"Never in history has a federal court invalidated a law regulating the private ownership of firearms on Second Amendment grounds.."_______________ Former Dean of the Harvard Law School 1946-1967, Erwin Griswold, Washington Post, November 4, 1990_____________________
200+ years & Scalia and crew overturned 2 laws. LOL
An "originalist" is just a judge whose opinion you agree with.
The problem is that people are fickle. Getting a majority at one instant in time should not even be a possible way of getting a law passed. Article V makes it clear that if you do not have a convention like in 1776 then it takes a great period of time. To make sure as much as humanly possible that this amendment, this empowerment is what the people want. Not even the Congress can technically amend it. The people have to via their states.
I find this very simplistic. For example, there is a LOT of difference between how Scalia would interpret the constitution and how Kennedy would. The main difference is liberal v. conservative. Essentialist Originalists use their philosophy to affect conservative policies, while more liberal judges use it to affect more progressive policies. It is possible to be a Textual Originalist (what the words mean, the words are law) without being a neocon. Kennedy is a prime example.
I couldn't have explained the constitution to be better understood by anyone from age two to two hundred myself, probably because I am a computer programmer with a very large computer programming vocabulary. Thank You!
... It's amazing how similar politics(at least the Civics part) is to computer programming. This is probably because understanding both requires the knowledge of often-used terms and a knowledge of what generally happens in certain caused-to-come events.
We need to protect the Constitution before the ACLU banned it cause it has creationist propaganda in it. The Creator quote in the constitution is not liberal, therefore we need to protect it, NOW!!, if they want another Mustache to rule them, they can go to live in China, here we are going to keep the Constitution they like it or not. Even if we need a Civil War, thats how far we will go.
@breedofthe45 The Constitution makes no reference to any god or creator. You are thinking of the Declaration of Independence. Understandable, as the two are often confused. It is quite easy to find free pdfs of both documents online. Just inquire to Lord Google. Best of luck.
Hey HowTheWorldWorks, I have to do a research paper for a political science class and it has to tie in with either, political parties or interest groups, or both. I want to do something regarding the Judicial branch of government. For example, liberal verses original justice's, can you give me any pointer's, or information on political parties/interest groups, who they are and what they want. I hope this makes sense, nice video.
You're characterizing the debate as though it was about whether or not judges should follow the Constitutonal text. That's not it at all; the debate is over whether we should constrain our reading of that text according to what its multitudinous authors "intended" it to mean.
I'm a sola scriptura guy.
When it says "equal protection," that's what it means.
Incidentally, Roe hasn't been the controlling authority on US abortion law since 1992.
An example of what I mean: there was a constitutional debate in Canada over whether women could be appointed senators. The constitutional text said that the governor general would appoint "qualified persons." At the time this was written, "qualified persons" was understood to mean "men." But that's NOT what the document said.
The words bore a larger construction than what was originally intended... But that's part of the reason constitutional authors often use "open textured" language.
Good insight! People who think a law means what the framers meant, are adding to a law. What the framers meant is irrelevant to the law, it is what the words mean that are important. The U.S. 14th Amendment opens with "All persons..." and goes on to talk about equal protection of laws. Essentialist Originalists (what the framers meant is important) would say that it only applies to black men, as that was the "issue" for which it was passed. And yet, it reads "all persons" not "All black males".
@gustjorodedheo No you cannot look at it that way. Originalists wouldn't either. 2 classes of people are defined, two types of citizens. In 1868 Citizen would have mainly been referring to black people who were not state citizens of any state correct, but in this day and age it applies to almost everyone. The local state citizen has been lost to time. There really is no such thing as a US citizen. Slaves were never freed and slavery expanded. Citizen = Corporate slave. Feds are a Corporation.
@gustjorodedheo In 1868 the Radical Republicans (nationalists) began Reconstructing America from a Constitutional Republic into a Democracy (absolute Majority rule). They created a new class which they wanted to sweep the land. If we really were free unless we injured or stole from another party or interfered with the mail we would never even see the Government. Why do the police ticket us and fine us? Because we are not free. They have convinced us to give them money under threat for nothing .
@gustjorodedheo The police used to be more personal. They used to be keepers of the peace. Think Mayberry. Andy Griffith is what law enforcement is supposed to be like. It's supposed to work with the people and be locally based. Cops are supposed to be your agent not superior.
The true meaning of the U.S. Constitution is to guarantee that the Federal Government is less powerful then the State Governments and the People are the most powerful when it comes to the U.S.Constitution. As you explained the Rights of the people are not from the Constitution but proven by the it to not be able to be infringed upon. The Federal Government has over stepped their bounds and needs to be shown were the line is and returned behind the fence. How we accomplish that is up to us.
I notice you didn't mention amendment 9, that right of the people are unenumerated. I think the order of the amendments is significant and it outranks amendment 10 which you cite. Roe v. Wade was based on precedent from other types of contraceptive. To some degree you are right it does stifle states from implementing the majority (in particular the south) view of prohibition against it, but it certainly wasn't legislation from the bench.
Excellent video! I just learned more about the Constitution than I was ever taught and I'm 55. And I believe I now have a better understanding of the Constitution than 98% of Americans, and 40% of the Supreme Court.
This guy is right, don't you just hate people who are different? If it were up to me I'd just get rid of diversity and make sure everyone thought like me.
The Constitution..."Simply defines the powers of the federal Gov't? Ahhh what about the preamble and the general welfare (of the population) clause? THAT my friend was the spirit with which the Constitution was written. It is a statement the founding fathers perceived to eliminate the effects of Empire-- now called 'Globalization'.
Whatever follows your incorrect perception of its purpose, is irrelevant because your understanding of this crucial point is WRONG.
"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson
Maybe you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and need to shut the fuck up. Gun-control is one of the worst political ideas ever, and we wouldn't have inflation if the dollar was still indexed to gold.
This is a minor Quip, HTWW, I want to point out that in your comments you said 'has the court moved TO far to the right' where it should be, TOO far to the right.
I usually disagree with almost all your videos but this was actually a good educational video for the masses. At least from the originalist point of view.
Obama's abominable pick for a Supreme Court "Justice" has boldly stated (and joked) that the court is where policy is made. Arrogant appointees like her, with her confused sense of the Constitution and dangerously intrusive agenda are exactly what's wrong with our legal system. Let's hope the Judicial Committee members actually have the courage to do a thorough investigation of philosophy on judicial activism.
Chifour55: I understand perfectly. My comments don't denegrate this video. I have expanded the discussion. Why volunteer your opinion on merits of Roe v. Wade instead of Santa Clara County or West Coast Hotel. Neo-conservative republican originalism is red herring hysteria from those who perfer to legislate from the Executive office AND the judiciary. Roe was a case not a law.
jereuter, I don't think you understand exactly how the Supreme Court was supposed to work vs. how it does now. Roe v Wade was the worst law ever passed. HTWW does a good job of breaking down this info.
guess you never heard of the Dred Scott Decision which was one of the events that led us into the civil war. All Roe V. Wade did give Conservatives like you bitch about fetus's that are not even born yet.
Yeah newmadrid01 maybe if you DID know how it works than you'd know that your liberal mentality on the constitution is why we had those two rulings not to mention the rulings on sterilizing carrie buck and stealing property and giving it to big companies based on tax forcasts.
what a shame your mother didnt murder you in the womb. not to worry, when you libs finally off yourselves we can start making America a free country once again.
