Interpreting US Constitution a Battle of Interests

[Ryukikon]

This was one of the worst interviews that they have done. This guy Shayana Kadidal doesn't even know what he is talking about. Its sad that they will have him back on. He seems to be a guy that will run to what direction the wind blows.

[specialkornflake]

Taxation is violence. The initiation of violence is immoral.

[bamm427]

This guy is very unscholarly. He states a fact or event (true enough), and then uses his own form of bs artistry to attribute the reasoning behind the event, something he offers with no support at all. E.g., that the "old" supreme court grew up in a different world then a "younger" court, implying (with no evidence) that this "generation gap" was the source of their disagreement. What a simpleton.

[ajmprovidence]

what is with all the anti freedom shit?!

[747Cone]

@ajmprovidence Huh?

[bootleg42]

I love this video!!!! GREAT REPORT!!! Fuck the constitution. It's just a piece of paper written by rich white slave-owning males from over 200 years ago. It's worth nothing.

In the end, regardless of what elites and their apologists do or say, real democracy will prevail. It may take a while, but it will prevail.

[fireupgoku]

@BlitzNeko I said what k thought.

[Quranite]

Can we get intelligent opposition please? TRNN is acting like a left-wing propaganda machine. I didn't subscribe to willingly be brainwashed. I know when I am only hearing one, slanted side of the argument. There is so much out there in history that deals with the constitution's "complacency" on slavery, jim crow and women's rights. And where the issue is unclear the document can be amended. Keeping things simple is keeping them honest. The document being simple is not an argument against it.

[fireupgoku]

TheREALnews is about as BIAS as news comes! All you hear is one side of the argument!!! If you want true news you give the ability for people to hear both sides of the argument and give people the chance to strive their own opinion. This is a BIAS news channel that deserves no chance to hold the title as NEWS let alone theREALnews.

[woostopalypse]

@fireupgoku Good journalism is not providing "balanced" coverage. It is exposing truth to power and covering issues that matter. I'd say this video fits that criteria. Would you call the journalists who followed the civil rights movement biased because they supported blacks the right to vote? Or the journalists who followed the feminist movement biased? I'm sorry they don't fit you narrow definition of news. I, however, support them.

[747Cone]

@woostopalypse Hear hear. I second that sentiment. Well said.

[BlitzNeko]

@fireupgoku

so what would you recommend?

[sirellyn]

Making a point that the commerce clause change actually helped farms is hogwash. One of the major points that came up for the prolongation of the depression was the fact that famine was a result of farms not being allowed to produce food! (paid not to produce), and those that disobeyed were breaking the law at the time.

[BlitzNeko]

@sirellyn

Nope that was the dust bowl not depression, you don't seem to understand economics either, farmer got paid to reduce the danger of deflation. Please learn about the era of history before opening your mouth about it....

[sirellyn]

This guy uses the same logic as Bush did for 911. Well who cares about all the long standing precedents before this time (like habius corpus) this is a post 911 world, even if we have to lie and cheat we have to change things.

FDR who cares if the commerce clause was never used in this fashion before, we are in a "world economy" now. Even if I have to cheat to pack the supreme court who cares? I'm doing it because the world has changed.

Justify that, and you justify Bush.

[BlitzNeko]

@sirellyn

Nope FDR saw that the economic of the world was changing and wanted the US to take care of its people. Where as Bush used lawyers to chip away at the law till he could torture people all the time playing on peoples fear which in turn he & his media buddies were creating to further their neo-con agendas

[sirellyn]

@BlitzNeko So it's ok for a president to cheat and abuse power to change the constitution as long as its in the direction you like?

The constitution has ways to be amended. If it really must be changed amend it. Don't pretend you are sidestepping around laws for some sort of "greater good". If FDR was so justified in what he did he could have amended the constitution.

If you really think laws are just there for when it's convenient for you, you are honestly as bad as the neocons.

[BlitzNeko]

@sirellyn

Neither of them actually changed the constitution, your saying that Social Security which is a safety net for the old(which one day we''ll be) if on the same level as torturing people(then claiming they gave you a reason to illegally invade iraq). Since you seem to take things out of context I see you lack the understanding for this debate...

Sorry but as much as you try to spin it, its two entirely different things...

[MrAstro888]

@sirellyn fuzzy math baby yeah!

[viletree]

@sirellyn well stated. Though we are in a world economy now

[sirellyn]

@viletree Yes, we were at US confederation as well. Just as there has been a threat of terrorism since the countries founding as well. Neither of these were ever good reasons for sidestepping constitutional amendment.

[sirellyn]

A large part of what made the constitution so strong was it's brevity. And that served 2 very important purposes:

The more people ruled under a set of laws the smaller those laws should be. To get "one size fits all" you have to be as short and generic as possible. The more people, the simpler.

