Article I Section 8.
shanedk 1 year ago
3. Sorry, to clarify, I meant military operations that fall short of war.
clownpenisfart 1 year ago
4. I'm speaking of what the Constitution says here. The government I want would be MUCH smaller.
shanedk 1 year ago
This is a frightening video.
supahsekzy 2 years ago
@supahsekzy: Why do you say that?
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome because of its overlying message; that is, the federal gov't doesn't really care to make sure that what it's doing is constitutional, so long as no one has a problem with it.
supahsekzy 1 year ago
Yes, despite the overly litigious society we live in, no1 in the entire country really cares except Shane, Glenn Beck & their small band of merry men. That's it. Just the way the evil conspiracy wants it. It couldn't possibly be that other people, particularly legal scholars & people who actually practice law for a living, have a firmer understanding of the law. Nope, Shane's the true expert here. No room for reasonable & civil disagreement. The libertarians hold the one, true interpretation.
mjr256 2 years ago
Yeah, that must be why you have to resort to insults instead of rational arguments...
shanedk 2 years ago
"The libertarians hold the one, true interpretation."
It's funny how riled up mjr256 gets when his faith is attacked. He will try anything to keep government on a pedestal which he can bow before and worship. The shear hostility he has for mentioning the idea that government should be expected to follow the law is mind boggling.
amcnea 2 years ago
Yeah, I've never understood how so many people arguing for the "rule of law" will not only NOT apply it to government, but insist on what is effectively political anarchy.
shanedk 2 years ago
@shanedk
"....political anarchy."
In this context, you mean direct democracy?
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
I like these videos and they are very informative, but I do wonder if all of these things are truly unconstitutional why are they not challenged? I find it hard to believe there isn't a loop hole or something you missed that allows for these powers
SwordSworn147 2 years ago
No, people just don't seem to know or care anymore.
shanedk 2 years ago
"I find it hard to believe there isn't a loop hole or something you missed that allows for these powers"
In the words of George Carlin: Everyone has a phone which rubs their balls and makes flap jacks, so no one wants to rock the boat.
amcnea 2 years ago
No thanks, Shane. Seeing how biased this lecture is, I don't see the point unless the former lecture includes you saying what you say in future lectures is biased & not to be taken as serious, objective reporting of facts.
No serious legal scholars are as unwilling to recognize the legitimate debate over the meaning of its broader terms like "general welfare." as you are.
I'm sorry you can't admit error or that nuance exists in the law but suck it up.
mjr256 2 years ago
Yeah, how dare I be biased to logic and reason...
Go on, just cover your ears like a good little cult member.
shanedk 2 years ago
It's like arguing w/ a creationist. The Constitution is not the be-all, end-all of the law. It's not practical to demand strict adherence to every word. Do we really need a jury to settle civil small claims cases? Even Biblical literalists aren't so strict in their adherence to scripture to devote their every waking hour to stoning sinners to death
If you want to start a religion that worships the Constitution as divine scripture, go nuts...or break the unconstitutional laws & see what happens
mjr256 2 years ago
"It's like arguing w/ a creationist."
I agree, you do act like creationist.
"The Constitution is not the be-all, end-all of the law."
But, it is the law. It is the supreme law of the land. It is the law which forms and structures our government.
"It's not practical to demand strict adherence to every word."
Try that one in court. Your honor it wasn't practical for me to be traveling at 55 mph thats why I was going 95.
For one who worships the government, you seem to dog religion a bit.
amcnea 2 years ago
amcnea,
The Constitution CAN supersede every single other law in the country provided that a case is ruled to fall within its purview. It's a living document & uses broad language that's subject to interpretation. And it's the job of judges and juries to determine if a specific case does or does not fall within its purview. If you want "supreme law" join a religion.
"Try that one in court."
Nobody "tries" anything. That's how its done. Talk to a lawyer, not your supreme Constitution deity.
mjr256 2 years ago
"The Constitution CAN supersede every single other law in the country provided that a case is ruled to fall within its purview."
WRONG. ABSOLUTELY WRONG. See the American Jurisprudence quote.
shanedk 2 years ago
mjr256
"It's a living document"
No it is not. This is an excuse used by government worshipers to justify their faith.
"And it's the job of judges and juries to determine if a specific case does or does not fall within its purview."
No it is not. It is job of the states to enforce the contract between the states. However, all this got fucked up with 14th amendment (not to mention the civil war).
