I encountered workers who can't name the three branches of power or how supreme Court justices are elected. How sad and worrisome

As I see it, the scoundrels are those who want to preserve an originalist interpretation of the constitution. As this video reflects, the original intent of the constitution is to preserve the privileges ("liberties") of the aristocracy against democratic impulses. The original intent is a direct repeal of the modern (flawed) liberal democracy.

Bro, in all seriousness your generation is killing the entire world to make rich people richer, like total ecological collapse in like 100 years

@@urbanart7325 Supreme Justices aren't elected, all federal judges are appointed by the president and the Federalist Society has captured the recommended process, just as former Chief Justice Powell intended it to. There are 5 basic selection methods used through out the states but only 2 are electoral.

You got it right. The 1% doesn’t want us to know our rights. Our education system has defunded and dissolved the parts that help us be knowledgeable, allows us to enjoy life, that helps us see, and be aware of the importance of these rights. The arts, and as you stated civics and government, even home economics, and most importantly, the real history of America and the world.

It is a little overboard to call them idiots when they haven't been taught that in our public school system. I feel sorry for them that don't know how to read or balance a checkbook and buy a home. It is a sadness on the land.

@@timsteinkamp2245 30 years ago, they should have known esp. if they were my age back then and attended school in the 60s-70s & early 80s when civics & learning the constitution was required courses in most schools. BTW: Personal finance which taught students how to use/balance a checkbook, create a budget, invest in the stock market, how to get & manage a loan so you could buy a car/home on credit were also required courses in most schools until the late 80s-early 90s. Heck every elementary school in the USA my military brat cousins attended required students to take music classes and learn a 'foreign' language.

holy crap, didn't realize how unbearably long this thread is I'm out - yikes

I bet that means much hasn't changed. Most people would say the same thing.

This comment is suspiciously vague. Which college? And how do you know about it?

@Mad Hatter, I disagree with one point. I specifically enjoyed this because the presenter DID NOT present information about his perspective or what it meant to his own time. It was purely academic and dealt with the issues of the time the Constitution was framed in. At this point I really can't tell you what the presenter's view of the Constitution and its impact on today's world is. In today's environment that is absolutely refreshing. We are all human and have our views on a given subject. The fact that the presenter didn't tip his views in this presentation give me reason to believe he may change mine by the time this is all said and done.

after reading your post I realized I had the exact same experience watching this.

Yep

Sadly, this instructor defines the word democracy as mob rule when the root meaning simply means "the people rule" from the Greek. The people do not rule if they can vote away their own power, which is prevented if the rights of the individual are preserved through a constitution. You cannot form a republic ( the people's thing or affairs from the Latin) if the people do not have their power to rule preserved by a constitution protecting their individual rights.

WE....W. Double You.....E.Equality (USA Constitution PreAmble) "A More Perfect Union" (Love), perfect (Atonement) (USA Constitution PreAmble)

​@@benroberts8489 How would you describe "voting away their own power to rule?" Do you have examples of this? And how would a citizen deal with the "power to rule taken away by their own vote?"

people oft forget about the Federalist Papers and their intent with reference to the Bill of Rights....

​@@Ritzylamma Sadly, a very, very high percentage of people don't even know about the Federalist Papers and even fewer understand the content!! 😟

It would have been nice if 45 had read/followed it. You know, just as a friendly gesture. Boebert certainly doesn't have a clue. She recently told her supporters that the Church is supposed to tell the government what to do. Seems one ought to have to have read it prior to running for Congress. But that's just me.

@@charlesgrey5607 look it up on KZfaq it’s real

@@charlesgrey5607 Wait, you need a link? You can find it anywhere just by typing that in to any search engine.

I'm 50. I had an excellent civics education and learned most all of this. But I think you're wrong about the modern education system. My children (one now in college and one in high school) have learned these things AND MORE. No longer are they taught basic historical dogmas dressed up in the same happy propaganda. They are taught both the beautiful and ugly characteristics of our country's early history and the good and bad of our founding fathers. They are taught to think for themselves and question the dogmas without falling for propaganda.