Second it was short enough to be read an understood by citizens, as opposed to lawyers. Instead of a handful needing years of legal school, it was upheld by any who took 15 minutes to read it.

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

@sirellyn

Great point!

Some Canadians seem to think that a Canadian-style, socialized system can be implemented in the US at the federal level, but they fail to consider that Canada has a population of only 34-million -- less than California's!

Besides, should America follow a country that doesn't even have Free Speech?? ~ /watch?v=vkUgdoUu4xA

[sirellyn]

@LibertaerUeberAlles I don't think it's Canadian's in particular, I think it's simply a mindset. Lots of people believe that if you just had the perfect set of rules with uncorrupted people at the helm, everything would turn out.

This belief is as old as time and seems a natural conclusion for people to come to. The biggest problem is that "the perfect set of rules" is internalized for whoever thinks that. i.e.  A perfect set would be perfect for them only.

[747Cone]

@sirellyn First, I am Canadian. Second, yes in theory, if you have a perfect set of rules with uncorrupted people at the helm, "everything" (whatever, that is) would work out. Interesting straw man. Canadians and those who strive for a just society are not naive enough to believe either of those things (perfect rules, uncorrupted leaders) exist. However, the purpose of a democracy (flawed though it is) is to allow the populace to have input into the set of rules that they'd like to run

[747Cone]

@sirellyn their society according to. You are right in suggesting that different people have varying ideas about what rules they'd prefer, the struggle to implement different policies based on rational argument and unfortunately based on propaganda (of both the corporate and government variety). Unless you have an alternative you are willing to suggest other than people coming together to hash out the rules, I don't think you're critique is helping advance anything.

[sirellyn]

@747Cone Sorry we are getting off topic. Here's the observation that lends to a suggestion. The US governmental system is an invention. Just as all other forms of government are. The lightbulb as great as it was, didn't light everywhere perfectly forever. So the idea of a government that promotes a utopia is just as crazy, and you won't be able to achieve any sort of perfect balance by moving over to any "ism".

So here's the suggestion. You treat government like an invention. (cont)

[sirellyn]

You look for nearly unanimous consent (95-99%) on what worked or what was good. And there will only be a couple things that people agree on. You use those to provide the basis of a short and simple federal law. And then you do the same with states and later with cities. The smaller the group of people, the more rules will be agreed and will apply but at a lower level.

That, and the creation of inalienable rights are some of smartest innovations of "government" so far.

[747Cone]

@LibertaerUeberAlles What does the size of the population have to do with anything? If it's simply a matter of you not believing that such a socialized medical system is possible due to the larger US population, I suggest you consider the other countries who have such systems with populations more closely approximating that of the United States (i.e. pick any industrialized nation, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, etc.).

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

@747Cone

Those countries you mention have, at most, one-third the population of America. It probably results in much better oversight. But an even more important factor might be, that all are relatively homogenous, culturally speaking. That's important, considering that we essentially vote for "package deals"at the ballot box.

For example, FDR's "package deal" included a welfare state and warfare state, to benefit the people and his cronies, respectively. (See my other comment, below.)

[747Cone]

@LibertaerUeberAlles So which arbitrary percentage of the US population would the country have to have to satisfy you that a similar system could exist in the US? FYI the US has the third largest population in the world. Also based on your answer it seems that oversight is a key concern for you. If it is a purely technical objection on your part in terms of the logistics; if proper oversight could be achieved, would that sway you to favour such socialized systems in the United States?

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

@747Cone

Logistics is important, but it's also about conferring power to a large central government that might just seize our healthcare money and use it to fund cronyism -- the same way it used Social Security money to wage the Mid East wars. Remember, Bush promised seniors an increase in benefits, but failed to tell them that the extra money wouldn't be worth anything due to inflation. Apparently there were too many complicated factors for the seniors to comprehend when voting.

[747Cone]

@LibertaerUeberAlles If logistics is important, perhaps you could describe why you think similar systems are not scalable to US sized populations. If you have other ideological reasons to oppose socialized programs like health care socialization, that is one thing, but your comment referred specifically to the problems with implementing such programs in the US due to the larger population. You've not explained why that would be problematic other than stating it would be.

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

@747Cone

I've dealt with government agencies in the past; it's not an especially warm feeling, so I wouldn't expect a healthcare system to be any better. But I do believe that everyone should have healthcare, and I'm not against providing it at the state level. Most states already have plans in place. These could be expanded.

At best, I'd want the Federal Government to act as arbiter between the states, similar to how the EU does, between the various countries.