Gyrode: What would you say about Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad Company (1886)? Compare these majority judges' thinking to their thinking in Plessy v. Ferguson. The see Black's dissent in West Coast Hotel Company v Parrish and Douglas' dissent Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander.
Regardless of your self-congratulatory statement, it is not about being "Left" or "Right." The issue is how much power you think the Federal government should have in relation to the member states. "Left of center" can become Originalist in the future if politics change - it has before.
Gyrode: Nothing self-congratulatory about my statement. The practical issue is not national vs. state's rights. Consider the "silver platter" doctrine, and even California et al driving EPA to change emmissions standards. I'm aware of swing votes and shift in court thinking over history; however, I will always remain just left of center in the shift. The issue is the balance between collective and individual rights.
The writer's of the Constitution subscribed to Natural Rights. Frankly, the balance between collective rights and individual ones is moot if you consider the writers. Your silver platter doctrine is a good example of state v. federal powers.
I also made that statement since you said, "I can sleep at night knowing that there are 5 righteous thinking justices..." So much for nuance, seriously, you take that statement seriously?
How so? It is indisputable that Federal power is greater than it has ever been before. There is no ideology here. It just so happens that Lefty judges are in that camp. During FDRs term, "progressives" were against "legislating from the bench" because they impeded some of FDR's reforms.
If u r reading this, then u will find a dead bloody body hanging in ur closet. U will be haunted and killed by her. to stop it posti this to 6 other videos in 30 GOOD LUCK
On a humorous note, I read a recent analysis that said if the writers of the constitution had included a "Right to Privacy," it would have meant a right to use the bathroom (in the 1780s at least).
Seriously?!?! Not only were these not "simple" but these amendments simultaneously abolished the horrible institution of slavery AND severely diminished the power of the states. I can't think of a less "simple" part of constitutional history.
You say the states went "crazy" with slavery.... Um... I don't think I need to point out the flaw in this... slavery IS crazy.
You said the abolition of slaver with the thirteenth amendment was " simple" and that the establishment of voting rights with the fourteenth amendment was "real simple."
WOW, there are a lot of comments. And I must say this is one of the best videos you've produced... and I'm not usually that big a fan. I have read some of the comments but not all so sorry if I repeat someone else's point.
First off the constitution isn't "silent" on slavery. Art. 1 Sec. 2 of the US Const. clearly gives the representative power of slaves to their master in a proportion of 3/5.
Now that I think about it you are right. Art. 1 Sec. 2 of the constitution has absolutely nothing to do with slavery and the abolition of slavery was simple. How did I get it so wrong.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I simply was agreeing with you. You seem to know much more than me about these issues and I would appreciate if you could steer me in the right direction.
For instance I'm not sure what to think about the effect of the civil war on states rights. If you have any spare time I would greatly appreciate your input.
Again, I am clearly ignorant and not to be taken seriously so I understand if you have no time to correct my misguided views.
What about the fugitive slave clause, Article IV, sec. 2 of the Constitution pre-Civil War?
"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
"Service" or "Labor." Nice euphemism our slave-owning Founding Fathers came up with.
AboveAll Nations. Once again you make no point. Just making more generalizations about the founding fathers as if the prejudice alone is your point.
You have nothing to contribute.
It has been over 200 years, and the people alive had nothing to do with it, and now you have so much hatred for your country, you are now the one with prejudice, and theirs no one left to heep it on so you pick targets.
You are the bigot with a closed mind. Let it go, let it go, let it go.
And by the way HTWW, do you know what case the methodology of "original intent" came from?
Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857.
Under an original intent analysis, Chief Justice Roger Taney determined that the Founding Fathers never intended to grant citizenship to black people, free or slave. He was probably right - just like the Supreme Court, had it used an "original intent" analysis in Brown v. Board, would have upheld the constitutionality of segregation. The 14th A's framers never objected to it!
AboveAll Nations. Your not making any point. Are you making the point that our founding fathers where racists. Even if that true what is the point of that, sure it was wrong, but what does that have to do with the constitution.
Federalism and "State's rights" has been a euphemism for maintaining racial segregation in the South. Ronald Reagan knew the significance of invoking "State's rights" when he appeared in Philadelphia, MS in 1980 (Philadelphia, MS was were three Northern civil rights workers were brutally murdered decades before, btw). It was the GOP's deal with the devil... winning over the South by appealing to the very narrow-minded bigots who are sinking them today.
That;s disingenuous, since there were Republicans such as Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan who sincerely believed in the sovereignty of States. True, it was a cover, but no one can argue that the Feds have more power over the states than ever before.
YOu are truly a fool and have no idea what your talking about. Please stop, the states created the fedral government not the other ways around. We are the United States for a reason, you have no idea what your talking about.
The Constitution was written intentionally vague. The Committee for Detail at the Constitutional Convention said as much:
"...insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events:"
Why should we look to a pre-industrial society for how our government can regulate the internet? Why should we care what slaveowners thought "cruel & unusual" meant?
"Why should we look to a pre-industrial society for how our government can regulate the internet?"
That doesn't even make any sense. We are not looking to a pre-industrial society. We are looking at the Constitution in a way that would give the legislatures of the States and Federal government more power than they have now.
Just passed the amendment and slavery was ended. Yah, no war, no conflict, no death...
Btw, how do you sit the and say Slavery was immoral and shouldn't have happened? Yet, you'll sit there and defend the free market to the bitter end. The free market is the reason slaver was prevalent for so long. It was cheap/free labor that reduced costs of a business. You're contradictory at seemingly every turn!
yeah anybody that believes slavery is wrong and also believes in free enterprise is contradictory?
socialism at its heart is infact slavery...
anybody that gets checks from the government is infact a slave to the government, when everybody gets checks from the government we have lost all control.
anybody that think the FREE market caused slavery is fucking stupid.
I like how you say "clearly slavery was wrong" but if you will recall we had to fight a WAR with ourselves to make that disstinction clear. You are ignoring a big piece of history in your arguement. You've done this in other videos too, especially in defense of capitalism. Now days we can look back at slavery and know it is wrong, but who is to say what future generations will look back on and say "XYZ was clearly wrong" maybe capitalism? Maybe abortion? But hand waving history = a bad future.
Slavery was a small part of the war. There was a lot more going on in the country than disagreement over slavery.
We can look back on history and know capitalism works, and I think HTWW clearly explained that. Capitialism is tried and proven to work. Compare our history to Big Red, either one.
he was correct in that statement. He made the statement in the year 2009 not a hundred years ago. Slaery IS CLEARLY WRONG.
Hand waing history = a bad future?
So we can't say that it was wrong for the germans to kill millions of jews, polls, gays, christians, and others?
We shouldn't say that slavery is wrong? WE DID NOT FIGHT A WAR OVER SLAVERY. It was fought over constitutional interpretations of states rights and representation.
Most of your videos are just factually wrong but this i actually enjoyed... Good video, I hope you make more of these, than the poorly backed and slanted structured news updates that dominate your channel...
wow dude, could you give an example of a factually wrong statement he made that wasn't an opinion. People can have different opinions however, some people think that everything they say is fact and everything that isn't what they believe is a lie. of course he is biased, SO ARE YOU, so is Fox News so is CNN, CSPAN, and every other person and company in the world...
being different doesn't make you right or wrong... your statement ironically is poorly backed up as you provided no evidence.
i have a problem not with opinions, only when they are presented as arguments or when he presents only the part of the story that fits in nicely with his opinion and leaves out the contradicting part.... if you actually follow the news from any real sources you should know what i am talking about... this video for example he seemed to get his facts right though he still expressed his opinion and i applaud him for it... that's why i left my comment that some trolls seem to hate so much...
you still FAIL to give an example of him giving a factually wrong statement. So now anybody that doesn't agree with you isn't allowed to present their opinions in arguments? WTF?