"Talk to a lawyer, not your supreme Constitution deity"
Why do you think a contract is scripture?
amcnea 2 years ago
"No it is not. This is an excuse used by government worshipers to justify their faith."
No, this is what people who actually practice law every day use to debate over how particular cases should be ruled by the court because the law isn't a black & white abstract concept but something that requires critical thought & nuance. No "government worship" required.
"It is job of the states to enforce the contract between the states."
What do you think judges & lawyers do all day anyway?
mjr256 2 years ago
"No, this is what people who actually practice law every day use to debate over how particular cases should be ruled"
So, they use the idea that a document is alive to figure out how a case should be ruled? It would seem easier to just read the law to see how a case should be ruled.
"What do you think judges & lawyers do all day anyway?"
Steel, rape, pillage, and split up the booty.
amcnea 2 years ago
Which I'm sure sounds super easy to someone who doesn't actually practice law but most cases aren't so easy to decide as flipping a coin.
"Steel, rape, pillage, and split up the booty."
Yeah, my point exactly. You have no respect for the legal system or critical thought & just want to worship a bunch of stone tablets w/ absolute commandments written on them. As I said before, if you want to start a religion, then feel free. But don't expect the rest of us who care about nuance to sign up.
mjr256 2 years ago
"You have no respect for the legal system"
That's because the legal system has no respect for law or human decency.
"or critical thought"
That's just wrong, I am all about critical thought.
"just want to worship a bunch of stone tablets"
Again it is a contract and it is the law.
"w/ absolute commandments written on them"
Yah, absolute commandments with an amendment process.
"As I said before, if you want to start a religion, then feel free"
You think following the law is starting a religion.
amcnea 2 years ago
If you're not even willing to listen to our arguments, why should we listen to you?
shanedk 2 years ago
"The Constitution is not the be-all, end-all of the law."
It is the SUPREME law. It supersedes EVERY SINGLE OTHER LAW IN THE COUNTRY.
shanedk 2 years ago
"It is the SUPREME law. It supersedes EVERY SINGLE OTHER LAW IN THE COUNTRY. "
It CAN supersede every single other law in the country provided that a case is ruled to fall within its purview. The Constitution is a living document and uses broad language that's subject to interpretation. And it's the job of judges and juries to determine if a specific case does or does not fall within its purview.
mjr256 2 years ago
mjr256, copy/pasting an error does not stop it being and error.
evensgrey 2 years ago
And lastly, our entire democratic system is designed for the purpose of allowing those elected by the people to make make changes to the laws when deemed appropriate because the Founders recognized that they couldn't think of everything. Hell, that's what the amendments are for in the first place, to amend any problems discovered over the course of our nation's history.
If you want an unchanging system of absolute laws, join a religion.
mjr256 2 years ago
"And lastly, our entire democratic system is designed for the purpose of allowing those elected by the people to make make changes to the laws"
No, it isn't. We're a republic, not a democracy.
Why the FUCK do you think they made it so hard to amend the Constitution?
shanedk 2 years ago
Again, you deliberately dodge a point in order to make a moot one. We are indeed a republic but we do democratically elect representatives to gov't to act in our interests such as change laws when apt. & while difficult to change the Constitution (for good reason), it's not impossible, nor necessary to enact new laws & statutes
Your stuck on Constitutional absolutism while ignoring the entire history of our legal system
SS was legally enacted under "general welfare" whether you agree or not.
mjr256 2 years ago
Are you going to answer the question or not?
shanedk 2 years ago
Was that a serious question? I'm not a mind-reader, Shane. All I or any legal authority can do is interpret the law (all of it, not just 1 document) & justice to the best of our abilities. Even if we could know the Founders' precise intent, their intent's not the final arbiter of the law as they were as flawed as any1 in gov't today. Rational people recognize the Constitution is just a framework, not a perfect document & that complex legal decisions require nuance, not adherence to blind dogma.
mjr256 2 years ago
@mjr256
"not adherence to blind dogma."
Your the one worshiping the government. You seem to believe these people are all powerful gods which have no restrictions on them.
All Shane is stating is that there is a contractual agreement which has been made and it should be honored. Contracts are not religion.
Believing governing officials to be above the law and not bound by anything is a form of worship. You are just practicing a new age version of the divine right of kings.
amcnea 2 years ago
"Even if we could know the Founders' precise intent, their intent's not the final arbiter of the law as they were as flawed as any1 in gov't today."
