In my Criminal Justice class, we were told by our professor that Jury Nullification is when the judge overrules the jury's verdict/decision/etc, on the grounds that they didn't come to it via evidence. What are your thoughts on that?
@vspqbd Everywhere in jurisprudence, jury nullification refers to the jury nullifying the law and acquitting an innocent person railroaded under a bad law.
Judges can overrule the decision of a jury if the jury convicts under a set of evidence where no reasonable jury would find guilt, but a judge can NEVER EVER reverse an acquittal.
Again, really nice try. You may even be right. But say you wanted to overturn Social Security. You find someone willing to risk not paying the tax. Then you make the unconstitutionality argument before a jury of people who all want to get Social Security someday. Then repeat it so many times it clogs up the FICA system? Or how to oppose an undeclared war? What jury trial addresses that? And do we WANT blacks nullifying convictions of black criminals because they think everything is racist?
Your first amendment states that they will not make ANY laws that forbid the practice of any religions that means NO LAWS that forbid the practice of ANY religions whatsoever, meaning that all religions need to be legal!
Removing that part DOESN'T automatically men that ALL religions need to be made illegal!
Retarded monkey with a hairy face, just because that part where it says that it won't make any laws that forbid the practice of any religion needs to be removed doesn't men that all religions need to be made illegal!
@undercover343 Look, you can make human sacrifice illegal without getting into First Amendment issues, as long as you make it illegal for EVERYBODY. The First Amendment is about not favoring ANY one group over others based on religion. Eliminate that, and the door is WIDE OPEN.
A protestant could get into power and say that Catholics can't use the Post Office. A Catholic could get into power and say that Jews can't drive on Federal roads. Wide open!
Just so you know, with the exception of some drug laws, if it's illegal for something to be done for nonreligious or secular purposes, it's illegal to do it for religious purposes as well.
It's the first Amendment that helps this.
To go in either way different would be to recognize, legally, a religion.
@undercover343 No, genital mutilation needs to be illegal. Make it illegal for everybody, and you don't go against the First Amendment! What about this can't your pathetic bigoted mind understand?
@shanedk No you cannot make that illegal. the Federal Government does not have the right to hinder personal freedom. If I want to cut mmy balls off that is my right granted to me by nature and or God. Every jury should nullify any illegal drug case whatsoever that they can. Marijuana for one has never even been lawfully made illegal. Point out that the constitution does not authorize the Government to ban natural substances and the case ends there and the man goes free.
@Luigi84289 Genital mutilation IS NOT PERSONAL FREEDOM!!!
"If I want to cut mmy balls off that is my right"
We're not TALKING about doing it to yourself! We're talking about parents having innocent babies strapped to the table and mutilated, usually without ANY anesthesia!
@undercover343 Yes: you were using a cheap ploy to discredit the argument instead of refuting it properly. It's a common tactic among creationists, moon hoaxers, and other peddlers of insane garbage.
@undercover343 Going with what the Constitution actually says is NOT being "closed-minded." So, there's one more way you're like the creationists: this is EXACTLY what they say about people who insist that evolution is true!
@undercover343 No one is "believing in" the Constitution, asshole. The Constitution is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. It's the document that forms our government and gives it its powers. Saying that Congress can just ignore it whenever they want is to say that the law doesn't apply to them.
If you don't like it, propose an amendment. How many religious books get to be amended, asshole?
Now, surely there is no need for that kind of language!
This is where I wanted to bring you to, the amendments!
The first amendment needs to be changed, that part where it says that governments will not make any laws that forbid the practice of any religion, needs to be removed! Don't you agree?
@undercover343 Child rape IS illegal. Don't change the subject from your despicable original claim; this is the first time you've even MENTIONED child rape, and your claim was that ALL religious practices should be banned.
@undercover343 Yes, you did! You said: "The first amendment needs to be changed, that part where it says that governments will not make any laws that forbid the practice of any religion, needs to be removed!" With NO exceptions! You want government to be able to make ANY law they want to forbidding ANY practice of ANY religion!
FINALLY! It's about time I see someone informing the public on this matter. Actually, to my discredit, I knew and did nothing. But this video made me want to hand out information pamphlets about this outside our county court-house. The rest of the country needs to be informed. Thanks Shane!
omegavalerius, What is called a Constitutional Democracy else where does not make it the same as the U.S. Constitutional Republic we have in America. Calling a Constitution the same as another Constitution would be like saying red is red, the paint supply houses would beg to differ. Remember the ultimate power is with the states, not the people else we would not have an electoral college to elect the President. There has been several times when the popular vote did not pick the wining President.
"Dear Shane: I just found your "computer code hoedown" in your blog. Could you post the lyrics too? I am not an english speaker so I find it a little difficult to understand it.
Thanks a lot. I have been following your videos for a while now. I got to say that your Economics Basics videos are great. My wife is studying her master degree in administracion and she likes them a lot. Kudos!"--gpplascencia on your userpage.
I posted this because I want to know where the lyrics are too!
But isn't what you described at the end, talking about the ultimate arbiter, democracy? At least in my vocabulary democracy means that the ultimate power in all three branches of power is with the people. If its representative democracy the power vested in the people is used by a body of representatives (a Parliament). Further the constitution can only be changed if the people or their representatives so choose, whether it is by amendment or by revising it in other ways.
We're not a democracy, though. We're a republic. I once calculated that the Constitution could be amended by as little as 11% of the population, if they were distributed just right.
So what is the difference then between a republic and a representative democracy? In both cases the ultimate power is with the people who choose who represent them in some system of Parliament. In both cases you can base the legitimacy can be founded on a constitution and popular suffrage and in both cases you can have a separation of powers.
Indeed I learned that James Madison described a republic as a representative democracy as opposed to a direct democracy.
You can be a republic with any kind of government (although it's harder with something like a dictatorship). Even though we're a representative democracy, neither the people nor the ones they elect are supposed to be able to do whatever they want just because it's the will of the people. We're a government of laws, not men.