Leaves out the contradicting part? You just described EVERY news channel you trolls consider real news channels. We hear the contradicting part all over the place, we disagree.
You think its our job to present your argument for you? fairness doctrine? WHY? You don't present our side.
Also, troll would fit you much better. You don't agree with his videos and think that he doesn't fairly represent the facts yet you come to the videos for the sole reason of flamming them. wiki says this
troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response
you are a chatty troll aren't you? read my comments on some of his videos and there will be examples for you... i am not gonna repeat myself for every obnoxious twat on youtube... if you are gonna argue a point you cannot present your opinion as an argument, if you can't understand this then you belong in primary school... have a nice day :)
He might think it is in the Federal sphere since Internet Lines are interstate commerce....so it can't really be left to the states. Simply I think the backbones should be "Public/Private" while the ISPs should be de and re-regulated to promote competition....since who can stop Verizon if they want to use their backbone as they please?
For example, in my area, the Fiber optic lines are primarilty owned by Verizon, ATT, and Sprint....and all local ISPs must lease their lines, and they are dying for obvious reasons....
Actually slavery is protected by the original Constition as the rights to property are guaranteed. This prohibited states from abridging the right to slavery. You may say this is not the case, but the Chief Justice of the United States disagreed and it is his place to decide. In addition, as long, as we are reading the Constitution, Article 1 Section 9 protected the importation of slaves until 1807. As long as you are only talking about the basics at least omit the glaring lies.
assuming a jurist thought that Slaves were property....clearly not in line with the Constitution's original intent (with years of classical liberal thought behind it).
You see this is the kind of thing I like to see from you. I've criticized your videos in the passed, but this is a very informative video, and it seems to be pretty accurate (some of your "explanations" could use some better wording though). 5 starred.
"Right-wing" means that the Constitution means what it says and its rules actually mean something.
Left-wing or "compassionate" justices are those who believe that the rules don't apply to them and they can make up whatever ad hoc justifications for their crazy rulings to legislate from the bench what they can't get passed through a majority vote of the representatives of the people. "Liberal" judges push radical agendas with elitist pretensions and shaky reasoning.
Let me tell you religious people here. I'm Atheist but I would still be on your side if someone tried to take away your freedom of religion. I would appreciate that you defend my rights as I would yours.
The Ninth Amendment grants the Supreme Court the right to grant new rights to people. It's deliberately ambiguous, so as to allow this. If you disagree with my interpretation of the Ninth Amendment, then it means absolutely nothing.
You're wrong the 9th Amendment was the last vestige of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. James Madison didn't want a Bill of Rights because he felt it was clear that the government could ONLY do what was said in the other articles of the Constitution.
He was worried that if you have a Bill of Right, people will think those are the ONLY rights people have simply by mentioning them.
The 9th Amendment was simply reaffirming the compromise. It is meaningless.
just wanted to make sure you read this... so i'm posting it again. you said:
"No woman in history ever needed a later term abortion to save her life. Never happened. "
that's a rather bold assertion to make so confidently. you sure about that? not one? so if i find just one case of a necessity for a late term abortion, will you admit you're full of crap?
You cannot find ONE case in history where sticking scissors in the back of a baby's head as its legs are already removed from the woman's body is necessary to save the woman's life.
those weren't your words. stick with what you said. you said, "No woman in history ever needed a later term abortion to save her life. Never happened."
nothing about sticking scissors in the back of baby's heads. i like how you conveniently changed the argument because you realized you're full of crap, and you knew you were being called on it.
there are several different procedures for late term abortion. you've listed one. none of them make for good dinner conversation, however, that doesn't take away from the necessity for them. and as for the cases genius, do a google search for tammy watts, viki wilson, and vikki stella. there's three examples, einstein. they all had late term abortions to save their lives.
My argument does not hinge on why the Ninth Amendment was put in the Constitution, but on what the Amendment says. We all know there were various motivations to put in the various Amendments, but those motivations don't change what the Amendments actually say. Hence, I disagree with your extra-textual interpretation of the document. My apologies for not responding earlier. I hadn't even noticed a response was made until just now.
"No woman in history ever needed a later term abortion to save her life. Never happened. "
that's a rather bold assertion to make so confidently. you sure about that? not one? so if i find just one case of a necessity for a late term abortion, will you admit you're full of crap?
Amendment II:"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Funny. I personally don't know any Christians who wish an establishment of religion. I do personally know atheists who wish to deny people freedom of religion.
really? you don't know any christians who want creationism taught in public schools, or who want evolution thrown out because it contradicts biblical creation?
No, not personally I don't. In my statement I said personally.
If you are referring to Fundamentalists who view reason and faith as opposing forces, then yeah I'm sure there are plenty of those. There are also Fundie atheists who want all religion erradicated and its followers persecuted.
"Funny. I personally don't know any Christians who wish an establishment of religion. I do personally know atheists who wish to deny people freedom of religion."
i assumed you were using personally in the same respect with both atheists and christians. i find it doubtful that you know any atheists personally, let alone any who want to deny people freedom of religion. i'm an atheist and i don't know any.
I don't think most atheists want to deny anyone religion. I posted b/c of the experiences in my own personal life I found irony in your statement. That's all.
As for cristoballs, thanks for the laugh about lunch. lol
If someone wants to marry a tree I think they should seek psychiatric help. If they believe in talking snakes and sky daddys. I also think they should seek psychiatric help.
what does the word Socialism mean to you? Do you know what it means to be a socialist? Have you studied it in any kind of depth or do you throw around a right wing talking point?
ITS OFFICIAL!!! I now despise Barack Obama more than George W. Bush. He refuses to appoint a special prosecutor to punish Bush for his illegal WIRE TAPPING and TORTURING ways. Its becoming real clear that our government tortured detainees not for information but for forced confessions. This is the perfect way to purge out our most corrupt officials both Dem and Rep.There is no way Obama will ever get anything done with the gangster leadership we have now. Lets see if "BO" wants real change
Most Democrats do not concern themselves with what is the best solution or candidate. Their concern is what race, gender, sexual orientation, the candidate might fit into. They are concerned that the group picture has many colors and genders in it. It is not about who is the most qualified. This is one of the ways they keep the voting public fragmented.
lol yeah the bbc is a left wing version of fox news.
at least they have reviews into their own reporting and try to be as objectiove as possible. Somehow i dont see fox new execs fretting over their accuracy.
hahaha this is the funniest video this guy has ever posted. if he wants to be a true "originalist" then he would be an opponent of corporate rights, which im sure he is not. thats no where in the constitution, or even legislation. corporate rights were brought upon by the rulings of judges. talk about radical judges! ha.
The problem has always been liberal activism, it's like having a "living" rulebook for a game that we all must play, not a very cool idea, all you really need is a disgruntled lot of losers to change the rules midstream, and eventually all of the rich business owners will bail out. It discourages businesses and free enterprise. We need more private industry profits. I think any business that stays here in IL is stupid, go somewhere else, where the taxes won't kill your business....lol
Justices have been trying to legislate from teh bench since before the American Civil War. The worst instance of this perhaps was the ruling by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford that justified slavery and declared the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional. The most recent outrageous decision, in Kelo v. City of New London, creatively reinterprets Article V to mean that the State can only steal property if it can be assumed they might make a profit thereby.