The survey in the begining lecture points out that fact. In the LAUSD the students were taught to reply this statement: 'I Have Self Esteem'. This covered their lack of knowledge and the schools failure to teach.

The current Democrats are who he refers to The Tyranny From Below, that constantly pushes for “Democracy” or “Mob Rules.” They like to use their Gestapo/ Antifa/ BLM to instill fear and get their way. Democrats/ Liberals are a cancer on our Constitutional Republic! 😏

They Don’t it’s Subliminal

*Neither did high school students in the past 50 years, according to the stats displayed at the beginning.*

American history has always been poltiticized and turned into legend not fact. There are 10s of millions of people today who reject the facts in favored of a highly sanitized view of America.

Nowdays they just put up pictures of the founding fathers and shout "racist!" and "dead white men!" at them.

Study more, from older sources.

The left doesn't like our constitution

@Tommy T THEY WARNED US. THEY TOLD US. THEY KNEW.

@Tommy T Not Quite !

@Tommy T Numerous Founding Fathers were freemasons; even George, for a period of time. They swear allegiance "to a higher power", not our heavenly Father. Listen to the Queen' s speeches for insight. Attorneys are mbrs of the BAR (BRITISH Accredited REGISTRY), for a Reason.

Only modifiable with the consent of 38 states; not by the judiciary to adjust to political fads. The only accurate interpretation is that of the originalist.

​@@diggernash1 So why doesn't SCOTUS follow the Constitution as written by our founders instead of making new "laws" out of whole cloth by decisions that oppose what is directly in the Constitution?

They were younger in years, but they were no children. They were at 28 old enough to set 35 as the age of electability for primary offices. Also 28 then was much older then the 28 year olds of today.

The first governor of the colony of Connecticut in 1650 was one of my grandfathers. God bless America.

Average life expectancy then was 35 years. Its why life time appointments to the Supreme Court was a non issue. No one was expected to live very long.

@@richardleetbluesharmonicac7192 "... 1650 was one of my grandfathers"? Come on dude, there has got to be 2 or 3 maybe 5 greats in front of that. After all, 373 years is a long time ago.

What about where it says 1 per 30,000?

They are being re-evaluated by tyrannic judges

What's important is not the notions of Hamilton, et al., but instead the understandings held by those in state conventions who made the document law. What were their intentions?

You'd have done better to keep a well oiled firearm, it's going to be needed next year to defend that well thumbed copy of the constitution you keep, wait and see...

while you're at it, check if it's permitted to change a country, all states & all "gov" agensees & depts into for-profit corps. I'm still looking. 1871 was not a good year, and neither was 1933....er, I mean for citizens of the once "free" world.

"Publishers". FFS. STATES control the curriculum, kiddo. It's the conservative STATES that are withholding knowledge. Because they found it is easier to control an uneducated and paranoid electorate. It is why it is an unequivocal, inarguable fact that the overwhelming vast majority of red state populations have high confidence but low actual knowledge of the contents of the Constitution or American history in general. They are given slogans instead of educations. Guns instead of unity.

Which book is he using?

Most school books don’t push capitalism they push government which is why they don’t go over our liberties from it.

You may have read the wrong books. In Florida, the details of the Constitution are not covered in either History or Social Studies. It is covered in Civics. Many states require Civics in both middle and high school, but some states are different. Public and private schools can also be different. A little research into how your child's school's curriculum is structured might be wise.

Where has Capitalism ever been practiced? 19th Century Hong Kong, MAYHAP.

@Patrick Donaldson context?