@clownpenisfart So you need majority voters in 3/4ths of the states. So eliminate the 12 most populous states. Then count only the registered voters. Then consider that the usual turnout is 40%. Then consider you only need 51% of that 40%. Last time I did the math, it ended up being about 11% of the population.
So a cop can, in fact, is obligated, to refuse to arrest someone if s/he believes the law being violated is unconstitutional? That would apply to local laws as well. Right?
Also, will you be doing a video on local vs state vs federal law?
That's right. Violation of their Oath and their Contract are the only consequences for the LEO. "I was only following orders" was not accepted at Nuremburgh as a defense and can't be accepted by any officer of any orginization.
It's not legislating, since it has no effect whatsoever on future proceedings. The next case is entirely unaffected by what decision the jury made in the last one. The legislature might eventually decide that having a law that the people recognize as so unjust they refuse to convict under it is bad for the rule of law (since having contemptuous laws encourages contempt for all laws) but it has no effect on the law directly.
Any time somebody points out that you can frustrate the goals of those misusing power and/or position it feels very empowering (which is why such people don't want you to know things like this).
Incidentally, the ability of a judge to overturn guilty verdicts but not innocent ones is another important protection. A judge may decide to do the right things even if the jury decides to do the wrong thing. It's rare, but it happens.
lol, you're great! I never made any sort of reference to gay people or homosexuality or the respective derogatory usage of those terms. You're real good at pulling baseless accusations out of thin air and using them as warnings.
You need to get with the times! "Teabagger," in the context I used it, is the slang word for the Tea Party protesters. It has nothing to do with gay people. The fact that you conotated "tea bagger" as strictly a gay thing is rather homophobic itself. Anyone, man or woman, strait or gay, can put testicles in his or her mouth.
No, LIAR, they're called "tea partiers." "Tea baggers" is what homophobic hate-mongers like you call them to try and discredit them, and you mentioned NO WOMEN WHATSOEVER, LIAR. You mentioned FOUR men: me, Glenn Beck, Penn Jillette, and Teller--NO WOMEN.
No, but LOTS of liberals refer to them that way. Now, turn it around: what if the tea party protests were about, say, legalizing gay marriage (and I know of a few that were), and the conservatives called them "tea baggers." You KNOW what they would be saying!
Idealisticly a good video, however it misses the reality of the situation.
While the fact of the legislature passing unconstitutional laws was acknowledged. There was not mention of the SC ability to refuse to hear a case. In addition, while the executive should not implement unconstitutional laws, this doesn't require them to not do so. In addition with the ability to ingore the constitution, the president can also perform unconstituional acts, allowing him to act above the constitution.
No, you get me wrong. I'm saying make MORE videos. This is a great series that you can expand on to make it even better.
Trying to rile you up, is not because I don't like what you say. It's an attempt to get you to say even more.
If I just say "Great video" you may be satisfied and stop. But if your are pissed off at me and want to prove me wrong I might get another great video :-)
I'm not sure I agree with you here. Granted, a judge cannot overturn a not-guilty from a jury. However, a judge CAN overturn a guilty ruling from a jury.
This means that the ultimate arbiter is not a jury or judge, but some combination of the two.
We're talking about the Constitution. If the jury finds the act is contrary to the Constitution they vote not guilty. Your scenario would just mean the judge found it so, not the jury (but then, he most likely would have done it much earlier).
As an aside, the Executive can not only choose not to enforce laws, it can also VETO them. In fact, according to a book I read about how Congress works, Presidents only used the veto for when they deemed legislation to be unconstitutional for the first 20 terms of office, resulting in just 10 vetoes. Then the executive veto power expanded under Jackson.
The US government seems to have more or less abandoned the rule of law by the 1830's. Don't forget, the Trail of Tears criminal activities were declared illegal by SCOTUS, and the ruling was simply ignored.
uh-huh. Well, if a Libertarian wants to redefine terms like Nolan did, he's certainly free to. But I don't accept Nolan's ad-hoc redefinition of terms, it has no historical precedent. It's simply a distraction meant to distance Libertarians from the more traditional right. There are certain defining characteristics which makes a political theory right wing and Nolan's graph doesn't even acknowledge their existence. So excuse me for rejecting it.
Nolan didn't redefine anything, LIAR. What he did was STOP the people who were redefining it. All you do is spout out baseless claims with nothing to back them up, all to fit your dogma.
The right wants to intrude in personal matters. Libertarians do not. LIBERTARIANS ARE NOT RIGHT-WING. Get over it.
haha, no it's not! "Libertarianism" is a naive misunderstanding of Enlightenment principles and of the founding fathers. Nolan pays lip service by using words "liberal" and "conservative" and yes, does use the words "left" and "right". But the Nolan model, which I have seen used by several people, is only partly right. The up and down on his chart can be used to differentiate between types of left or right wingers, (ie, Libertarians are a kind of right winger and neo-cons another).
if you're going to call libertarians right wing, then how do you explain the majority of libertarians agreeing more with typically left wing social stances (anarchist and liberal left wing, not 'progressive' pro-interventionist left wing) , such as gay marriage, reduced military spending, legalised drugs, and stronger support for civil liberties?
Oh grow up. Nolan's political map has no historical basis. The left-right political theory goes back to the 18th century enlightenment. Read your history!!!
LOL! Okay then! What do we do? Pull new definitions out of our asses when ever it best suits us? I'm not going to try and redefine Marxism or Capitalism from its historical context. Why should left-right politics be any different? I'm not saying Nolan's definition isn't valid per se, I'm just saying its an ad hoc definition of terms to serve his own means and to atomize modern politics away from its historical context.
Nolan's map is BASED on that tradition. It's the words "liberal" and "conservative" that got corrupted in the 20th Century. "Libertarian" is an attempt to get back to enlightenment philosophy.
Nolan's chart is taught in schools and universities and accepted by numerous political scientists.
wow 6 parts! As this series goes on its sounding more and more like a fairytale. The US Constitution has consistently demonstrated ZERO effectiveness in restraining the state. The US experiment in limited government has failed... this doesn't make it a failure unless we don't learn from our mistakes. Cling to the constitution is no different than clinging to sugar pills long after its been reveled to be a placebo.