Most of the people that voted for the present admin never stayed awake through gov class and thought electing a "rock star" would make everything better.Bush's admin sold us short, but the koolaid sucking lemmings that put this administration into power were blind to the consequences. So the whole crooked tax evading team from Chicago now controls every aspect of our life. The people that need to hear this were and are asleep and its too easy for them to just go along with the media parade.
Activism in our court system is a great thing. I don't believe that democracy is always the best government style. People who have a view group together. And people love hating on the little guy. The court is the only place where stuff can get fixed for the little guys. I'm a strong believer in a federalist system that leans strongly to the national government side.
No government is perfect, but as one man said: A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." Our Republic worked fairly well for a while.
"Never in history has a federal court invalidated a law regulating the private ownership of firearms on Second Amendment grounds.."_______________ Former Dean of the Harvard Law School 1946-1967, Erwin Griswold, Washington Post, November 4, 1990_____________________
200+ years & Scalia and crew overturned 2 laws. LOL
An "originalist" is just a judge whose opinion you agree with.
USAHistory1 11 months ago
The problem is that people are fickle. Getting a majority at one instant in time should not even be a possible way of getting a law passed. Article V makes it clear that if you do not have a convention like in 1776 then it takes a great period of time. To make sure as much as humanly possible that this amendment, this empowerment is what the people want. Not even the Congress can technically amend it. The people have to via their states.
Luigi84289 11 months ago
Comment removed
Luigi84289 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
jesus christ is way, truth, and life. follow him today
bass109 1 year ago
I find this very simplistic. For example, there is a LOT of difference between how Scalia would interpret the constitution and how Kennedy would. The main difference is liberal v. conservative. Essentialist Originalists use their philosophy to affect conservative policies, while more liberal judges use it to affect more progressive policies. It is possible to be a Textual Originalist (what the words mean, the words are law) without being a neocon. Kennedy is a prime example.
gustjorodedheo 1 year ago
I couldn't have explained the constitution to be better understood by anyone from age two to two hundred myself, probably because I am a computer programmer with a very large computer programming vocabulary. Thank You!
... It's amazing how similar politics(at least the Civics part) is to computer programming. This is probably because understanding both requires the knowledge of often-used terms and a knowledge of what generally happens in certain caused-to-come events.
grossnesstudeos 1 year ago
nice
TheGiovanni1403 1 year ago
We need to protect the Constitution before the ACLU banned it cause it has creationist propaganda in it. The Creator quote in the constitution is not liberal, therefore we need to protect it, NOW!!, if they want another Mustache to rule them, they can go to live in China, here we are going to keep the Constitution they like it or not. Even if we need a Civil War, thats how far we will go.
breedofthe45 1 year ago
@breedofthe45 The Constitution makes no reference to any god or creator. You are thinking of the Declaration of Independence. Understandable, as the two are often confused. It is quite easy to find free pdfs of both documents online. Just inquire to Lord Google. Best of luck.
gustjorodedheo 1 year ago
Hey HowTheWorldWorks, I have to do a research paper for a political science class and it has to tie in with either, political parties or interest groups, or both. I want to do something regarding the Judicial branch of government. For example, liberal verses original justice's, can you give me any pointer's, or information on political parties/interest groups, who they are and what they want. I hope this makes sense, nice video.
geico1975 1 year ago
Your attempt at fairness was a little halfassed.
You're characterizing the debate as though it was about whether or not judges should follow the Constitutonal text. That's not it at all; the debate is over whether we should constrain our reading of that text according to what its multitudinous authors "intended" it to mean.
I'm a sola scriptura guy.
When it says "equal protection," that's what it means.
Incidentally, Roe hasn't been the controlling authority on US abortion law since 1992.
UdallIn72 1 year ago
An example of what I mean: there was a constitutional debate in Canada over whether women could be appointed senators. The constitutional text said that the governor general would appoint "qualified persons." At the time this was written, "qualified persons" was understood to mean "men." But that's NOT what the document said.
The words bore a larger construction than what was originally intended... But that's part of the reason constitutional authors often use "open textured" language.
UdallIn72 1 year ago
Good insight! People who think a law means what the framers meant, are adding to a law. What the framers meant is irrelevant to the law, it is what the words mean that are important. The U.S. 14th Amendment opens with "All persons..." and goes on to talk about equal protection of laws. Essentialist Originalists (what the framers meant is important) would say that it only applies to black men, as that was the "issue" for which it was passed. And yet, it reads "all persons" not "All black males".
gustjorodedheo 1 year ago
@gustjorodedheo No you cannot look at it that way. Originalists wouldn't either. 2 classes of people are defined, two types of citizens. In 1868 Citizen would have mainly been referring to black people who were not state citizens of any state correct, but in this day and age it applies to almost everyone. The local state citizen has been lost to time. There really is no such thing as a US citizen. Slaves were never freed and slavery expanded. Citizen = Corporate slave. Feds are a Corporation.
Luigi84289 11 months ago
@gustjorodedheo In 1868 the Radical Republicans (nationalists) began Reconstructing America from a Constitutional Republic into a Democracy (absolute Majority rule). They created a new class which they wanted to sweep the land. If we really were free unless we injured or stole from another party or interfered with the mail we would never even see the Government. Why do the police ticket us and fine us? Because we are not free. They have convinced us to give them money under threat for nothing .
Luigi84289 11 months ago
@gustjorodedheo The police used to be more personal. They used to be keepers of the peace. Think Mayberry. Andy Griffith is what law enforcement is supposed to be like. It's supposed to work with the people and be locally based. Cops are supposed to be your agent not superior.
Luigi84289 11 months ago
@gustjorodedheo I agree with that. I think bringing race into it at all is a misunderstanding of the term.
Luigi84289 11 months ago
The true meaning of the U.S. Constitution is to guarantee that the Federal Government is less powerful then the State Governments and the People are the most powerful when it comes to the U.S.Constitution. As you explained the Rights of the people are not from the Constitution but proven by the it to not be able to be infringed upon. The Federal Government has over stepped their bounds and needs to be shown were the line is and returned behind the fence. How we accomplish that is up to us.
xtaxplayer 2 years ago
Is the sound only supposed to be coming out of the left speaker?
stalepie13 2 years ago
@stalepie13 HAHA
amozlee 2 years ago
I notice you didn't mention amendment 9, that right of the people are unenumerated. I think the order of the amendments is significant and it outranks amendment 10 which you cite. Roe v. Wade was based on precedent from other types of contraceptive. To some degree you are right it does stifle states from implementing the majority (in particular the south) view of prohibition against it, but it certainly wasn't legislation from the bench.
Pyrolonn 2 years ago
Excellent video! I just learned more about the Constitution than I was ever taught and I'm 55. And I believe I now have a better understanding of the Constitution than 98% of Americans, and 40% of the Supreme Court.
Muddyrider08 2 years ago
indeed. same here
SupHobagg 2 years ago
"FDR and other justices"
hm.
NitronNinjaApple 2 years ago
This guy is right, don't you just hate people who are different? If it were up to me I'd just get rid of diversity and make sure everyone thought like me.
scarmody53 2 years ago
What the hell are you talking about?