Strawman. See Lecture 1.
shanedk 2 years ago
It most certainly is not a straw man. Even the Federalist Papers show that the Founders hadn't reached consensus as to precise meaning. You're going for a more Madison viewpoint and I'm going w/ a more Hamilton interpretation on the meaning of "general welfare." But even if they did agree, they weren't divine kings and their authority does not rule us from the tomb.
mjr256 2 years ago
"the Federalist Papers show that the Founders hadn't reached consensus as to precise meaning"
The federalist papers are NOT the constitution.
"I'm going w/ a more Hamilton interpretation"
Hamilton was NOT at the constitutional convention during the time the "general welfare" clause was crafted.
"But even if they did agree, they weren't divine kings and their authority does not rule us from the tomb."
Again, following the law is not ruling from the tomb. If you don't like it AMEND IT.
amcnea 2 years ago
If you'd just WATCH Lecture 1, you wouldn't appear so stupid to people who actually HAVE.
shanedk 2 years ago
A republic is a democracy, why do people have such a difficult time understanding that? This is probably the hundredth time Ive seen this comment. A republic is simply a subset of democracy.
kosmoincalgary 2 years ago
Because it's NOT TRUE. See Lecture 4.
shanedk 2 years ago
"A republic is simply a subset of democracy."
Not really. Although the words have been blurred in recent times in their usage.
A Republic mainly infers the idea that the majority is bound and not free to do as it pleases. Such as 51% can't kill the other 49%.
A Democracy originally (colonial times) referred to direct-democracy. As this was the ancient Greek form of democracy, and representational-democracy had not been invented yet.
amcnea 2 years ago
Yes, and we all need to be reminded of the difference between a democracy & republic constantly lest we accidentally make a mistake and go on a killing spree, which is exactly what would happen if pretentious individuals didn't feel the need to sidestep actual contentious issues to clarify this semantic distinction in order to show up their opponents in a superficial way.
mjr256 2 years ago
"Yes, and we all need to be reminded ..."
Perhaps kosmoincalgary doesn't actually know there is a difference. Perhaps kosmoincalgary actually cares about knowledge and would appreciate being informed of what the difference is. Just because you (mjr256) do not care about knowledge or learning. Doesn't mean the same is true for kosmoincalgary.
amcnea 2 years ago 2
If you cant understand the definitions of words, then you make silly arguments like "the US is not a democracy, its a republic" which in turn makes you look dumb. Obviously its not the end of the world, but getting the meaning of words correct is important.
kosmoincalgary 2 years ago
@kosmoincalgary
But yes, I will agree with you that in today's terminology it is kinda splitting hairs to draw a major distinction between democracy and a republic.
However, for those who spend time reading older texts, their may develop a larger distinction in their minds. But, this is because the distinction exists in the texts that they are reading.
amcnea 2 years ago
Except that he's NOT dumb. Lecture 4 (uploading as we speak) covers this.
shanedk 2 years ago
"Lecture 4 (uploading as we speak)"
Yeahhhhh, lecture 4 is coming and we can begin all of this again.
Will mjr256 be back with another ridiculous argument? Will the anarchists be back to trash statism? Find out in our next episode. Same Shane Time. Same Shane Channel.
amcnea 2 years ago
No really, from a purely political science perspective, a republic is a form of government in which the citizens elect representatives and the state is not headed by a monarch. That is all. A democracy however is simply a form of gov where the citizen elects representatives or directly votes for policy. In Canada for example we have a constitutional monarchy, but we are still a democracy.
kosmoincalgary 2 years ago
@kosmoincalgary
Yes, the terms have converged recently. However up until about the 1900's democracy purely meant direct-democracy.
Back in colonial times there are quite a few quotes of the founding fathers talking about how crappy democracy is, and how much better a republic is because you elect representatives instead of directly voting.
In studying the history of political science it is important to know these terms differed more in the past. Else you may read the documents incorrectly.
amcnea 2 years ago
Definitions of words change, that is why it is important to use the current day definitions. In academia, a republic is a form of democracy in which there is no monarch as head of state.
kosmoincalgary 2 years ago
"In academia, a republic is a form of democracy ..."
Actually, in academia a republic usually doesn't refer to a democracy. That is more of the colloquial sense of the word. In academia there are several definitions of republic. For instance, if I were talking about colonial America I would probably be using James Madison's definition meaning representative democracy. But, if I were talking about The People Republic of China, then republic would have nothing to do with democracy what-so-ever.
amcnea 2 years ago
Madison's definition was a bit more nuanced than that. I go into this a bit, but basically an oligarchy is too few representatives per population size and democracy is too many. Too few representatives, they're easily swayed by special interests. Too many, and the people can vote whatever they want.