It isn't the Constitution that has failed in restraining the state; it's US. The Constitution is just words on paper. As Learned Hand said, "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it."
In other words, the Constitution didn't fail us; we failed the Constitution.
Did you know that police can actually decide to not enforce laws that they percieve on unconstitutional? No? Well, that's probably because most police officers aren't told about this particular authority.
Our protections begin with law enforcement. But the fact that everyone who's supposed to protect us, including the juries, are all misinformed, it's no wonder everything's falling apart!
It's not a red herring. The fact YOU didn't even know this means that YOU are a product of the propoganda machine. You think it's okay to mistreat, say, sex offenders, for example, and to remove people's right to vote and stuff. I'm guess here, because ignorance leads to such conclusions.
I honestly believe if everyone understood what their responsibilities were under this system, it would work great. Should I try to teach them? Nobody ever listens to me, so I've long since given up.
I'm sorry, but simply having a choice regarding who breaks my legs isn't much of an improvement at all. So how does it feel to love getting fucked for a buck by the wealthy few, hmm? You must really enjoy it in order to say that we don't need gubberment, Surhotchaperchlorome.
Dude, you just love getting fucked for a buck by an wealthy elite who just loves fucking the planet for a buck. If you don't know this by now, you're just dumber than I thought. FKN Newz will tell you all about it, if you don't believe me, Surhotchaperchlorome.
Why do we need to get fucked for a buck by an elite wealthy few, Surhotchaperchlorome? I dunno about you, but I feel I've been fucked for a buck plenty enough. You go on thinking that getting fucked for a buck - with or without a formal gubberment - is the bestest way for our world to work, Surhotchaperchlorome. I'll just sit comfortably in my hidey-hole, not buying shit I don't need, to line the pockets of a few people raping the planet for a buck while you go on endorsing the status quo.
Yes, but police come from the people. If people heard so much about this growing up, they'd know it when they became policemen or whatever. By then, it's too late.
No, because Communism is not analogous to the Constitution; it's more analogous to the free market.
It's like: you hire a security force to keep people from stealing your stuff; they do nothing while people steal your stuff; they're the ones that failed you.
We the people are supposed to be the ultimate arbiters and defenders of the Constitution. We are the ones who are supposed to hold the politicians accountable when they violate the Constitution. We failed.
1. It lasted longer than was expected by most at the time (even the founding fathers thought we needed/were going to have a revolution every 20 years).
2. It allowed us to remain free enough to create massive wealth and progress.
3. We know more now: one more thing that doesn't work;
Just like Edison would say: "I didn't fail 1200 times, I simply ruled out 1200 ways that don't work."
1. It took 11 years for a founding father to violate the constitution... the Alien and Sedition Acts.
2. we remained as free because it took time to finish colonizing the rest of America and it took time for the state to become established in those territories. After the state was firmly established, it took time for them to dumb us down enough to accept ever increasing state control over us. Freedom automatically brings wealth.
3. Most people still wont admit the constitution is a failure.
I really haven't been watching this series... Although I subscribe to Shane and like a lot of his videos. I think I commented on the 2nd part and this videos title kinda grabbed my attention.
I don't plan on watching more of the series. As an anarchist I already understand the statist ideological models of which democracy and constitutional republics are some of the most potent.
Yet as a wizkid, you fail to understand how the "free market" is just about fucking you over the coals for a buck. It's a hilarious contradiction, if you ask me. "If we let a few rich snobs fuck us all over for a buck, the world would be a better place! Really! It would be!" Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Please tell me another, because I'm not laughing.
So instead we should give a few powerful people in the government control of the entire economy so the rich snobs can just bribe them for our money in the form of subsidies instead.
Wow. Another person who loves getting fucked for a buck by the wealthy few who control everything. Well, I salute you for standing up for your virtues, but I've been ass-raped waaaay too much by those people. Have fun thinking it will somehow improve the world to just let them fucking you over for a buck, wizkid2000.
Someone call Nobel..... We got another fricken genus here!
LeksServices , the "ass-raping" you ascribe to the rich is only made possible because of the state. The power to abuse originates from the states ability to coerce.
Is it at all possible for a court like the Supreme court to find that a particular law or case is deemed to be unconstitutional and it is repealed or thrown out, but then if they hear a similar case it is upheld? Is there any standardisation? Or is it all down to circumstance (Or bias)...
Yes, but he's a fictional character. A good lawyer in the real world shouldn't say that a jury will never convict, since a jury can do almost anything. They may be UNLIKELY to convict, but that's not a guarantee. I can even see jurors wanting to acquit in some cases because it means they get to leave afterward, instead of having a sentencing phase to make a recommendation for (since juries have to make sentence recommendations for some crimes in some jurisdictions).
I think the importance of your Constitution lectures cannot be understated. You should end the videos with QED because this is really quality educational material that you have here.
No, I'm testing shanedk's level of bias. He's clearly a biased prick. He throws a fit over an imagined act of bigotry on my part I never uttered. But that was when it was over his intellectual cousins, the Randians. But when I call liberals wusses he says nothing.
Way to go shanedk, you have proven yourself intellectually dishonest. I do not care for your intellectual posturing!
Yes, it DOES take a lot of moxey to make film after film without ever making a cogent argument about ANYTHING.
To quote Wolfgang Pauli's assessment of very slopy work, "It is not even wrong." The worst problem with Moore's work is it ISN'T sloppy. It's like that on purpose.
I'm sorry, but the more political philosophy and constitutional lectures I see, both from, FlowCell, Virgil0211 and others, the more my resolve for Anarcho-Capitalism (if not full blown Agorism) is strengthened.
Anarchy is the logical conclusion of both the Austrian School of economics and the Philosophy of Liberty (e.g. by John Locke), not Minarchism.
This has been flagged as spam show
Letting the executive branch appoint judges was a disaster, this should be done by a 4th branch of goverment
iamagi 1 month ago
In my Criminal Justice class, we were told by our professor that Jury Nullification is when the judge overrules the jury's verdict/decision/etc, on the grounds that they didn't come to it via evidence. What are your thoughts on that?
vspqbd 4 months ago
@vspqbd Everywhere in jurisprudence, jury nullification refers to the jury nullifying the law and acquitting an innocent person railroaded under a bad law.