CrimsonUnderstanding 2 years ago
see Maxine2win's comment. Guess it didn't look like I replied to him.
scarmody53 2 years ago
Fair enough, I thought you were replying to the video X]
CrimsonUnderstanding 2 years ago
The Constitution..."Simply defines the powers of the federal Gov't? Ahhh what about the preamble and the general welfare (of the population) clause? THAT my friend was the spirit with which the Constitution was written. It is a statement the founding fathers perceived to eliminate the effects of Empire-- now called 'Globalization'.
Whatever follows your incorrect perception of its purpose, is irrelevant because your understanding of this crucial point is WRONG.
gREENbUILT21 2 years ago
Comment removed
koveras225 2 years ago
The preamble isn't legally binding.
"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson
cotss2012 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The constitution of USA seems to be a big problem.
Maybe you people should get a new constitution and abolish your states.
You could then control firearms better, allow gay marriage easily, and remove the nonsense about gold and silver.
And maybe a new constitution would help to take the politics out of the Supreme Court (which seems like a joke institution to me.)
BTW isn't HTWW one the most annoying twerps on YT; 2nd after VenomFangX IMHO
maxine2win 2 years ago
"I see" said the blind man
whuitecloud24 2 years ago
Maybe you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and need to shut the fuck up. Gun-control is one of the worst political ideas ever, and we wouldn't have inflation if the dollar was still indexed to gold.
cotss2012 2 years ago 2
This is a minor Quip, HTWW, I want to point out that in your comments you said 'has the court moved TO far to the right' where it should be, TOO far to the right.
LiberalofLiberty 2 years ago
I usually disagree with almost all your videos but this was actually a good educational video for the masses. At least from the originalist point of view.
zbjordan23 2 years ago
Obama's abominable pick for a Supreme Court "Justice" has boldly stated (and joked) that the court is where policy is made. Arrogant appointees like her, with her confused sense of the Constitution and dangerously intrusive agenda are exactly what's wrong with our legal system. Let's hope the Judicial Committee members actually have the courage to do a thorough investigation of philosophy on judicial activism.
herbs814 2 years ago 2
Chifour55: I understand perfectly. My comments don't denegrate this video. I have expanded the discussion. Why volunteer your opinion on merits of Roe v. Wade instead of Santa Clara County or West Coast Hotel. Neo-conservative republican originalism is red herring hysteria from those who perfer to legislate from the Executive office AND the judiciary. Roe was a case not a law.
jereuter01 2 years ago
jereuter, I don't think you understand exactly how the Supreme Court was supposed to work vs. how it does now. Roe v Wade was the worst law ever passed. HTWW does a good job of breaking down this info.
chifour66 2 years ago 2
guess you never heard of the Dred Scott Decision which was one of the events that led us into the civil war. All Roe V. Wade did give Conservatives like you bitch about fetus's that are not even born yet.
NewMadrid01 2 years ago
"bitch about fetus's that are not even born yet." - bot even born yet?
errskin 2 years ago
Yeah newmadrid01 maybe if you DID know how it works than you'd know that your liberal mentality on the constitution is why we had those two rulings not to mention the rulings on sterilizing carrie buck and stealing property and giving it to big companies based on tax forcasts.
what a shame your mother didnt murder you in the womb. not to worry, when you libs finally off yourselves we can start making America a free country once again.
mainestategop 2 years ago
Gyrode: What would you say about Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad Company (1886)? Compare these majority judges' thinking to their thinking in Plessy v. Ferguson. The see Black's dissent in West Coast Hotel Company v Parrish and Douglas' dissent Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander.
jereuter01 2 years ago
What are you going for here? I am simply summarizing HTWW video to people who may have not seen the entire video.
Gyrode 2 years ago
I can sleep at night knowing that there are 5 righteous thinking justices on the Supremen Court whose ideology is left of center any day.
jereuter01 2 years ago
Is Justice Kennedy in that group of 5??
HOUSEOFFOURDOORS 2 years ago
I would say yes.
jereuter01 2 years ago
kennedy Souter and Stevens were appointed by Reagan, Bush, and Ford.
Free of litmus testing. can't same the same about the rest.
HOUSEOFFOURDOORS 2 years ago
Regardless of your self-congratulatory statement, it is not about being "Left" or "Right." The issue is how much power you think the Federal government should have in relation to the member states. "Left of center" can become Originalist in the future if politics change - it has before.
Gyrode 2 years ago
Gyrode: Nothing self-congratulatory about my statement. The practical issue is not national vs. state's rights. Consider the "silver platter" doctrine, and even California et al driving EPA to change emmissions standards. I'm aware of swing votes and shift in court thinking over history; however, I will always remain just left of center in the shift. The issue is the balance between collective and individual rights.
jereuter01 2 years ago
The writer's of the Constitution subscribed to Natural Rights. Frankly, the balance between collective rights and individual ones is moot if you consider the writers. Your silver platter doctrine is a good example of state v. federal powers.
Gyrode 2 years ago
I also made that statement since you said, "I can sleep at night knowing that there are 5 righteous thinking justices..." So much for nuance, seriously, you take that statement seriously?
Gyrode 2 years ago
Andrew Jackson pissed on the constitution didn't he???
hamshow 2 years ago
For someone who is as good at debate as you claim, you do a very poor job of arguing the other side.
merlinnj 2 years ago
How so? It is indisputable that Federal power is greater than it has ever been before. There is no ideology here. It just so happens that Lefty judges are in that camp. During FDRs term, "progressives" were against "legislating from the bench" because they impeded some of FDR's reforms.
Gyrode 2 years ago
This is more informative than any university lecture I've ever been to.
HoFoShAo 2 years ago
Constitutional originalism is not that popular at colleges because it is inconvenient if you want to legislate from the bench.
Gyrode 2 years ago
Thats right, the constitution is an obstruction to Marxism
mainestategop 2 years ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
If u r reading this, then u will find a dead bloody body hanging in ur closet. U will be haunted and killed by her. to stop it posti this to 6 other videos in 30 GOOD LUCK
Manchy68 2 years ago
I think of Mark Levin when I think of a good Supreme Court Justice. Someone who will obey and faithfully interpret the constitution, not run it over!
Federalist306 2 years ago
You're a young Mark Levin and I can think of no finer compliment.
pinegrove33 2 years ago
Me too bro, I thought Levin the whole time. It arms you well with libs
fdny9682 2 years ago
The commerce clause pretty much allows complete regulation. "Among the states" mainly means commerce "belonging" to the states not "in between" them.
AnimeScootsMgoos666 2 years ago
On a humorous note, I read a recent analysis that said if the writers of the constitution had included a "Right to Privacy," it would have meant a right to use the bathroom (in the 1780s at least).
Philsonpott 2 years ago 3
nicely done
wowperson26 2 years ago
Seriously?!?! Not only were these not "simple" but these amendments simultaneously abolished the horrible institution of slavery AND severely diminished the power of the states. I can't think of a less "simple" part of constitutional history.
AHBritton 2 years ago
You say the states went "crazy" with slavery.... Um... I don't think I need to point out the flaw in this... slavery IS crazy.
You said the abolition of slaver with the thirteenth amendment was " simple" and that the establishment of voting rights with the fourteenth amendment was "real simple."
AHBritton 2 years ago
WOW, there are a lot of comments. And I must say this is one of the best videos you've produced... and I'm not usually that big a fan. I have read some of the comments but not all so sorry if I repeat someone else's point.
First off the constitution isn't "silent" on slavery. Art. 1 Sec. 2 of the US Const. clearly gives the representative power of slaves to their master in a proportion of 3/5.
AHBritton 2 years ago
For the love of god you're ignorant.