[747Cone]

@LibertaerUeberAlles Why would you prefer a state government agency administering health care to a federal one? Finally (or maybe not), I'll just go back to how our conversation started. You stated that health care systems like those in Canada and other industrialized nations could not be replicated in the US case since the population of the US was so much larger. I've yet to hear you explain why that is other than restating the same belief repeatedly. So I'll ask again would it not work

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

@747Cone

Because, if the system proves to be corrupt, then I can move to another state.

[747Cone]

@LibertaerUeberAlles Ummm, wow, don't know if you're being serious or not.

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

@747Cone

Of course I'm being serious. I've moved out of cities due to this reason. Cities in both America and Europe run advertising campaigns to attract capital and professional talent. I believe it is this competition which spurs improvement. The same goes for states in America.

[747Cone]

@LibertaerUeberAlles As for the question of "cultural homogeneity" however you choose to define that, let me take a wild guess and assume you've never been to Canada or even at a minimum examined the statistics comparing immigration rates in Canada and the United States, let alone prevalence of ethnic heterogeneity in Canada versus the US. I think if you did that you might be surprised by the results.

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

@747Cone

I've never been to Canada, but I've had lots of experience with several European systems, both before and after "modernization." An advantage of current-day Europe is, that one can always seek treatment in a neighboring country, if necessary. Where would Americans go, if some aspect of the system were to fail?

It'll be interesting to see how the Canadian system holds up over time. When diversity increases, the natural result is for solidarity to decrease.

[747Cone]

@LibertaerUeberAlles You mean a neighboring country where the health care system is also socialized? What aspect of the "system" do you forsee failing? Hate to rain on your parade but Canada is already an extremely diverse country and there is no sign of a collapse in the health care system either now or in the future. In fact, the health care system consistently ranks among the things that Canadians are most proud of in surveys.Why do you think "solidarity"decreases as "diversity" increases?

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

@747Cone

Yes, all EU countries have socialized systems, although they also have a la carte services for those who are willing to pay. Consider that, only a short-decade ago, people in Sweden and Finland routinely went to places like Switzerland and America to take advantage of modern technologies and avoid waiting lines. Hence, they were escaping system failure.

Many say that diversity causes a decreased willingness to redistribute resources. I see this happening in the Nordics.

[747Cone]

@LibertaerUeberAlles What do you mean "many say" that diversity increases causes unwillingness to distribute resources? It's laughable that you make such a lazy causal connection? How would you measure "willingness" firstly? Secondly, who has done such a measurement, even if by survey? Or is this another one of your assertions without proof. You've ignored many of my requests for any corroboration of many of your statements so I don't expect it in this case either. Prove me wrong.

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

@747Cone

Why are you attacking me? I'm just giving you my opinion. Why do you think that supporters of nationalist ideology want immigrants out? -- because they smell funny? No, it's because they realize that diversity causes less redistribution. Many seem to be of the lower economic strata, so this is important to them. Apparently their thinking is not unfounded. You can google the article:

"Ethnic diversity and the Nordic model"

Of course, you can find studies to the contrary.

[747Cone]

@LibertaerUeberAlles I'm not attacking you at all. I'm questioning your assertion that health care models of countries with smaller populations cannot be scaled up to be applied in the United States. I didn't know you supported a "nationalist ideology" whatever that means. I didn't know you wanted immigrants out. Don't know if you're serious about the "smell funny" comment or not.

[747Cone]

@747Cone Again, not attacking you personally and sorry if I came across like that but I just think your assertion that socialized health care systems cannot be replicated in larger societies is nonsense. As for your aside about the diversity angle. Canada, a very diverse country has a universal single payer health care system and pay less per citizen for better health outcomes. I just happen to disagree with you, was questioning your argument, not looking to attack you personally.

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

@747Cone

I'm not arguing for nationalist ideology; I simply find it most useful in studying the psychology of redistribution, among other things. Having lived in the most redistribution-heavy part of the world (Nordics) -- at least ostensibly so -- where the nationalist element is more prevalent than anywhere else in the world, I regard nationalism to be a very natural context in which to analyze human motivation. It's simply my own, personal frame of reference.

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

@LibertaerUeberAlles

I wrote "ostensibly so," because I believe the Nordics' oft-touted "fair" redistribution to be an illusion. Some of their wealthiest citizens tend to harbor their billions in 'foundations' and 'trusts' which are located outside of the Nordics -- e.g., many cite the famous DIY furniture entrepreneur as an example. Others are accorded political favoritism due to their perceived too-big-to-fail status. Hence, the wealthy aren't really part of the redistribution equation.

[747Cone]

@LibertaerUeberAlles I'm somewhat familiar with so called "the Nordic model" which extreme free marketer Milton Friedman praised in language remarkably similar to your own when he said "the Scandinavian countries have a very small, homogeneous population...But “common goals” are much harder to come by in larger, more heterogeneous populations."