Judges can overrule the decision of a jury if the jury convicts under a set of evidence where no reasonable jury would find guilt, but a judge can NEVER EVER reverse an acquittal.
shanedk 4 months ago
Again, really nice try. You may even be right. But say you wanted to overturn Social Security. You find someone willing to risk not paying the tax. Then you make the unconstitutionality argument before a jury of people who all want to get Social Security someday. Then repeat it so many times it clogs up the FICA system? Or how to oppose an undeclared war? What jury trial addresses that? And do we WANT blacks nullifying convictions of black criminals because they think everything is racist?
gmsherry1953 7 months ago
undercover343 has been blocked for bigoted comments (deleted).
shanedk 1 year ago
Your first amendment states that they will not make ANY laws that forbid the practice of any religions that means NO LAWS that forbid the practice of ANY religions whatsoever, meaning that all religions need to be legal!
Removing that part DOESN'T automatically men that ALL religions need to be made illegal!
undercover343 1 year ago
@undercover343 But it gives them the POWER to make all religions illegal! Don't you get that?
shanedk 1 year ago
If child rape is illegal then why do they allow the practise of child rapist cults that genitally mutilate helpless little baby boys?
And childhood indoctrination should also be illegal because it's a crime against humanity!
undercover343 1 year ago
@undercover343 They don't recognize circumcision as genital mutilation, and that is NOT based on what religion you are!
Now, stop with the dishonest weaseling and support your original assertion.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk,
Retarded monkey with a hairy face, just because that part where it says that it won't make any laws that forbid the practice of any religion needs to be removed doesn't men that all religions need to be made illegal!
undercover343 1 year ago
@undercover343 Look, you can make human sacrifice illegal without getting into First Amendment issues, as long as you make it illegal for EVERYBODY. The First Amendment is about not favoring ANY one group over others based on religion. Eliminate that, and the door is WIDE OPEN.
A protestant could get into power and say that Catholics can't use the Post Office. A Catholic could get into power and say that Jews can't drive on Federal roads. Wide open!
shanedk 1 year ago
@undercover343
I think I know what you're getting at.
Just so you know, with the exception of some drug laws, if it's illegal for something to be done for nonreligious or secular purposes, it's illegal to do it for religious purposes as well.
It's the first Amendment that helps this.
To go in either way different would be to recognize, legally, a religion.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd,
No, dehumanising child rapist cults that genitally mutilate helpless little baby boys needs to be made ILLEGAL!
undercover343 1 year ago
@undercover343 No, genital mutilation needs to be illegal. Make it illegal for everybody, and you don't go against the First Amendment! What about this can't your pathetic bigoted mind understand?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk No you cannot make that illegal. the Federal Government does not have the right to hinder personal freedom. If I want to cut mmy balls off that is my right granted to me by nature and or God. Every jury should nullify any illegal drug case whatsoever that they can. Marijuana for one has never even been lawfully made illegal. Point out that the constitution does not authorize the Government to ban natural substances and the case ends there and the man goes free.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@Luigi84289 Genital mutilation IS NOT PERSONAL FREEDOM!!!
"If I want to cut mmy balls off that is my right"
We're not TALKING about doing it to yourself! We're talking about parents having innocent babies strapped to the table and mutilated, usually without ANY anesthesia!
shanedk 1 year ago
Now if only the government would obey the Constitution.
vspqbd 1 year ago
Isn't worshipping a certain constitution also dogmatism/cultism?
undercover343 1 year ago
@undercover343 No one's worshipping the Constitution; stop with the ad hominems.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk, You know what I meant when I said 'worshipping'!
undercover343 1 year ago
@undercover343 Yes: you were using a cheap ploy to discredit the argument instead of refuting it properly. It's a common tactic among creationists, moon hoaxers, and other peddlers of insane garbage.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk,
Being closed minded about a constitution is just like being closed minded about a bible or whatever garbage!
undercover343 1 year ago
@undercover343 Going with what the Constitution actually says is NOT being "closed-minded." So, there's one more way you're like the creationists: this is EXACTLY what they say about people who insist that evolution is true!
shanedk 1 year ago 2
@shanedk,
Evolution is TRUE because we KNOW that it's true.
Believing in a certain kind of constitution is somewhat like believing in a retarded religious book!
undercover343 1 year ago
@undercover343 No one is "believing in" the Constitution, asshole. The Constitution is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. It's the document that forms our government and gives it its powers. Saying that Congress can just ignore it whenever they want is to say that the law doesn't apply to them.
If you don't like it, propose an amendment. How many religious books get to be amended, asshole?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk,
Now, surely there is no need for that kind of language!
This is where I wanted to bring you to, the amendments!
The first amendment needs to be changed, that part where it says that governments will not make any laws that forbid the practice of any religion, needs to be removed! Don't you agree?
undercover343 1 year ago
@undercover343 No, because government SHOULDN'T be doing that!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk,
Then who?
undercover343 1 year ago
@undercover343 See, THERE'S that assumption--same assumption of the religious and other dogmatists. Who says ANYONE should be doing it?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk,
You're starting to sound like an apologist!
Please be more detailed!
undercover343 1 year ago
@undercover343 You're the one making the claim. You're the one who needs to defend it.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk,
Making what claim?
Dehumanising child rapist cults need to be made ILLEGAL!
undercover343 1 year ago
@undercover343 Child rape IS illegal. Don't change the subject from your despicable original claim; this is the first time you've even MENTIONED child rape, and your claim was that ALL religious practices should be banned.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk, Hmm, I did not say all of them!
undercover343 1 year ago
@undercover343 Yes, you did! You said: "The first amendment needs to be changed, that part where it says that governments will not make any laws that forbid the practice of any religion, needs to be removed!" With NO exceptions! You want government to be able to make ANY law they want to forbidding ANY practice of ANY religion!
shanedk 1 year ago
Rabble rabble rabble!