Republic is the sweet spot in the middle.
shanedk 2 years ago
"Madison's definition was a bit more nuanced than that"
Yeah, I had that in the original message, but it got cut trying to get it down 500 chars. It's good that you mentioned it for anyone that doesn't know and is interested.
I also had a part about in present day America a Republic has been defined by the supreme court to have "equal rights" and "be chosen by the people". In "US vs Cruikshank" and "In re Duncan" respectively.
P.S. I have been watching Red Dwarf ever since your comment earlier
amcnea 2 years ago
no, in a poli sci class when someone uses the word republic it is understood that it is a state that has no monarch as head of state and permits citizens to vote for representatives or policy or both. Just because the chinese call themselves a republic doesnt make it so, much like the democratic republic of east germany wasnt democratic. Using 18th century definitions in a 21st century conversation doesnt work if the definition has changed.
kosmoincalgary 2 years ago
"in a poli sci class"
Who cares. A freshman poli sci class is NOT academia. Your class doesn't get to define words for the entire world. You are simply incorrect in you assertions.
In case you missed it, the Supreme Court has ruled that a republic has "equal rights" and is "chosen by the people". In "US vs Cruikshank" and "In re Duncan" respectively.
So go tell the Supreme Court that they are wrong and your political science class is right.
amcnea 2 years ago
Democracy is rule of men. Republic is rule of law. The government of a Republic doesn't HAVE to be elected (although they generally are).
shanedk 2 years ago
no, that may be your personal definition, but in academia, that is not the case.
kosmoincalgary 2 years ago
@shanedk:
So by your definition. The US is a democratic republic? Like most "western" countries?
introsis 2 years ago
It's a constitutional republic with a representative democracy, if you want to put it that way.
shanedk 2 years ago
BULLSHIT!
Article I, Sec. 8 states that The Congress shall have Power To lay & collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts & Excises, to pay the Debts & provide for the common Defense & "general Welfare" of the US.
Social Security & public education CLEARLY fall into the general welfare category.
Further, the Constitution was never intended to be treated in such literalist, black & white terms. Our legal system is built on the doctrine of stare decisis, where precedence matters.
mjr256 2 years ago
The Constitution was never intended to be viewed in literalist, black & white terms. Our legal system is built on the doctrine of stare decisis, meaning precedence matters. You're ignoring the entire history of the our legal system
To suggest that the amendments, such as the 1st, were not intended to have any exceptions is just silly. I'm all for getting rid of Obscenity Law but no libel law? What about matters of national security or when speech interferes w/ the rights of others?
mjr256 2 years ago
Libel is civil, not criminal. Again, learn what you're talking about before spouting ignorance.
shanedk 2 years ago
Moot point. It's still the legal system of the U.S. gov't regulating speech, which you implied was never acceptable. I also mentioned cases of national security, which WOULD fall under criminal law.
My point was only that the Constitution does not exist in a vacuum and reasonable and legal exceptions to its amendments do exist.
mjr256 2 years ago
Lecture 7 covers General Welfare. Read that before you go spouting ignorant things again.
SS is ABSOLUTELY NOT General Welfare. It's SPECIFIC welfare. Welfare given to seniors--the RICHEST demographic--at the expense of their children's incomes and by saddling debt on their grandchildren.
Also, Clause 1 is NOT a separate clause in and of itself; it's there to limit the scope of the powers that follow.
shanedk 2 years ago
It's not necessary to watch every video you ever made in order to address misinformation presented in THIS video. You clearly state in THIS VIDEO that Social Security & public education are unconstitutional when in fact they are not. Both were introduced through the regular legal process. And sorry, but you don't get to change the definition of "specific" or "general" to fit your ideology. "General Wellfare" does not discount the existence of conditions.
mjr256 2 years ago
@mjr256
"General Wellfare" does not discount the existence of conditions.
From your statements you seem to think the term "General Welfare" means that congress can do whatever it deems appropriate. If this is the case then why define the powers of congress at all. Why not just say congress can do whatever it deems appropriate and leave it at that.