The 3/5 compromise had to do with how the South would be represented in the House of Representatives genius.
The North didn't want slaves to count at all b/c the South didn't consider them people. The South wanted them to count.
The Constitution says NOTHING about the institution of slavery.
HowTheWorldWorks 2 years ago 2
And when I say nothing, I'm referring to pre-13th of course.
And YES it was simple. That was how we abolished it officially.
HowTheWorldWorks 2 years ago
Now that I think about it you are right. Art. 1 Sec. 2 of the constitution has absolutely nothing to do with slavery and the abolition of slavery was simple. How did I get it so wrong.
AHBritton 2 years ago
You've just disqualified yourself from being taken seriously.
HowTheWorldWorks 2 years ago
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I simply was agreeing with you. You seem to know much more than me about these issues and I would appreciate if you could steer me in the right direction.
For instance I'm not sure what to think about the effect of the civil war on states rights. If you have any spare time I would greatly appreciate your input.
Again, I am clearly ignorant and not to be taken seriously so I understand if you have no time to correct my misguided views.
AHBritton 2 years ago 2
What about the fugitive slave clause, Article IV, sec. 2 of the Constitution pre-Civil War?
"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
"Service" or "Labor." Nice euphemism our slave-owning Founding Fathers came up with.
AboveAllNations 2 years ago
AboveAll Nations. Once again you make no point. Just making more generalizations about the founding fathers as if the prejudice alone is your point.
You have nothing to contribute.
It has been over 200 years, and the people alive had nothing to do with it, and now you have so much hatred for your country, you are now the one with prejudice, and theirs no one left to heep it on so you pick targets.
You are the bigot with a closed mind. Let it go, let it go, let it go.
lutsko15 2 years ago
And by the way HTWW, do you know what case the methodology of "original intent" came from?
Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857.
Under an original intent analysis, Chief Justice Roger Taney determined that the Founding Fathers never intended to grant citizenship to black people, free or slave. He was probably right - just like the Supreme Court, had it used an "original intent" analysis in Brown v. Board, would have upheld the constitutionality of segregation. The 14th A's framers never objected to it!
AboveAllNations 2 years ago
AboveAll Nations. Your not making any point. Are you making the point that our founding fathers where racists. Even if that true what is the point of that, sure it was wrong, but what does that have to do with the constitution.
lutsko15 2 years ago
Federalism and "State's rights" has been a euphemism for maintaining racial segregation in the South. Ronald Reagan knew the significance of invoking "State's rights" when he appeared in Philadelphia, MS in 1980 (Philadelphia, MS was were three Northern civil rights workers were brutally murdered decades before, btw). It was the GOP's deal with the devil... winning over the South by appealing to the very narrow-minded bigots who are sinking them today.
But I digress.
AboveAllNations 2 years ago
That;s disingenuous, since there were Republicans such as Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan who sincerely believed in the sovereignty of States. True, it was a cover, but no one can argue that the Feds have more power over the states than ever before.
Gyrode 2 years ago
YOu are truly a fool and have no idea what your talking about. Please stop, the states created the fedral government not the other ways around. We are the United States for a reason, you have no idea what your talking about.
But I digress you pompous jerk.
lutsko15 2 years ago
The Constitution was written intentionally vague. The Committee for Detail at the Constitutional Convention said as much:
"...insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events:"
Why should we look to a pre-industrial society for how our government can regulate the internet? Why should we care what slaveowners thought "cruel & unusual" meant?
AboveAllNations 2 years ago 2
Look for a video response from me in the next few days. Rest assured, all of your fallacies will be corrected.
AboveAllNations 2 years ago
"Why should we look to a pre-industrial society for how our government can regulate the internet?"
That doesn't even make any sense. We are not looking to a pre-industrial society. We are looking at the Constitution in a way that would give the legislatures of the States and Federal government more power than they have now.
Gyrode 2 years ago 2
you should do a full course on the constitution.
angelofmyid 2 years ago
great vid man, could you put the link to the constitution that you were using in the sidebar, thanks.
samrustan 2 years ago
*****You ARE a great Patriot!!!
Love your Channel. Carry on Soldier!
h8liver 2 years ago
Just passed the amendment and slavery was ended. Yah, no war, no conflict, no death...
Btw, how do you sit the and say Slavery was immoral and shouldn't have happened? Yet, you'll sit there and defend the free market to the bitter end. The free market is the reason slaver was prevalent for so long. It was cheap/free labor that reduced costs of a business. You're contradictory at seemingly every turn!
Droodjerky 2 years ago
yeah anybody that believes slavery is wrong and also believes in free enterprise is contradictory?
socialism at its heart is infact slavery...
anybody that gets checks from the government is infact a slave to the government, when everybody gets checks from the government we have lost all control.
anybody that think the FREE market caused slavery is fucking stupid.
gtq838 2 years ago
Good video. Too bad more people (including those commenting on your video) do not understand the constitution, but that is public school for you.
rjkooper 2 years ago
Wow, very interesting video you made. haha It seems like you got a lot of comments on it. (= good job on that! Make more
chick5581 2 years ago
I like how you say "clearly slavery was wrong" but if you will recall we had to fight a WAR with ourselves to make that disstinction clear. You are ignoring a big piece of history in your arguement. You've done this in other videos too, especially in defense of capitalism. Now days we can look back at slavery and know it is wrong, but who is to say what future generations will look back on and say "XYZ was clearly wrong" maybe capitalism? Maybe abortion? But hand waving history = a bad future.
wulfkrigan 2 years ago
Slavery was a small part of the war. There was a lot more going on in the country than disagreement over slavery.
We can look back on history and know capitalism works, and I think HTWW clearly explained that. Capitialism is tried and proven to work. Compare our history to Big Red, either one.
Muna004 2 years ago 2
yeah he said "clearly slavery was wrong"
he was correct in that statement. He made the statement in the year 2009 not a hundred years ago. Slaery IS CLEARLY WRONG.
Hand waing history = a bad future?
So we can't say that it was wrong for the germans to kill millions of jews, polls, gays, christians, and others?
We shouldn't say that slavery is wrong? WE DID NOT FIGHT A WAR OVER SLAVERY. It was fought over constitutional interpretations of states rights and representation.
gtq838 2 years ago 2
Most of your videos are just factually wrong but this i actually enjoyed... Good video, I hope you make more of these, than the poorly backed and slanted structured news updates that dominate your channel...
philosophyNpolitics 2 years ago
wow dude, could you give an example of a factually wrong statement he made that wasn't an opinion. People can have different opinions however, some people think that everything they say is fact and everything that isn't what they believe is a lie. of course he is biased, SO ARE YOU, so is Fox News so is CNN, CSPAN, and every other person and company in the world...
being different doesn't make you right or wrong... your statement ironically is poorly backed up as you provided no evidence.
gtq838 2 years ago
i have a problem not with opinions, only when they are presented as arguments or when he presents only the part of the story that fits in nicely with his opinion and leaves out the contradicting part.... if you actually follow the news from any real sources you should know what i am talking about... this video for example he seemed to get his facts right though he still expressed his opinion and i applaud him for it... that's why i left my comment that some trolls seem to hate so much...
philosophyNpolitics 2 years ago
you still FAIL to give an example of him giving a factually wrong statement. So now anybody that doesn't agree with you isn't allowed to present their opinions in arguments? WTF?
Leaves out the contradicting part? You just described EVERY news channel you trolls consider real news channels. We hear the contradicting part all over the place, we disagree.