RandyMarshification 1 year ago
FINALLY! It's about time I see someone informing the public on this matter. Actually, to my discredit, I knew and did nothing. But this video made me want to hand out information pamphlets about this outside our county court-house. The rest of the country needs to be informed. Thanks Shane!
BunnyProle 1 year ago
omegavalerius, What is called a Constitutional Democracy else where does not make it the same as the U.S. Constitutional Republic we have in America. Calling a Constitution the same as another Constitution would be like saying red is red, the paint supply houses would beg to differ. Remember the ultimate power is with the states, not the people else we would not have an electoral college to elect the President. There has been several times when the popular vote did not pick the wining President.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
"Dear Shane: I just found your "computer code hoedown" in your blog. Could you post the lyrics too? I am not an english speaker so I find it a little difficult to understand it.
Thanks a lot. I have been following your videos for a while now. I got to say that your Economics Basics videos are great. My wife is studying her master degree in administracion and she likes them a lot. Kudos!"--gpplascencia on your userpage.
I posted this because I want to know where the lyrics are too!
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome The "lyrics" are simply one of the functions of the DeCSS program. I forget which one.
shanedk 1 year ago
But isn't what you described at the end, talking about the ultimate arbiter, democracy? At least in my vocabulary democracy means that the ultimate power in all three branches of power is with the people. If its representative democracy the power vested in the people is used by a body of representatives (a Parliament). Further the constitution can only be changed if the people or their representatives so choose, whether it is by amendment or by revising it in other ways.
omegavalerius 1 year ago
We're not a democracy, though. We're a republic. I once calculated that the Constitution could be amended by as little as 11% of the population, if they were distributed just right.
shanedk 1 year ago
So what is the difference then between a republic and a representative democracy? In both cases the ultimate power is with the people who choose who represent them in some system of Parliament. In both cases you can base the legitimacy can be founded on a constitution and popular suffrage and in both cases you can have a separation of powers.
Indeed I learned that James Madison described a republic as a representative democracy as opposed to a direct democracy.
omegavalerius 1 year ago
You can be a republic with any kind of government (although it's harder with something like a dictatorship). Even though we're a representative democracy, neither the people nor the ones they elect are supposed to be able to do whatever they want just because it's the will of the people. We're a government of laws, not men.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Fuck I hate this new comment system.
Anyways back to the point. Any western
representative democracy is a
constitutional democracy. It doesn't
change the fact that the people have
ultimate power and if they so choose,
can alter the law as they please (given
the required majority of course).
omegavalerius 1 year ago
What?! 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress and 3/4ths of the state legislatures. There is no way you can do that with 11%. Please explain.
clownpenisfart 1 year ago
@clownpenisfart So you need majority voters in 3/4ths of the states. So eliminate the 12 most populous states. Then count only the registered voters. Then consider that the usual turnout is 40%. Then consider you only need 51% of that 40%. Last time I did the math, it ended up being about 11% of the population.
shanedk 1 year ago
So a cop can, in fact, is obligated, to refuse to arrest someone if s/he believes the law being violated is unconstitutional? That would apply to local laws as well. Right?
Also, will you be doing a video on local vs state vs federal law?
Good stuff.
dangerics 1 year ago
That's right. Violation of their Oath and their Contract are the only consequences for the LEO. "I was only following orders" was not accepted at Nuremburgh as a defense and can't be accepted by any officer of any orginization.
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
I really appreciate this video. The thought never crossed my mind that I could legislate from a jury box.
snowlionud 1 year ago
It's not legislating, since it has no effect whatsoever on future proceedings. The next case is entirely unaffected by what decision the jury made in the last one. The legislature might eventually decide that having a law that the people recognize as so unjust they refuse to convict under it is bad for the rule of law (since having contemptuous laws encourages contempt for all laws) but it has no effect on the law directly.
evensgrey 1 year ago
I should have been more specific, but clearly you get the point. It's more indirect of a process. I simply find the video empowering is all.
snowlionud 1 year ago
Any time somebody points out that you can frustrate the goals of those misusing power and/or position it feels very empowering (which is why such people don't want you to know things like this).
Incidentally, the ability of a judge to overturn guilty verdicts but not innocent ones is another important protection. A judge may decide to do the right things even if the jury decides to do the wrong thing. It's rare, but it happens.
evensgrey 1 year ago
SpazzzDog, homophobic comments are NOT allowed on this channel. Your comment was deleted. First AND ONLY warning.
shanedk 1 year ago
lol, you're great! I never made any sort of reference to gay people or homosexuality or the respective derogatory usage of those terms. You're real good at pulling baseless accusations out of thin air and using them as warnings.
SpazzzDog 1 year ago
Oh, so you were referring to, what, a bundle of sticks? A British cigarette?
shanedk 1 year ago
I didn't use the word "fag" anywhere.
SpazzzDog 1 year ago
Look up what the term you used MEANS:
w w w(dot)urbandictionary(dot)com/define(dot)php?term=teabagging
shanedk 1 year ago
You need to get with the times! "Teabagger," in the context I used it, is the slang word for the Tea Party protesters. It has nothing to do with gay people. The fact that you conotated "tea bagger" as strictly a gay thing is rather homophobic itself. Anyone, man or woman, strait or gay, can put testicles in his or her mouth.
SpazzzDog 1 year ago
No, LIAR, they're called "tea partiers." "Tea baggers" is what homophobic hate-mongers like you call them to try and discredit them, and you mentioned NO WOMEN WHATSOEVER, LIAR. You mentioned FOUR men: me, Glenn Beck, Penn Jillette, and Teller--NO WOMEN.
Good-bye, you hate-mongering bigot.
shanedk 1 year ago
I was going to say.
I've NEVER heard of any Tea Party Protesters refer to themselves as "Tea Baggers".
Have you?
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
No, but LOTS of liberals refer to them that way. Now, turn it around: what if the tea party protests were about, say, legalizing gay marriage (and I know of a few that were), and the conservatives called them "tea baggers." You KNOW what they would be saying!
Liberals are fucking hypocrites.
shanedk 1 year ago
Idealisticly a good video, however it misses the reality of the situation.