If you interpretation is correct, then the constitution make no sense what-so-ever. Therefor you must be wrong.
amcnea 2 years ago
Exactly Madison's point. Which mjr256 would see if he'd just watch the smegging video!
shanedk 2 years ago
"smegging"
Is that a Red Dwarf reference? hehe
amcnea 2 years ago
Yep! Red Dwarf rocks.
shanedk 2 years ago
THIS video does not cover general welfare. If you want to discuss that, go to THAT video.
And I changed nothing. It's WHAT THE FOUNDERS MEANT.
shanedk 2 years ago
@mjr256
"Article I, Sec. 8 states that The Congress shall have Power To lay & collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts & Excises, to pay the Debts & provide for the common Defense & "general Welfare" of the US."
This say that congress has the power to collect taxes for the general welfare.
This does NOT say congress has the power to make legislation for the general welfare.
The rest of section 8 deals with what legislation congress is allowed to create.
Social Security & education is not in the list.
amcnea 2 years ago
amcnea, that would be the "Spend" part of "Tax & Spend". Congress has the power to pass all laws necessary & proper to execute their laws. No list of what constitutes "general welfare" is necessary as even the primary authors of the Federalist Papers disagreed over its implications.
But if you want to get technical, the Commerce Clause potentially gives Congress limitless power so long as they can justify how something helps or hinders trade.
Bottom line: it's subject to interpretation.
mjr256 2 years ago
amcnea 2 years ago
Even the Federalist Paper authors debated the meaning of "general welfare." Hamilton took the broader view that spending is an enumerated power that Congress may exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education.
And Madison disagreed w/ him. That's fine. But to pretend there's only one interpretation when even the Founders disagreed on it is dishonest.
mjr256 2 years ago
"But to pretend there's only one interpretation when even the Founders disagreed on it is dishonest."
Hamilton wasn't there. He is not an author of that clause. Madison was. Madison participated in the debate.
The Federalist Papers do NOT define the constitution. If you want to know what the constitution means, GO TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATES. Not the Federalist Papers.
Many states wouldn't of ratified if they believed Hamilton's view. Changing the meaning after the fact is dishonest.
amcnea 2 years ago
The Federalist Papers are regarded by legal scholars as a primary source for interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. I'm sorry you don't like the facts but feel free to keep making some up that are more to your liking.
mjr256 2 years ago
"The Federalist Papers are regarded by legal scholars as a primary source for interpretation of the U.S. Constitution."
Before you said judges and juries get to interpret. Now all legal scholars get to also? Just like a Christian, move the goal post.
I guess if you DON'T want to know what the decisions made by the peoples representatives were, and would rather read the OPINIONS of people who weren't there, then it makes sense to go to the Federalist Papers.
amcnea 2 years ago
"Congress has the power to pass all laws necessary & proper to execute their laws."
WRONG. They have the power to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS.
Again, have you even READ the Constitution?
shanedk 2 years ago
Oh, and the Commerce clause is Lecture 8.
shanedk 2 years ago
Though I find it hard to agree, I find it hard to disagree. You lay out a great case and I think this series was a good idea, and very educational. Good job.
shanesmith20m 2 years ago
general welfare clause gives the govt the power for social security and bank bailouts
ph4rcyd3r 2 years ago
No, the general welfare clause is the pretext that is commonly used for things like Social Security and bank bailouts. In reality, payments, loans, or other benefits that apply to a subset of individuals and corporations are not GENERAL anything, they are specific benefits to those individuals and corporations getting them.
evensgrey 2 years ago
The Americans and their constitution, they'll always baffle me.
Is there any other country in the world that puts its constitution on such a high, untouchable, holy pedestal? Its not that I dont like the US constitution, hell, its probably one of (if not the) most groundbreaking & defining legal documents in history.
But Guns on a second amendment? Really? In 2010? And there lies the problem, amending this thing, even for obvious/already instated reasons, would cause a conservative uproar.
wimscheers 2 years ago
"But Guns on a second amendment? Really? In 2010?"
You just have to regard love of guns as part of America's charm, as baffling and incomprehensible as it might be to Brits in particular.
mandolinic 2 years ago
This is a kind of meaningless talk because the federal gov completely disregards the constitution in many, if not most instances and the 3 branches of government mutually protect each other from the constitution. For example, the congress transferred their power to coin money and delegated to the a non-government entity and the other 2 branches of gov did NOTHING.
christo930 2 years ago
The bill of rights have been watered down so bad as to be next to useless. The government routinely denies people the rights in the bill of rights. The states and gov even have dirty little tricks like dropping things for people who have the money to fight. As of a couple years ago, none of the states with 3 strike rules would allow a prisoner with the money to do it, a right to be heard as they simply let them out of prison before allowing a trial to go to high courts.
christo930 2 years ago
'Most of what the Federal government does is unconstitutional.'