You think its our job to present your argument for you? fairness doctrine? WHY? You don't present our side.
gtq838 2 years ago
Also, troll would fit you much better. You don't agree with his videos and think that he doesn't fairly represent the facts yet you come to the videos for the sole reason of flamming them. wiki says this
troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response
thats you, troll.
gtq838 2 years ago
you are a chatty troll aren't you? read my comments on some of his videos and there will be examples for you... i am not gonna repeat myself for every obnoxious twat on youtube... if you are gonna argue a point you cannot present your opinion as an argument, if you can't understand this then you belong in primary school... have a nice day :)
philosophyNpolitics 2 years ago
I don't share your political views but cheers for the lesson. Very enlightening
Blandamour 2 years ago 7
please don't cut out one side of you audio. it strains the ears, and is creepy.
spartan2600 2 years ago
oh great one, where do you stand on net neutrality?
beaner5147 2 years ago 2
He might think it is in the Federal sphere since Internet Lines are interstate commerce....so it can't really be left to the states. Simply I think the backbones should be "Public/Private" while the ISPs should be de and re-regulated to promote competition....since who can stop Verizon if they want to use their backbone as they please?
Gyrode 2 years ago
For example, in my area, the Fiber optic lines are primarilty owned by Verizon, ATT, and Sprint....and all local ISPs must lease their lines, and they are dying for obvious reasons....
Gyrode 2 years ago
Actually slavery is protected by the original Constition as the rights to property are guaranteed. This prohibited states from abridging the right to slavery. You may say this is not the case, but the Chief Justice of the United States disagreed and it is his place to decide. In addition, as long, as we are reading the Constitution, Article 1 Section 9 protected the importation of slaves until 1807. As long as you are only talking about the basics at least omit the glaring lies.
maemorri 2 years ago 2
assuming a jurist thought that Slaves were property....clearly not in line with the Constitution's original intent (with years of classical liberal thought behind it).
Gyrode 2 years ago
You see this is the kind of thing I like to see from you. I've criticized your videos in the passed, but this is a very informative video, and it seems to be pretty accurate (some of your "explanations" could use some better wording though). 5 starred.
anon4654 2 years ago
Well done. Well said.
"Right-wing" means that the Constitution means what it says and its rules actually mean something.
Left-wing or "compassionate" justices are those who believe that the rules don't apply to them and they can make up whatever ad hoc justifications for their crazy rulings to legislate from the bench what they can't get passed through a majority vote of the representatives of the people. "Liberal" judges push radical agendas with elitist pretensions and shaky reasoning.
herbs814 2 years ago
man you americans are boring....if you got a problem dont go talkin shit on youtube...smoke some weed,thats how we do it in europe :P
SLOwigger 2 years ago
haha why do you think we are here? because we are sober?
dleksen 2 years ago
I hope we get a gay hispanic justice :)
ramanglass544 2 years ago
htww... my question was directed at you.
cristoballs 2 years ago
Let me tell you religious people here. I'm Atheist but I would still be on your side if someone tried to take away your freedom of religion. I would appreciate that you defend my rights as I would yours.
RealLifeProduct 2 years ago 2
The Ninth Amendment grants the Supreme Court the right to grant new rights to people. It's deliberately ambiguous, so as to allow this. If you disagree with my interpretation of the Ninth Amendment, then it means absolutely nothing.
Macaii 2 years ago
Macaii:
You're wrong the 9th Amendment was the last vestige of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. James Madison didn't want a Bill of Rights because he felt it was clear that the government could ONLY do what was said in the other articles of the Constitution.
He was worried that if you have a Bill of Right, people will think those are the ONLY rights people have simply by mentioning them.
The 9th Amendment was simply reaffirming the compromise. It is meaningless.
HowTheWorldWorks 2 years ago
just wanted to make sure you read this... so i'm posting it again. you said:
"No woman in history ever needed a later term abortion to save her life. Never happened. "
that's a rather bold assertion to make so confidently. you sure about that? not one? so if i find just one case of a necessity for a late term abortion, will you admit you're full of crap?
cristoballs 2 years ago
You cannot find ONE case in history where sticking scissors in the back of a baby's head as its legs are already removed from the woman's body is necessary to save the woman's life.
HowTheWorldWorks 2 years ago
those weren't your words. stick with what you said. you said, "No woman in history ever needed a later term abortion to save her life. Never happened."
nothing about sticking scissors in the back of baby's heads. i like how you conveniently changed the argument because you realized you're full of crap, and you knew you were being called on it.
cristoballs 2 years ago
That is what a Late Term Abortion is genius!
HowTheWorldWorks 2 years ago
there are several different procedures for late term abortion. you've listed one. none of them make for good dinner conversation, however, that doesn't take away from the necessity for them. and as for the cases genius, do a google search for tammy watts, viki wilson, and vikki stella. there's three examples, einstein. they all had late term abortions to save their lives.
cristoballs 2 years ago 3
My argument does not hinge on why the Ninth Amendment was put in the Constitution, but on what the Amendment says. We all know there were various motivations to put in the various Amendments, but those motivations don't change what the Amendments actually say. Hence, I disagree with your extra-textual interpretation of the document. My apologies for not responding earlier. I hadn't even noticed a response was made until just now.
Macaii 2 years ago
"No woman in history ever needed a later term abortion to save her life. Never happened. "
that's a rather bold assertion to make so confidently. you sure about that? not one? so if i find just one case of a necessity for a late term abortion, will you admit you're full of crap?
cristoballs 2 years ago
Fellow Democrats no point in fighting this one.
Amendment II:"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
RealLifeProduct 2 years ago
Christians please memorize.
Amendment I:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
RealLifeProduct 2 years ago 2
Funny. I personally don't know any Christians who wish an establishment of religion. I do personally know atheists who wish to deny people freedom of religion.
mikethetiger 2 years ago
really how did we get "In God We Trust" on are money?
RealLifeProduct 2 years ago 2
What religion did the gov't establish?
mikethetiger 2 years ago
You are quote mining. It's say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
NOT Congress shall not establishing a religion.
RealLifeProduct 2 years ago
Well maybe not quote mining but your are not reading it right.
RealLifeProduct 2 years ago
"make no law " and "respecting" are the keywords here.
RealLifeProduct 2 years ago
really? you don't know any christians who want creationism taught in public schools, or who want evolution thrown out because it contradicts biblical creation?
cristoballs 2 years ago
No, not personally I don't. In my statement I said personally.
If you are referring to Fundamentalists who view reason and faith as opposing forces, then yeah I'm sure there are plenty of those. There are also Fundie atheists who want all religion erradicated and its followers persecuted.
Both of those groups scare me.
mikethetiger 2 years ago 2
i believe you're exact words were:
"Funny. I personally don't know any Christians who wish an establishment of religion. I do personally know atheists who wish to deny people freedom of religion."
i assumed you were using personally in the same respect with both atheists and christians. i find it doubtful that you know any atheists personally, let alone any who want to deny people freedom of religion. i'm an atheist and i don't know any.
cristoballs 2 years ago
They seem to think that cause Atheist don't want congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion that we deny freedom of religion.
RealLifeProduct 2 years ago
well, they've figured us out. oh well. what's next on my atheist agenda. ah yes... it's just past 12. time for lunch i guess.
cristoballs 2 years ago
I don't think most atheists want to deny anyone religion. I posted b/c of the experiences in my own personal life I found irony in your statement. That's all.