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

@747Cone

I don't don't really consider Friedman to be an extreme "free marketer." His emphasis on Monetarism (via monopolistic fiat-currency) contradicts any true notion of free markets. A true free market would be comprised of a non-monopolistic currency system.

Dr. Ron Paul is pushing to legalize gold, silver, platinum, palladium and rhodium as currency for private transactions. Our Constitution specifies gold and silver for payment to government entities.

[747Cone]

@LibertaerUeberAlles Unfortunately, the "Nordic model" has been rightly criticized by social scientists for years by ignoring the effect of political and economic factors such as labour relations which have also contributed to the relative equality of those societies. The singular focus on the homogeneity of the population in the Nordic model was rightly critiqued as simplistic and reductionist.

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

@747Cone

Sure, but those unique labor relations might be due, precisely, to the cultural homogeneity. Do you think that a union of custodial personnel, comprised largely of African immigrants, would have as much political sway as an all-native custodial union? I doubt it. Consider, the Nordic model stems from tribal communalism.

To answer your above question: Yes, I do believe that immigrants "smell funny." I've been an immigrant in several different countries, so I can confirm this ;-)

[747Cone]

@LibertaerUeberAlles Finally, what is your evidence that a smaller population "probably" results in better oversight? I don't need a study or stats, just make a logical case of why that would be so and why such a system could not be scalable to a country with the population of the United States.

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

@747Cone

I addressed this. Please see my other comments above.

Also, consider that we "lost" several trillion-dollars during Dov Zakheim's tenure as comptroller at the Pentagon. (Our national debt is somewhere around 13-trillion.) I'm pretty sure that the money didn't go toward America's best interests. That's why many people are reluctant to send more. There's simply no oversight.

[747Cone]

@LibertaerUeberAlles You've addressed it by ignoring the issue of the size of the population and changing the topic to the composition of it by stating that increasing diversity leads to decreased "willingness" to redistribute resources. You've "proved" this fact by stating that "many say" that the causal connection between those two factors exists. In any, case, I don't believe you've addressed the point whereas you obviously feel you have as per your last comment. Nice talking to you :)

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

@747Cone

Ok, fair enough. Consider that a large, centralized healthcare system is essentially a mini-communistic structure. The motivating principle behind communistic structures is to grow larger and more entrenched. Often this principle conflicts with desired outcomes such as quality and efficiency. It might explain why, e.g, it was near-impossible to buy roofing shingles or fresh fruit in East Germany. It was even more difficult in the larger, comparatively resource-richer Soviet Russia.

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

@747Cone

So, when you claim, above, that a socialized system can be scaled to a large, US-sized population of 320M, the closest example is the former Soviet Union. What's more, even the 1960s and '70s American free market system offered ordinary children braces to correct their teeth. This was unavailable in most of the world, no less the Soviet Union.

Besides, where will u Canadians go if both ur, and our proposed, monolithic systems fail? Seems to me, Am's free market benefits Ca's socialism.

[LiberalViewer]

Great discussion! I gave this video a thumbs up and added it to my favorites.

Thanks for conducting this video and making it into a video :-)

[uche007us]

@LiberalViewer Constitutional lawyer indeed. I wonder what your opinion is on the intent of the constitution with regards to the power of the federal govt? Do you believe it supported the creation of a powerful and expansive federal govt or a limited in power one?

I used to subscribe to your channel when Bush was violating the constitution but couldn't stomach your ass kissing of Obama later. I guess we can all hope for a conservative win in 2012 to bring back a more objective LV :)

[BlitzNeko]

@uche007us

Maybe he is not kissing ass, maybe just because you don't like someone, doesn't mean their not right about things... 

[oldstock1607]

@LiberalViewer Dont you even ATTEMPT to understand the U.S. Constitution. You have already demonstrated, in the most underhanded pussy manner possible, that you don't believe that the First Amendment applies to ANYONE unless they're espousing leftist views. What a fucking CUNT you are for flagging my comments because I, someone who RESPECTS the Constitution, had the AUDACITY is say that freedom of speech should apply to EVERYONE, as it was intended. So again, FUCK YOU, Liberalviewer

[BlitzNeko]

@oldstock1607

oh classy.... I'm pretty sure the Constitutional Lawyer(LiberalViewer) knows more about the US constitution then you.. Especially about a freedom which you don't seem to have respect for using that fowl language...

I'm also willing to bet money you haven't actually read the constitution....

[oldstock1607]

@BlitzNeko wanna bet? I have a copy that I keep right on my desk. And if "Liberalviewer" says he or she is a Constitutional attorney, he or she is lying their ASS off. So what? you're ANOTHER one who thinks the First Amendment only applies to those espousing leftist platitudes? jesus....1. whaere are you people coming from, and 2. How can you possibly believe that the First Amendment only applies to you?