While the fact of the legislature passing unconstitutional laws was acknowledged. There was not mention of the SC ability to refuse to hear a case. In addition, while the executive should not implement unconstitutional laws, this doesn't require them to not do so. In addition with the ability to ingore the constitution, the president can also perform unconstituional acts, allowing him to act above the constitution.
beechgrovejoe 1 year ago
I love how you guys keep complaining I didn't mention this or that when I only have two seconds of runtime left...
shanedk 1 year ago
No, you get me wrong. I'm saying make MORE videos. This is a great series that you can expand on to make it even better.
Trying to rile you up, is not because I don't like what you say. It's an attempt to get you to say even more.
If I just say "Great video" you may be satisfied and stop. But if your are pissed off at me and want to prove me wrong I might get another great video :-)
beechgrovejoe 1 year ago
I'm not sure I agree with you here. Granted, a judge cannot overturn a not-guilty from a jury. However, a judge CAN overturn a guilty ruling from a jury.
This means that the ultimate arbiter is not a jury or judge, but some combination of the two.
Please tell me why I'm wrong here.
SeventhCycle 1 year ago
We're talking about the Constitution. If the jury finds the act is contrary to the Constitution they vote not guilty. Your scenario would just mean the judge found it so, not the jury (but then, he most likely would have done it much earlier).
shanedk 1 year ago
Good point. Thanks!
SeventhCycle 1 year ago
i love these lectures, if only someone would also does these for types of videos for Canadian legal system as well
zprime666 1 year ago
So, Shane, did you ever find out what happened so that we couldn't view the other version of this video here on youtube?
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
No idea.
shanedk 1 year ago
Another superb video, sir.
As an aside, the Executive can not only choose not to enforce laws, it can also VETO them. In fact, according to a book I read about how Congress works, Presidents only used the veto for when they deemed legislation to be unconstitutional for the first 20 terms of office, resulting in just 10 vetoes. Then the executive veto power expanded under Jackson.
Top 3 Vetoers (did I just make up a word?)
FDR.................635
Cleveland.......584
Truman...........250
jokertim777 1 year ago
Unfortunately, along with expanding the veto for lots of other things, they stopped vetoing for Constitutional reasons.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk That sucks. :(
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
The US government seems to have more or less abandoned the rule of law by the 1830's. Don't forget, the Trail of Tears criminal activities were declared illegal by SCOTUS, and the ruling was simply ignored.
evensgrey 1 year ago
is shanedk a right wing libertarian?
idontgiveashit0930 1 year ago
No such thing; libertarians aren't right-wing.
shanedk 1 year ago
Isnt milton friedman a right wing libertarian?..Are you saying that libertarians are left-wing only?
Sorry im new to libertarianism.
idontgiveashit0930 1 year ago
Uh, no, he was libertarian. Libertarians are neither right- nor left-wing. See my video, "Are You Libertarian?"
shanedk 1 year ago
Libertarians are right wing.
SpazzzDog 1 year ago
Actually, they're neither: /watch?v=qAiYlaGxyV0 ("Are you a libertarian?" by shanedk)
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
uh-huh. Well, if a Libertarian wants to redefine terms like Nolan did, he's certainly free to. But I don't accept Nolan's ad-hoc redefinition of terms, it has no historical precedent. It's simply a distraction meant to distance Libertarians from the more traditional right. There are certain defining characteristics which makes a political theory right wing and Nolan's graph doesn't even acknowledge their existence. So excuse me for rejecting it.
SpazzzDog 1 year ago
Nolan didn't redefine anything, LIAR. What he did was STOP the people who were redefining it. All you do is spout out baseless claims with nothing to back them up, all to fit your dogma.
The right wants to intrude in personal matters. Libertarians do not. LIBERTARIANS ARE NOT RIGHT-WING. Get over it.
shanedk 1 year ago 7
haha, no it's not! "Libertarianism" is a naive misunderstanding of Enlightenment principles and of the founding fathers. Nolan pays lip service by using words "liberal" and "conservative" and yes, does use the words "left" and "right". But the Nolan model, which I have seen used by several people, is only partly right. The up and down on his chart can be used to differentiate between types of left or right wingers, (ie, Libertarians are a kind of right winger and neo-cons another).
SpazzzDog 1 year ago
Hurr hurr hurr dur dur?
=P
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
if you're going to call libertarians right wing, then how do you explain the majority of libertarians agreeing more with typically left wing social stances (anarchist and liberal left wing, not 'progressive' pro-interventionist left wing) , such as gay marriage, reduced military spending, legalised drugs, and stronger support for civil liberties?
Fernoe 1 year ago
In fact, for those subjects, we're more left than leftists!
This demonstrates the fallacy of America's political false dichotomy.
shanedk 1 year ago
Shane:
I'm not allowed to give this statement a thumbs up. All I'm allowed to do is reply.
So...Let me reply by saying I give you a thumbs up.
caltrop69 1 year ago
You've been corrected on this numerous times. Once again, you prove yourself to be a LIAR.
shanedk 1 year ago
Oh grow up. Nolan's political map has no historical basis. The left-right political theory goes back to the 18th century enlightenment. Read your history!!!
SpazzzDog 1 year ago
Argument from tradition.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
LOL! Okay then! What do we do? Pull new definitions out of our asses when ever it best suits us? I'm not going to try and redefine Marxism or Capitalism from its historical context. Why should left-right politics be any different? I'm not saying Nolan's definition isn't valid per se, I'm just saying its an ad hoc definition of terms to serve his own means and to atomize modern politics away from its historical context.
SpazzzDog 1 year ago
Nolan's map is BASED on that tradition. It's the words "liberal" and "conservative" that got corrupted in the 20th Century. "Libertarian" is an attempt to get back to enlightenment philosophy.
Nolan's chart is taught in schools and universities and accepted by numerous political scientists.
shanedk 1 year ago
wow 6 parts! As this series goes on its sounding more and more like a fairytale. The US Constitution has consistently demonstrated ZERO effectiveness in restraining the state. The US experiment in limited government has failed... this doesn't make it a failure unless we don't learn from our mistakes. Cling to the constitution is no different than clinging to sugar pills long after its been reveled to be a placebo.
wizkid2000 1 year ago
The entire series is eight videos long.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
I've got a few new ones planned as well, from popular suggestions (#9 will be on separation of church and state).
shanedk 1 year ago
It isn't the Constitution that has failed in restraining the state; it's US. The Constitution is just words on paper. As Learned Hand said, "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it."