I disagree. It isn't good to trust whatever contemporary historians say, and probably the most incorrect thing he said is that the Framers violated their instructions and basically overthrew the government. This is a MYTH. The Framers did not violate their instructions. First understand the process of an interstate convention was a common practice and was a very structured way for States to cooperate with one another where each State always had one vote. Also, understand that under international law, any treaties (like the Articles) could not be changed unless every state in the treaty agreed to change it. 1. They held the Annapolis Convention which was called by Virginia to revise the Articles of Confederation. They quickly realized the scope of the convention was too small, and the problem was much bigger. They did not have the authority to do what they needed to do. So on Sept. 14, 1786 the convention passed a resolution calling for another convention. 2. They held the Philadelphia Convention, which was called by the States and endorsed by Congress. This convention was given the authority to "render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of union." These delegates were all given sets of instructions by their States and their actions were consistent with them. 3. On Sept. 28, 1787 the Philadelphia Convention sent its proposals to Congress: the new Constitution and the Ratification process (which required at least nine States to Ratify the Constitution. Congress approved both and the Ratification process was sent to the States for approval. The States unanimously approved the process, allowing them to move forward legally with the consent of only nine States. From Dec. 17, 1787 to July 26, 1788, eleven States Ratified the Constitution in Ratification Conventions. 4. On March 4, 1789 the new government went into effect. And while Rhode Island and North Carolina had some reservations about it and did not Ratify immediately, they did not have to be part of it until they Ratified. This process was very orderly and 100% legal under Natural Law, international law, and federal law. Historians only say overwise, not because they want to cast the Framers in a bad light, but because they believe the end justifies the means, and by slandering the Framers in this way, they can justify any radical deviation from our Constitution, such as radical reconstruction or unchecked judicial activism as simply necessary. There is a correct way to fix the Constitution, it is in Article V, and it is a different kind a convention, not a Constitutional Convention, but a convention for proposing amendments without waiting for Congress, and millions of people would like to use it today to end federal overreach. You'll find more information about it here: conventionofstates.com/?ref=37659

@@kingofspades1776 Anonymous and empty accounts bring little credibility to the conversation.

@@OhRonaldo That is an ad hominem. It doesn't matter who I am. You can evaluate what I've said based on whether it is logical and factual. And Daryl is my real name.

@@kingofspades1776 It's only ad hominem if there's a real account. Ad air is more like it. Good luck who/whatever you are.

I do appreciate the non-bias. It’s a nice change that allows me to come up with my own conclusion instead of them telling me how I should be. Thank you!

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@rachelpickens6025first, let me say he gives a far more balanced perspective than most. However, he talked at the end about how slaves were viewed as 3/5 a person…that is skewed because slave owners took their slaves’ votes along with their own which hurt the slave. So to weaken the control the slave owner held over the slave politically, they made each vote count as 3/5th the vote. That actually helped the slave in the long run and, of course, once slavery was abolished, they were given the same full vote as freed men. If a slave owner had 10 slaves and his own, he actually would have gotten 11 full votes for whatever he wanted had they not done the 3/5ths compromise. However, with the 3/5ths compromise, they the slave owner would receive 4 less votes. And, while it wasn’t the best policy, it was definitely better for the slaves than had it not been in place. The two other major issues I had go hand in hand. He talked about the “separation of church and state” and made it sound like our modern understanding was what was wanted by all our founders but it wasn’t even the intent of Thomas Jefferson (who was the origin for that phrase)…and he was the only founder who wasn’t overtly religious. When we use the term “religion” today we are referring to whether you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. However, when they used that tern, they used it instead of the term “denomination” which we would use today. Reading through the Founders’ writings makes this clear. Further, Thomas Jefferson received a letter from the Dansbury Baptists wanting him to push for Baptists to be the official religion/denomination of the US. Once again, reading through the letter to Jefferson as well as the response from Jefferson, that is clear. We have to remember why Europeans came to America in the first place…they wanted freedom of religion and had been unable to have that in Europe. Each state set up an official religion/denomination which was perfectly fine and nobody, including Jefferson, had any issue with that. However, they ALL had huge qualms with the idea of their being a government-mandated religion as that would have defeated the very reason they came here in the first place…Slowly, that phrase, that exists in NO founding documents and is ONLY found in Jefferson’s private letter in response to the Danbury Baptists, has been twisted to mean something that it was never intended. The way the narrator used the phrase “separation of church and state” was from that modern understanding that is lacking historical context making it revisionist and I have an issue with that.

@@rachelpickens6025sorry for the “book” I wrote in response.

Actually this is somewhat biased

@@greatgallade the truth is worse?