[oldstock1607]

@BlitzNeko and do you even know what happened between me and this COWARD, Liberalviewer? Didn't think so. There was a discussion of the Minutemen getting thugged off the stage at an Ivy League University. I had the AUDACITY to say that the University was intended to be a forum for free and open discourse, and that everyone, REGARDLESS of whether their views are popular of not, deserve a right to speak. I'm not a minuteman, and i"m not sympathetic to their cause. For even suggesting this, Libera-

[oldstock1607]

@oldstock1607 viwer trolled me, flagged everything I commented on, and ultimately got my account suspended for two weeks for DEFENDING the Bill of Rights. And this is the person you're defending? w-o-w. It sounds like you and this ALLEGED "Constitutional attorney" need a crash course in what the Constitution--and particularly the Bill of Rights--is all about.

[LiberalViewer]

@oldstock1607 wrote: "Libera-viwer trolled me, flagged everything I commented on, and ultimately got my account suspended for two weeks"

I think you have me mistaken for someone else, oldstock1607, because I have never flagged any comments other than commercial ad spam, I have never gotten anyone's account suspended, I have never had any interaction with you in the past that I can recall, and I have no idea who you are.

I hope that helps clear up your misunderstanding and

thx 4 the reply :-)

[BlitzNeko]

@oldstock1607

"you're ANOTHER one"

another one what!? free thinking!? good looking? I don't how you can say such things I've never met LV to make that comparison. No I bet you mean (insert neo-con online liner).

Can you prove he did that? If so then he is in the wrong..

And the first amendment applies to all, in a civilized public forum. Which a PRIVATE Ivy league school isn't, there are no public ivy leagues(except Rutgers U). And I know for a fact Rutgers doesn't stop free speech.

[oldstock1607]

@BlitzNeko Well then, see "Jim Gilchrist Storms off Debate" video on youtube. The minutemen were totally thugged offstage by Colombia University students. They effectively quashed the free and open discourse which is supposedly a fundamental tenet of the Academy and the United States. Liberalviewer thought that was great.

And I'm not a "neo-con" and I hate that term. I'm a Libertarian--conservative on some issues, liberal on others. I must say though, I am seeing a very disturbing trend among

[oldstock1607]

@oldstock1607 American leftists (like Liberalviewer) who want to classify everything form of discourse they disagree with as "hate speech" in an effort to stamp out free speech. In my opinion, and that of our founders, there is no such thing as speech offensive enough to abrogate the First Amendment.

[BlitzNeko]

@oldstock1607

I see the issue here, might I suggest investing in some new specs.... When ever someone on the net let alone youtube get big they are prone to attacks... and in your case the attack, you were trolled by a mimic... Look at the names and channels of LiberalViewer(the person whom commented on this video) and then look up that debate video and look up Liberalviewer1 (the dick that trolled you & got your account suspended).

Alas this is a common problem in the wild wild web...

[oldstock1607]

@BlitzNeko here are his words cut and pasted:--- Even more beautiful is the fact you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. It was not an issue of free speech, but a stand against hatred, intolerance and racism. Three things that only a moron would equate with free speech. Then again, you have the brain of a maggot, like most racists, including your hero Gilchrist, who, by the way proved he's a coward who couldn't stand to Karina. So, fuck you

[oldstock1607]

@BlitzNeko And further: If by "American" you mean someone who tolerates racist view hidden behind so-called freedom of speech (which it isn't) then, by all means. You are a little racist who would gladly suck Gilchrist's dick. Too stupid to understand what freedom of speech really is. This was not a case of freedom of speech, but the promotion of hatred and intolerance. Go fuck yourself

2 days after this exchange--with me commenting to NO ONE else, my account was mysteriously suspended.

[tom87pate]

The Constitution is NOT a living document!!! Period!!

[etzel33]

@tom87pate If it's not living, then is it dead? Try listening to the discussion before knee-jerk pitchfork-waving

[AceofDiamonds0]

@tom87pate

of course it is! are you suggesting that we have not changed the constitution sense it was written in 1787?

in the original constitution blacks were considered to be 3/5s human and women couldnt vote.

thank god the constitution isnt a living document which we can just change with the changing economics and social standards.

[BlitzNeko]

@tom87pate

Yes it is, which is why its been amended 17 times since its creation, that was the whole point of allowing it to be changed..... Aren't you suppose to learn this in 6th grade? Unless you support things like slavery or denying women voting, or you support lifetime presidents....

[tom87pate]

@BlitzNeko

Adding additional amendments (rights/laws) to the constitution is not the same as perverting/twisting the true meaning of our fore fathers!!! Aren't you suppose to learn this in the 5th grade? Are you 3/5th's human?