In other words, the Constitution didn't fail us; we failed the Constitution.
shanedk 1 year ago
So when Communism fails, it doesn't fail, the people failed communism.
I'm sorry, but reading that comes off as blatant apologetics.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
Love your non-sequiter.
Did you know that police can actually decide to not enforce laws that they percieve on unconstitutional? No? Well, that's probably because most police officers aren't told about this particular authority.
Our protections begin with law enforcement. But the fact that everyone who's supposed to protect us, including the juries, are all misinformed, it's no wonder everything's falling apart!
LeksServices 1 year ago
What non-sequiter?
I was just using HIS logic.
Idiot.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@LeksServices What's more, how does ANY of that stuff even relate to my retort?
I call red herring.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
It's not a red herring. The fact YOU didn't even know this means that YOU are a product of the propoganda machine. You think it's okay to mistreat, say, sex offenders, for example, and to remove people's right to vote and stuff. I'm guess here, because ignorance leads to such conclusions.
I honestly believe if everyone understood what their responsibilities were under this system, it would work great. Should I try to teach them? Nobody ever listens to me, so I've long since given up.
LeksServices 1 year ago
@LeksServices
Again, I know what it means, asshole.
Coming from a statist, I'll take that as a compliment.
So the system doesn't matter, the people do?
If so, then my analogy was justified and your entire post IS a red herring.
Thanks for admitting I'm right.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
Oh! You're one of THOSE people!
I'm sorry, but simply having a choice regarding who breaks my legs isn't much of an improvement at all. So how does it feel to love getting fucked for a buck by the wealthy few, hmm? You must really enjoy it in order to say that we don't need gubberment, Surhotchaperchlorome.
LeksServices 1 year ago
@LeksServices I mean, what?
We NEED a geopolitical monopoly on law, courts, police and defense in order to be safe?
Seriously?
Dude, please, don't bother me with such childish arguments.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
Dude, you just love getting fucked for a buck by an wealthy elite who just loves fucking the planet for a buck. If you don't know this by now, you're just dumber than I thought. FKN Newz will tell you all about it, if you don't believe me, Surhotchaperchlorome.
LeksServices 1 year ago
@LeksServices
Also, to answer your questions: yes, I DO know that.
Yes, but again, why do we need a state (geopolitical monopoly on said services)?
Your post doesn't provide justification for that.
If you give an institution on those services a monopoly, of course it's going to fall apart; just like with any other monopoly.
What do you expect?
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
Why do we need to get fucked for a buck by an elite wealthy few, Surhotchaperchlorome? I dunno about you, but I feel I've been fucked for a buck plenty enough. You go on thinking that getting fucked for a buck - with or without a formal gubberment - is the bestest way for our world to work, Surhotchaperchlorome. I'll just sit comfortably in my hidey-hole, not buying shit I don't need, to line the pockets of a few people raping the planet for a buck while you go on endorsing the status quo.
LeksServices 1 year ago
Yes, but police come from the people. If people heard so much about this growing up, they'd know it when they became policemen or whatever. By then, it's too late.
shanedk 1 year ago
Shane, who was the comment about the police coming from the people a reply to?
I ask because while it didn't show up in my inbox, YouTube's been screwy about that lately.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
It was to LeksServices.
shanedk 1 year ago
What can I say? When you have a point, you have a point. ^_^
LeksServices 1 year ago
No, because Communism is not analogous to the Constitution; it's more analogous to the free market.
It's like: you hire a security force to keep people from stealing your stuff; they do nothing while people steal your stuff; they're the ones that failed you.
We the people are supposed to be the ultimate arbiters and defenders of the Constitution. We are the ones who are supposed to hold the politicians accountable when they violate the Constitution. We failed.
shanedk 1 year ago
@Last Paragraph: OK.
I see your logic now.
Thank you for clarifying. :)
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
Comment removed
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
WOW Shane I'm speechless.
Do you not hear how brain washed you sound that you cant admit the constitution is useless?
"we failed the Constitution"
So now we are obligated to the constitution? it wasn't just suppose to be a mechanism to protect us from the state?
And if the people are the only ones that can limit the state what is the point of having a constitution?
Statism will always end in tyranny.
Constitutions give the state the ideological cover it needs to enslave the people.
wizkid2000 1 year ago
Why do you think a piece of paper with ink on it is able to do ANYTHING? And you call ME brainwashed?
shanedk 1 year ago
Your the one making a 8 part series about the virtues of the US Constitution.
I think you have a bit of cognitive dissonance going on.
All states are destine to become tyrannical, even constitutional republics. You are advocating systems of tyranny.
wizkid2000 1 year ago
>9 part, actually. Shane's adding some more to it.
It seems to be more about how it is supposed to work moreso than the virtues.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
The series is about how our government is set up and how it's supposed to work.
shanedk 1 year ago
Comment removed
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
Comment removed
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
Well in the Constitution's defense:
1. It lasted longer than was expected by most at the time (even the founding fathers thought we needed/were going to have a revolution every 20 years).
2. It allowed us to remain free enough to create massive wealth and progress.
3. We know more now: one more thing that doesn't work;
Just like Edison would say: "I didn't fail 1200 times, I simply ruled out 1200 ways that don't work."
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
1. It took 11 years for a founding father to violate the constitution... the Alien and Sedition Acts.
2. we remained as free because it took time to finish colonizing the rest of America and it took time for the state to become established in those territories. After the state was firmly established, it took time for them to dumb us down enough to accept ever increasing state control over us. Freedom automatically brings wealth.
3. Most people still wont admit the constitution is a failure.
wizkid2000 1 year ago
1. Ouch.
2. Hm.
3. Well, they're wrong. :P
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
But in all seriousness, well, you can't blame a guy for trying.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@wizkid2000: Will you be watching the rest of this series?