@@candyquahogmarshmallow8257 because I days it was somewhat biased still you day it's truth? Stfu kid

@@greatgallade eh? I'll give you another try, go....

You think? 21 years, this doesn't surprise me at all. You have any idea how much I debunk on FB? LMFAO, both right and left, mostly right.

@@xXPlumpkinXx Honestly, I'm exaggerating. I'm not surprised at all how stupid people can be. This really should be taught early on. The only way people find this stuff out is by actively searching it, it seems.

@@AfricanLionBat Exactly but what's happening today? The people that are the most compassionate are part of established academia. This man has a Ph.D. We would call him elitist. Now I myself have no qualifications. I do my research out of a will to learn. Opposite of apathy. But I would never lecture someone on something I did not clearly understand. For instance I remember in the old days people used to criticize President Obama all the time about not knowing the Constitution. This man taught constitutional law at Harvard. The criticisms came from people who couldn't even spell casual words in the English language. I guess besides the education system it just amazes me how confident people can be in this country when they have no idea what they are talking about. I didn't mean to get political per say I was just giving some examples. 🤣

@@xXPlumpkinXx you're exactly right. Apathy is also a big part of the problem. People are more interested in TV drama than the real life drama of real life. I believe much of the criticism of Obama was not a lack of understanding but a willful violation of the constitutional. I can't attest to any truthfulness to that. The only thing that I can think of off hand is the lack of senate approval for the Paris climate accord but I think there's loopholes etc because like you said, he understands the constitution.

@@AfricanLionBat Pretty sure its how we avoid accountability congressionally in foreign policy? Its not a war, its just a "Police action"? But my father served in Vietnam. He's pretty sure it was a war. I can't comment on the constitutionality of that myself, not something I reviewed in great detail at the time. Wasn't even a common critique I heard. But I did want to be sure vaccinations were. And so far, seems legit from what I can tell.

Very good, we are being controlled by the Barrister class.

I agree. Further, I think that was omitted on purpose. One of the things that did lasting damage to the US Constitution was a direct result of Marbury v. Madison. This case by itself is basically innocuous, but over time starting generally in the latter part of the 19th century the destruction of the 10th amendment started. Why did I start with the Marbury v. Madison case? Because the Constitution establishes that court as its primary protector. Sadly over time men started adding things via court precedent that is not there, and making exceptions to some of the protections. It was Marbury v. Madison that started this. My next comment might get me investigated by the FBI, but it is how I feel. The framers of that Constitution NEVER intended the Federal Government to become what it is today. This was why they added the 10th Amendment. I blame this on several things. The people by the latter part of the 19th century were not taught the Constitution, then you have politicitions of that era like TR who used that ignorance sadly with the blessings of the Federal Courts to start using the 10th as toilet paper! I'm in my 60s, and I have no children. I think our entire society and the rule of law are about to cave in on itself.

@@THE-michaelmyers I don't see how not caving in or at least a change. The people really seem brainwashed or purposely don't like America. You know the Bible talks of Moses giving the people Judges and they rejected that and wanted a King. Of course the Bible also says eventually we will have a King. I'm 60s WNK. Didn't feel it right to give them up to the government to kill and be killed.

@@THE-michaelmyers I am only a bit younger than you; I know very little compared to what I should, but I often feel like a one-eyed man in the land of the blind. There is much to be sad about, but also many consolations. Before McDonalds went global, the idea of freedom, individual freedom and rights, was one of America's chief exports. The seeds have been planted across the globe with few places left completely baren. The universities, the fake news, and big tech don't want us to think about how American freedom has transformed the world. Yes we are losing it here at home. We got lazy, took it for granted, focused on external threats (rightly so imo), but left out back open to domestic silocialism, and so on and so forth. Did our founding fathers risk less than what we as individuals might lose in continuing to fight for freedom? Are we going to ignore the obvious lesson of today that comfort and luxury don't provide for a truely meaningful life? At the very least, you and I can educate a few younger minds so that some in a new generation of Americans will continue the fight, because at the end of the day, no freedom is ever maintained that isn't at odds with someone trying to take it away, who will take it away if there isn't a present will to fight for it.