[BlitzNeko]

@tom87pate

you still dont seem to understand that there hasn't been any change to the constitution, either with social security or health-care.... Considering that the forefathers thought that education should be a universal thing in our country, one can easily assume that health-care(had they known of medical advances) would have been considered the same.... there are writings by TR, Jackson, Adams, & many others about this...

3/5 human is that your clever insult? You a little racist?

[tom87pate]

@BlitzNeko

So, you believe that health care is a right and not a good/service? Who pays for it?

[BlitzNeko]

@tom87pate

You just see in black & white? Rights!? yes the protection of the public is something to be expected in the US. I'm not going to explain the models of how insurance works for you, ideally its a taxpayer thing... works in most in EVERY other developed country in the world very well.. The flip side to this is price controls, unless you really think that a band aid cost $90 at hospitals. In many countries they have service superior to us and pay a lot less. Go look it up yourself.

[ajames95]

Here's a question, why are we in the US still pretending like we have 50 soverign states?

If McDonald's can show up on any street corner anywhere, is it realistic to say that because you live on that side of the imaginary line, and I live on this side, that we need different rules about how to solve human problems? For example if NYC was attacked, why do men from California have to defend them in the war? It was an intrastate activity.

[tangent272]

Is it just me or does this guy sound an awful lot like Kermit the Frog?

[judd73]

On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." ---

Thomas Jefferson

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.

-- Miranda vs. Arizona

[ProseStylist]

This commentary is saturated with progressive bias.

[Unkn0wnGuy]

The constitution wasn't meant to be interpreted, it was meant to be followed. The constitution is meant to limit and restrain government power. Small government and more power to the people, however, today we see the opposite; huge government and less power for the people.

Here is a novel idea; instead of spending time interpreting the constitution why don't government officials simply follow it? After all, they swore to uphold it.

[catgumart]

Republicans often seem to fail to understand context.

[zoticus1]

HERE IS AN IDEA,

HAVE AN AMERICAN TALK ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION!

[bbburton]

What a pair of dip-shits.Paul Jay is a Canadian, and should just go back.

[rayallin]

The reason the constitution is short and concise is because its a document of negative liberties of what the federal government shall NOT do with the firm intention that virtually all rights are God given and regulation and law shall be on the local State level. The Federal Governments role is predominantly to provide Military and Coining of Money all other rights are at the state level.

[klard]

Most people don't have a problem with any of these government powers and reulations in concept. The problem comes in the application, the government always carries things to a ridiculous extreme and abuses any authority it is given. The courts are simply unwilling to do their jobs and confront the abuses of the executive. The people are just sick of government either abusing their power or being too incompetent or lazy to assert their power.

[kaxitaksi]

When reading comments here it confirms americans really are the dumbest people on earth.. thinking hurts, rite? Go back to Fox and get more brainwashed.

[monimuette]

unsubscribed. 

[uche007us]

@monimuette I almost at that point and this really pains me because I they are really good about civil liberty and anti war issues. But one thing is for sure, I will never ever ever give 1 cent to this channel. I don't mind diverse opinions but when all the guest you interview are pro FDR, federalist, pro FED reserve people then I think I will walk.

Btw I may restart my monthly donations if you idiots interview a certain Tom Woods :)

[davematherly]

@uche007us Same.

I donated a while back when Paul was covering war issues and doing a great job.

Now he's TRYING to tackle the classical economics vs Keynes argument and is going down the WRONG ROAD. No more $ from me.

The Constitution was written to create A STRONG FEDERAL GOVT?!

Bruce Ackerman is a first class MORON.

And since Paul Jay seems to have lost all sense of objectivity - I too am UNSUBSCRIBING

When I read the title "Interpreting the Constitution" I thought, this is it.

The End.

[bossmarion]

@davematherly you need to go decaf bro

[woostopalypse]

@davematherly instead of just calling him a moron. Why don't you argue the evidence he provided? The Real News has always been more progressive than libertarian. Single Payer Health Care and Unions?

[lictor313]

the real "crypto communist" news...

no surprise that they speak so condescendingly on the constitution...

they'd much prefer the Gulag system...

[fresniak]

The real news sucks! my God now that fnally we have a government who at least speaks about the constitution, this shitty media is mounting all the possible speculation in order to declare that the constitution is a piece of toilet paper. The Real Sold Media Just Fuck Off. I can donate you a piece of toilet paper, come and take it out from my ass.. Your future would be in a wc if it depended from me.

[InfluencingYou]

More idiot guests who have no clue what they're talking about. Come on now.

[gsuitter]

If the FDR supreme courts ruling was correct regarding the Commerce clause (Wickard v. Filburn) then the powers of the federal government are unlimited. For then it could easily be argued that anything anybody ever does effects interstate commerce from growing your own garden to taking a shit. The founders never intended that.

[bjarczyk]

The constitution is a document of counter-revolution.