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
I really haven't been watching this series... Although I subscribe to Shane and like a lot of his videos. I think I commented on the 2nd part and this videos title kinda grabbed my attention.
I don't plan on watching more of the series. As an anarchist I already understand the statist ideological models of which democracy and constitutional republics are some of the most potent.
wizkid2000 1 year ago
OK.
Just wondering.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
Yet as a wizkid, you fail to understand how the "free market" is just about fucking you over the coals for a buck. It's a hilarious contradiction, if you ask me. "If we let a few rich snobs fuck us all over for a buck, the world would be a better place! Really! It would be!" Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Please tell me another, because I'm not laughing.
LeksServices 1 year ago
So instead we should give a few powerful people in the government control of the entire economy so the rich snobs can just bribe them for our money in the form of subsidies instead.
thorell9 1 year ago 3
Wow. Another person who loves getting fucked for a buck by the wealthy few who control everything. Well, I salute you for standing up for your virtues, but I've been ass-raped waaaay too much by those people. Have fun thinking it will somehow improve the world to just let them fucking you over for a buck, wizkid2000.
LeksServices 1 year ago
Someone call Nobel..... We got another fricken genus here!
LeksServices , the "ass-raping" you ascribe to the rich is only made possible because of the state. The power to abuse originates from the states ability to coerce.
Read a book would ya. geez.
wizkid2000 1 year ago
@Shane and Wizkid2000:
What?
I like playing devil's advocate. :P
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
The big problem is that people don't believe a revolution is possible, and it is not possible precisely because they do not believe it is possible.
~Theodore Kaczynski
dethdakiller0 1 year ago
Is it at all possible for a court like the Supreme court to find that a particular law or case is deemed to be unconstitutional and it is repealed or thrown out, but then if they hear a similar case it is upheld? Is there any standardisation? Or is it all down to circumstance (Or bias)...
flyboy172r 1 year ago
It's conceivable, but generally they go with the precedent.
shanedk 1 year ago
I've heard Perry Mason say a jruy will never convict.
no1saphead 1 year ago
Yes, but he's a fictional character. A good lawyer in the real world shouldn't say that a jury will never convict, since a jury can do almost anything. They may be UNLIKELY to convict, but that's not a guarantee. I can even see jurors wanting to acquit in some cases because it means they get to leave afterward, instead of having a sentencing phase to make a recommendation for (since juries have to make sentence recommendations for some crimes in some jurisdictions).
evensgrey 1 year ago
They can move that no REASONABLE jury would convict, and therefore there's no point wasting time with a trial.
shanedk 1 year ago
fija org
xwidget 1 year ago
Shane...I often disagree with what you say, but I must say that this video is spot-on.
Well done.
kshackleton 1 year ago
I think the importance of your Constitution lectures cannot be understated. You should end the videos with QED because this is really quality educational material that you have here.
TheAtheistPaladin 1 year ago
Comment removed
SpazzzDog 1 year ago
including classical liberals?
wizkid2000 1 year ago 2
No, I'm testing shanedk's level of bias. He's clearly a biased prick. He throws a fit over an imagined act of bigotry on my part I never uttered. But that was when it was over his intellectual cousins, the Randians. But when I call liberals wusses he says nothing.
Way to go shanedk, you have proven yourself intellectually dishonest. I do not care for your intellectual posturing!
SpazzzDog 1 year ago
Actually, I don't think liberals are wusses at all. It takes a lot of moxey to be Michael Moore.
dj092768 1 year ago
Yes, it DOES take a lot of moxey to make film after film without ever making a cogent argument about ANYTHING.
To quote Wolfgang Pauli's assessment of very slopy work, "It is not even wrong." The worst problem with Moore's work is it ISN'T sloppy. It's like that on purpose.
evensgrey 1 year ago
Exactly! Michael is not a wuss, he's just brainless.
dj092768 1 year ago
You disparaged an entire group of people. That's bigotry, and it's NOT allowed on this channel. Stop your fucking whining and deal with it.
shanedk 1 year ago
Calling liberals (even all liberals) wusses is more of an insult than bigotry or libel.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
Yes, "wuss" would be very vague and indistinct, as opposed to what he said about Randians.
shanedk 1 year ago
I'm sorry, but the more political philosophy and constitutional lectures I see, both from, FlowCell, Virgil0211 and others, the more my resolve for Anarcho-Capitalism (if not full blown Agorism) is strengthened.
Anarchy is the logical conclusion of both the Austrian School of economics and the Philosophy of Liberty (e.g. by John Locke), not Minarchism.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
*from you, FlowCell...
Blargh, I'm tired. what of it? =P
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
What are we talking about?
dj092768 1 year ago
Excellent!
wolverine10mm 1 year ago
Comment removed
anubis2814 1 year ago
Excellent video! I'm not a fan of a lot of your libertarian themed political videos, but this one was very good and informative.
Thanks! 5/5 stars
PhysicsDude55 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@PhysicsDude55
Shanedk is a very subtle troll. Just ignore this libertarian idiot.
TruthfulChristian 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian Can you substantiate your assertions?
NeedsEvidence 1 year ago 2
@TruthfulChristian
This video is pretty much entirely based on fact and historical precedent. Its pretty hard to discredit the content of it.
PhysicsDude55 1 year ago 2
how exactly is he trolling?
Timmay123456789 1 year ago
woooooooo
NINskier 1 year ago
TruthfulChristian is a very obvious troll. Just ignore this braindead idiot.
MikeRaWare2 1 year ago
@MikeRaWare2
MikeRaWare2 is a troll-name-caller type troll. He calls anyone who disagrees with im a troll, especially in political and economical issues.
Just ignore this fool, he will call you a troll sooner or later.
TruthfulChristian 1 year ago
Man, if there were an irony award, you would have won it for that post!
shanedk 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian: Aarrgghh! You're blinding me with your reflection!
MikeRaWare2 1 year ago
Are you sure he didn't blind you with the light he was using to do the projection?
evensgrey 1 year ago
From the projection reflection?
shanedk 1 year ago