As for cristoballs, thanks for the laugh about lunch. lol
mikethetiger 2 years ago
bertly71 is right. It's a general statement
that has much truth in it. They are already
talking about putting a women on the supereme court to balance it. Has nothing to do whether she is qualified.
By the way, Joe Biden is a joke, along with Hillary, Obama, Bill Clinton, Pelosi,
Franks........and of course all the Kennedy's, in my astute opinion, and whoever votes for them is a joke as well.
polisharabia 2 years ago
If you voted for Bush you shouldn't throw stones.
RealLifeProduct 2 years ago 2
I did not vote for Bush. I could not. I am
not American. And Bush was a jerk
for starting the bailouts, and having no
bid contracts.
And while we are on the subject, Donald
Trump is a snake oil salesman in heat,
in my opinion.
What else you require?
polisharabia 2 years ago
Nothing. Glad you are not American.
RealLifeProduct 2 years ago
...while were at it:
The amazingatheist, and youngturks are
two examples of what is wrong with America. If it were up to me, I would take
them and their followers and ship all of
you and them to Europe, where you belong.
Bunch of socialist/pagen loonies. Of course, that is your choice, just choose
to do it in Europe. :)
What you think?
polisharabia 2 years ago
amazingatheist can defend himself. As for "just choose to do it in Europe." I'm American I do what I want in America.
RealLifeProduct 2 years ago
amazingatheist does not defend himself.
He just rambles on and swears, with no
substance. I watched 3 of his videos, and
that was it for me.
As for you 'doing what you want' in America, there in lay the problem. All
liberal/socialist pagen type believers just
do 'what they want', with no concern to
others. Personally, if you want to marry
a tree, I'm ok with it. Just don't hold a
parade. Just marry the tree. ;)
polisharabia 2 years ago
If someone wants to marry a tree I think they should seek psychiatric help. If they believe in talking snakes and sky daddys. I also think they should seek psychiatric help.
RealLifeProduct 2 years ago 2
what does the word Socialism mean to you? Do you know what it means to be a socialist? Have you studied it in any kind of depth or do you throw around a right wing talking point?
astrolabe1976 2 years ago
To: astrolabe1976:
liberal: a person who wants a lear jet, but
wants a few people to pay for it
socialist: a person who wants a lear jet,
but wants alot of people to pay for it
communist: a person who wants a lear
jet and wants everyone to pay for it
polisharabia 2 years ago
capitalist: a person who wants a lear jet,
and will sell snake oil to get it
republican: a person who gives no bid
contracts to big companies, to get a lear
jet
conservative: person who wants a lear
jet, but works for it, and if can't afford it
or goes broke, too bad
:)
polisharabia 2 years ago
Donald Trump: snake oil salesman, my opinion.
Bush: pretended to be free market, gave
no bid contracts and started bailout.
Should have been booted out of office.
in my opinion.
Ted Kennedy: and Kennedy's, my opinon,
pretend to be soialists living off the back
of old man joes bootlegging, and believe
everyone should eat borscht while they
celebrate camelot and chapaquitick.
polisharabia 2 years ago
yeah the problem with bush and republicans last 8 years is that they were far too liberal, not too conservative.
dleksen 2 years ago
Hillary Clinton/Bill Clinton: my opinion,
pretend to be socialists who only care
about their ego, status in America, while
preteding to give to charity when it actually
ended up in Clinton foundation, and Hillary sitting on board of wallmart and
pretending to be for you and your concerns.
polisharabia 2 years ago
Obama: pretend to be centrast, actually
socialist, very inexperianced, picks
biden, worst possible pick, surrounds
himself with clinton retreads, and is ruining your country for his own ego and
false objectives, my opinion. He is only
concerned with his ego, and wants to
be a world leader of sorts. Cares about
poor people, as much as you care about
me.
The end :)
polisharabia 2 years ago
you still havent shown any grasp of what the term or ideology of socialism is.
astrolabe1976 2 years ago
Another great video brother!!!
fghnpoma 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ITS OFFICIAL!!! I now despise Barack Obama more than George W. Bush. He refuses to appoint a special prosecutor to punish Bush for his illegal WIRE TAPPING and TORTURING ways. Its becoming real clear that our government tortured detainees not for information but for forced confessions. This is the perfect way to purge out our most corrupt officials both Dem and Rep.There is no way Obama will ever get anything done with the gangster leadership we have now. Lets see if "BO" wants real change
onerpone 2 years ago 2
Most Democrats do not concern themselves with what is the best solution or candidate. Their concern is what race, gender, sexual orientation, the candidate might fit into. They are concerned that the group picture has many colors and genders in it. It is not about who is the most qualified. This is one of the ways they keep the voting public fragmented.
bertly71 2 years ago
lol, what an absurd generalisation.
Luxmans 2 years ago
That was a narrow minded statement.
RealLifeProduct 2 years ago
Love the video!
Ron Paul 2012
BlueTunisia 2 years ago
Great job!
Rockholm66 2 years ago
lol yeah the bbc is a left wing version of fox news.
at least they have reviews into their own reporting and try to be as objectiove as possible. Somehow i dont see fox new execs fretting over their accuracy.
bbc and american news isnt even the same sport.
skeptic9876 2 years ago
Try reading amendment 9.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Super Neo-Con Bros. 3
Dyakki 2 years ago
hahaha this is the funniest video this guy has ever posted. if he wants to be a true "originalist" then he would be an opponent of corporate rights, which im sure he is not. thats no where in the constitution, or even legislation. corporate rights were brought upon by the rulings of judges. talk about radical judges! ha.
modestryan16 2 years ago
HTWW,
Great video as always.
nrivera210 2 years ago
Why would a country founded on free market principles want to destroy the free market system? Stay away from the koolaid buddy.
SmokeyRobinson1990 2 years ago
The problem has always been liberal activism, it's like having a "living" rulebook for a game that we all must play, not a very cool idea, all you really need is a disgruntled lot of losers to change the rules midstream, and eventually all of the rich business owners will bail out. It discourages businesses and free enterprise. We need more private industry profits. I think any business that stays here in IL is stupid, go somewhere else, where the taxes won't kill your business....lol
Federalist306 2 years ago
Justices have been trying to legislate from teh bench since before the American Civil War. The worst instance of this perhaps was the ruling by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford that justified slavery and declared the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional. The most recent outrageous decision, in Kelo v. City of New London, creatively reinterprets Article V to mean that the State can only steal property if it can be assumed they might make a profit thereby.
None of this is new.
DrCruel 2 years ago
Most of the people that voted for the present admin never stayed awake through gov class and thought electing a "rock star" would make everything better.Bush's admin sold us short, but the koolaid sucking lemmings that put this administration into power were blind to the consequences. So the whole crooked tax evading team from Chicago now controls every aspect of our life. The people that need to hear this were and are asleep and its too easy for them to just go along with the media parade.
Navydaveymom 2 years ago
Good crash course
goosejoy20 2 years ago
ya know, you could show a little respect.
He is our President and should be addressed as President Obama.Dont care who you voted for, it is the way it is
deal with it
omajo52 2 years ago
Because of course people respected Bush.
InvertedKira 2 years ago
Activism in our court system is a great thing. I don't believe that democracy is always the best government style. People who have a view group together. And people love hating on the little guy. The court is the only place where stuff can get fixed for the little guys. I'm a strong believer in a federalist system that leans strongly to the national government side.
jazzmangiant 2 years ago
No government is perfect, but as one man said: A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." Our Republic worked fairly well for a while.
oilhammer04 2 years ago 5