[ferrozm]

doesn't surprise me that they would get their first assertion wrong. The constitution doesn't change by circumstances, it changes by the amendment process period end of story, progressive dumb asses

[stanjz]

Both parties are working for a small group of uber wealthy families that in turn report to the Rothschilds who have more wealth than the top 100 wealthiest families combined. They need to keep feeding the larger less wealthy families in order to keep them satisfied and compliant. they feed them the homes, pensions, blood, and lives of the working class and poor. There is no fear of God in their hearts. That's sad for them and for the rest of U.S.

[TripleSpeak]

yet another example of paul jay's iq being twice that of his guest

[deeppurple28]

I honestly enjoyed this report! Why can't the lousy American Mainstream Media report on something like this? I'll tell you why because they are too busy continuing the Polarization of the citizens of this country!

[furseiseki]

Whether or not Rand Paul is racist himself is immaterial. The fact is his policies would take us back to segregation, hell these guys still want to reverse Brown v. Board. No need to waste time trying to analyze someone's intention when his goal is clearly a reactionary ones.

Thats the dark secret of Ron and Rand, they're not conservatives they're counterrevolutionaries that want to roll back anti-trust legislation and that's just the start. Their goal is to make this America 1891 not 2011

[youngbuck189]

@furseiseki Shhhhhhh. The "Libertarians" are too busy shrugging the world to hear that. Their inferiority complex negates such silly facts. Unfortunately they see what they want to see. " Hey! I'm young, I don't want to oppress anyone, I don't want people oppressing me. I like pot. I think the market should be completely fair. I'm a Libertarian"

It's a childish ignorance that allows someone to think like that and see the Paul's as heroes. Free and fair market? hahahahahaha. their best joke

[fresniak]

@youngbuck189 "Free and fair market? " fair is only in your words we want a free market and a free society, it's not about being good, it's about respecting individual rights. If unfairness becomes violation of rights you go to prison. You should rather be asking yourself why this does not happen today. Because your BIG GVT violates your rights, steals from you, bailouts banks and corporations regulates market, so it favors elites and big corps who in turn violate your rights in every single way

[youngbuck189]

@fresniak Go shrug the world Atlas

[fresniak]

@youngbuck189 maybe you don't get why the world is going bad, so you don't feel the need to change it radically..No, you just want another puppet government who will protect your ass from your dog and in change will demand all your liberties, all your money, and your property, and one day you will wake up and realize now the dog is you and are only being beaten. The elite is laughing at people like you,you accept their system at the point you can't even imagine a different one.

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

@furseiseki

Actually, Rand Paul is trying to prevent senseless lawsuits such as this one (see the Web):

"Synagogue top bidder for swim club"

Moreover, it can be argued that anti-trust legislation is what keeps Microsoft safe from Linux. Or, for that matter, car manufacturers safe from competition that would prompt them to improve.

[EndTheFedRes]

BTW can anyone tell my why deflation is bad?  I was under the impression that if our dollars bought more, that was a good thing.

[yuri35435]

@EndTheFedRes If you are contracted into paying a loan you will now have to pay more if your dollar deflates.

[EndTheFedRes]

@yuri35435 But all the goods you are buying cost less. Meaning you don't have to take out loans. Or meaning the costs of goods offset the amount of money you are paying back to your loan. Either way it will only help in not taking out more loans because goods are now more affordable. Correct? I'm interested on any good literature you have on this.

[EndTheFedRes]

What was going through Rands mind 8:10 concerning the Civil Rights Act? FREEDOM OF CHOICE!!! What the man said was "government does not have the right to tell ANY business owner who, and who not they will serve on THEIR private property" It is the property owners RIGHT to serve who he wants. He is NOT a racist (to the MORONS), he is however for FREEDOM OF CHOICE. If you choose not to serve red, purple, yellow, boy scouts, that should be YOUR decision, NOT the federal governments.

[EndTheFedRes]

The Constitution is SIMPLE. The Constitution is a document of what the government CAN do. It is NOT a list of what the government can NOT do. SIMPLE!!! ANY deviation from this document is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It is a list of enumerated powers. I'm not saying there are no gray area's but for the most part it is black and white.

[unameitltd]

Those who treat the constitution as irrevelent toilet paper have an agenda: To be free of the constitutions clear limits on federal power to trump the power of states.

and be able to engage in clearly unconstitutional acts.

People can and do leave states that treat them badly and impose a cost on states that overreach. Unlimited federal power voids that escape route.

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

@unameitltd

That's exactly right. People always point to Europe's universal healthcare, but they invariably fail to mention that Europe is comprised of many different countries, each with its own system.

Although moving from one country to another isn't as simple (e.g., due to language barriers) as moving from one US state to another, at least there is a competition of ideas.