And illegitimate.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
That, too.
shanedk 2 years ago
You know what sucks? When your country doesn't have a constitution. Welcome to my world.
asedtf 2 years ago
In some ways, it can be even WORSE in a country like Canada. We have a written Constitution (badly written, that is, with clauses that have resulted in the precise opposite of the writer's known intentions in some cases, since there's just NO WAY we could EVER use the same wording as the US does), but it's so poorly written that we can't actually determine the totality of the text of the thing. For instance, is the law setting up our Supreme Court in or out?
evensgrey 2 years ago
Hmmm, strange. When you read the actual court case that you quote, one notes that it actually disagrees with your assertion.
"But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described."
AzmodanKijur 2 years ago
Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word 'expressly,' and declares only, that the powers 'not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people; thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest, has been delegated to the one government, (cont)
AzmodanKijur 2 years ago
or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument.
McCollouch vs Maryland.
Strange that you omit that. Also strange is the statement of Social Security being non-constitutional given that it was enacted under the broad power to levy taxes and spend the money "to provide for general welfare". A Supreme Court case upheld that such an act was within the powers of the Federal Government to enact.
AzmodanKijur 2 years ago
Social Security is NOT general welfare. I have a lecture on that as well.
shanedk 2 years ago
Not general welfare? Then what is it? Regardless of any definitional meandering that one might engage in, the system provides a social payment to individuals whom have retired. That is very close to a definition of a social welfare program and since it is open to the entire population, any argument, regardless of how reasoned it may appear, is little more than shuffling ones feet regarding the meaning of words.
AzmodanKijur 2 years ago
ONLY in regards to the necessary and proper clause.
shanedk 2 years ago
Not at all. Any act engaged by the government must meet the test of the consitiution, but as in the case against Maryland, the Government is not bound by a strict reading of the tenth amendment. This is seen clearly in the omission of the word "expressly" from that amendment. The rule was added to quell those that disliked the idea of a central government. Again, as in the case against Maryland, the Government was found to be the Supreme Power in the sphere it operates in.
AzmodanKijur 2 years ago
Given that it is the Supreme Power, the Supreme Court found that the State of Maryland does not have the right to abridge the rights and abilities of a Federally enacted agency (in this case, a bank) from conducting business within its borders. The Federal power overrides the State power in that case. Even more significantly, the powers not granted directly to the Central Government are not automatically given to the states out of hand. It says that it is to the state or the people.
AzmodanKijur 2 years ago
That strongly implies that any power that the states abdicate to the people are within the jurisdiction of the constructed government of the people to operate within, that government being the Federal Body of the country. This is still subject to the constitution, but given the broad nature of the powers it was invested, it is hardly a stretch to think that welfare or the FBI or FEMA or any similar agency or program is outside of its capacity to create and direct.
AzmodanKijur 2 years ago
This can be seen in the case of the FBI. The states are incapable of policing matters that fall outside of their own borders. The Federal government, as per your Section 8, is able to enact rules and create agencies to do this. Just because you may not agree with the broad reading of the powers invested into Congress as per that Section does not make it wrong or unconstitutional.
AzmodanKijur 2 years ago
For those in the audience at large, the actual text of opening of section 8 is: "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States"
Common defense and general welfare. These are not to be narrowly construed. If you've read the full court cases you quote, in each case, the Supreme court has upheld that any attempt to narrowly interpret this power granted is rejected.
AzmodanKijur 2 years ago
Shane, you should consider auditing a Constitutional law class at a local law school. I think a lot of what you present in this series is pretty spot on, there are a few areas you've glossed over, though you may get to them later. Many of the laws some deem unconstitutional fall under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the General Welfare Clause, or the Interstate Commerce Clause. You may disagree with how the court came to its conclusions, but there's often more below the surface.
recklessmess 2 years ago
Yes, I get to those later.
shanedk 2 years ago
shane, i think you might be the last rational conservative left.
styrofoamheart 2 years ago
Well, one small problem with that: I'm not a conservative.
Which leaves us with...
shanedk 2 years ago
that makes sense. i knew "rational conservative" must be an oxymoron.
styrofoamheart 2 years ago 2
"that makes sense. i knew "rational conservative" must be an oxymoron."
Like "military intelligence"?
mandolinic 2 years ago