[Signzit]

/watch?v=VYJTWa5v24I

[topthickproducer]

Neo-cons and tea-baggers understand the USA Constitution as it fits their core belief: 'Greed is stamped on this document'

[tarossi400]

With all the experience we've had throughout history, how could anyone still think concentrating power is a good idea?

[davematherly]

@tarossi400 Only "Progressives"

[TheoriginalGrumphy]

@tarossi400 Yes you are right..Lets instead have COOP's bigger than the state, then soon you can vote about..NOTHING! The poblem isnt the state, it is what they do with the money. And to whom they give it. But you got it right, now COOP's have human rights LOL. But off course they dont use that right to bye Congress and electies.

An moving work to cheap labour like in China doesnt mean they dont give a shit about you..Cause it is normal shouting about kapitalism an invest in kommunism muahaha!.

[sircesare]

@tarossi400

its simple the government who should "know" better and work for the benefit of the people, is doing things knowing this will destroy us and for the benefit of the wealthy, they have sent all their money abroad to protect their money.

[KillKeynes]

"... this Constitution was that type of commercial contract."

The Constitution laid the foundation for the most prosperous nation in human history.

"... they wanted to write something that created a very strong central government."

The Constitution limits the federal government to but a few specifically delegated powers.

"... the problem during the depression was constantly falling prices."

Our greatest period of growth (the Industrial Revolution) coincided with constantly falling prices!

[davematherly]

@KillKeynes The problem during the great depression is the same as today, a monetary/credit contraction by the same oligarchical puppet masters that run the show today.

[restlys]

@KillKeynes poor you...you still the USA is prosperous...

your in for a rude awakening.

[restlys]

@KillKeynes poor you...you still the USA is prosperous...

your in for a rude awakening.

[slade420]

bring back FDR's Glass-Steagall

[kd1s]

Yeah, Roosevelt was no joke. He played the USSC like a fiddle. In all the biographies and histories I've read of the time I see why conservatives still fight today. They abhor what Roosevelt and the congress and the courts did back then.

[Signzit]

@kd1s apfn. org/apfn/secretoath. htm

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

@kd1s

That's not even the wost of it. When FDR's "economic recovery" faltered, he clung to power by deceiving America into WW2, against its own best interests, and on behalf of his pro-Marxist banking cronies -- essentially the same cabal which now exploits us all. You can google:

"Franklin Roosevelt's 'Secret Map' speech"

Real patriots like Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh and Joe Kennedy favored a good alliance with Germany. Even General Patton understood their wisdom, albeit later on.

[woostopalypse]

@LibertaerUeberAlles Henry Ford sold cars to the Nazis. And Lindbergh believed in eugenics. Are you trying to hint at something?

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

Everyone believed in eugenics, back then. It was thought that hereditary diseases could be eliminated. Then again, let's not forget, Pres. Woody Wilson took things to the extreme by sterilizing scores of "undesirables."

Had Henry Ford collaborated with Adolf, then who knows how it could've benefited America? Innovative manufacturing? Smart urban planning? Top-notch space program? Environmentalism & animal well-being? No debt-slavery? Watch the video:

"Adolf and Controversy"

[mikeoli]

Paul Jay , I watch this show and by you questioning the basic foundations of this nation for some talk show points is pissing me off which is great but you are still a bald headed socialist piece of dog vomit but keep up the good work and keep on putting on people who agree with your basic political view most of the time it is great that I get to hear another point of view

[juan2diablo]

no interpetation needed = it needs to be obeyed

[LazarusCato]

@juan2diablo it needs to be updated for the 21st century.

[juan2diablo]

@LazarusCato agreed updated an obeyed

[redrik09]

You dont need many words.. its either RIGHT or WRONG .. end off.! ... to try to change it.. is to open the door to deception..

[Eraser7622]

@redrik09

Right and Wrong are not universal truths, thus not a basis for a logical argument. They are subjective truths.. I assume you know the difference. This, of course, is the reason that we find ourselves in the situation we are in. Look into the history of the Constitution's founding.. look into the past of those who authored and signed it. Look into how/why the bill of rights was added. Understand why it was written the way it was written and whose interests it was designed 2 serve

[BusterXXXL]

@Eraser7622 "Right and Wrong are not universal truths" I understand your intention, but I sincerely warn you about sloppines of language in this kind of arguments.

Being understood and being taken serious are the goal of any argument, so, while sincerity and identifiable grammar are sstill conditional values, they are universal, not subjectiv,.for the purpose of any possible debate,

If you don't beware of this exception, you will get slaughtered, when trying to defend moral perspectivism.

[LazarusCato]

@redrik09 as opposed to doing nothing and hoping all the baddies in the world go away?

[BusterXXXL]

@redrik09 You are wrong. end off!

[redrik09]

@BusterXXXL Watch that space..!