THE BEST AMENDMENT, NOW HIDDEN FROM AMERICANS, AND NEVER REPEALED WAS THE 13th AMENDMENT! (NOT THE SLAVERY AMENDMENT)! THE ORIGINAL 13TH AMENDMENT WAS NO ONE WITH ANY TITLES OF NOBILITY SHALL BE ELECTED TO CONGRESS! THINK AN ESQUIRE IS A TITLE OF NOBILITY? IMO ESQUIRES/LAWYERS/BARRISTERS WERE DEEMED BEING A TITLE’S OF NOBILITY AT ONE TIME IN U.S. HISTORY, AS WELL AS THOSE IN THE ADMINISTRATION WHO HAVE BEEN KNIGHTED BY THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND, AND VARIOUS OTHER COUNTRIES, AS WELL AS ENTITIES CREATED IN THE USA! THUS, LAWYERS OR ANYONE HOLDING ANY TYPE OF NOBLE TITLE SHOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO BECOME MEMBERS OF CONGRESS! ALSO, GO DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE DEEP ENOUGH AND YOU WILL FIND CONSTITUTIONS (3) HAVE CHANGED COVERTLY OVER TIME! LOOK IN OLD BOOKS, LIBRARIES AND STATE LEGISLATURE LIBRARIES IN DIFFERENT STATES. IT WILL SHOCK YOUR CONSCIENCE!

Well I suppose it's time to learn current events. Organic act 1871 established a government for UNITED STATES which is located in Washington DC known as a democracy, no authority to do so, 1933 maybe 35 government devolved chapter 11 bankruptcy. UNITED STATES is a corporation definition in US code and quick company search on Dunn and Bradstreet proves it. The law being enforced is evidence also. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/d7VkoZOW1rncaGg.html

@Dale Slover I miss Paul Harvey! We must be dinosaurs!

@@aliseegenuine6414Paul Harvey was a legend, if you or anybody else grew up listen to him.Well your a fortunate person.I couldn't not wouldn't trade the last 50 years for anything..

@@daleslover2771 my grandfolks always had him on the radio. his delivery.. slowing down at the embarassing part. and then just leaving it at that, a pause to let it sink in, but not commenting any further. so understated and classy by modern standards.

I believe it! I've taken tests of students of the 1800s, too -- extremely challenging -- and impossible for the Majority of today who Ignore learning on their own (that creates an Ignoramous).

@@aliseegenuine6414 HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ... We are the last unmonitored generation, the fully literate, the barely innoculated, and only somewhat indoctrinated WISE ones. Largely free-thinking, too, perhaps.

The Constitution is an ideological defense of individual rights, not a method of achieving arbitrary, short-range compromised goals.

Well, yes and no. The political system as envisioned in the Constitution really didn't last past the first national election. The authors of the Constitution were naïve in their belief that their new government would be free of the factionalization that was present in the British Parliament. American political parties emerged rapidly and transformed the electoral college, the vice presidency and and the Senate away from the aristocratic vision. In this regard, they were being very idealistic.

@@TeaParty1776 Maybe you didn't listen to the lecture in the video. The problems faced by a very young US of A included the fact that the new country was made up of 13 previously independent English colonies. The main problem was to come up with a constitution that would be accepted by all the colonies. That goal was the pragmatic part of the process. I would note also that individual rights are not in the original Constitution. They only became part of it when the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments, were ratified. Subsequent amendments have further expanded individual rights.

@@garygreen7552 Individual rights is the implicit context of the Enlightenment era Constitution. The Enlightenment is the ONLY basically individualist culture in history. The fact that the words, "individual rights," is not in the Constitution is irrelevant except to anti-intellectual concrete-bound conservative meatheads who memorize a chaos of isolated facts, call it tradition, and never ever integrate them into a category as a guide to mans life. Man is not a brute animal knowing only concretes, this tree this prey, this mate. Man generalizes or dies. Man mentally makes One out of Many. Man knows the category, tree, and uses that knowledge for every tree he encounters. The Constitution is a principled grant of power to the govt for the purpose of protecting individual rights that exist because man must know his freedom of action in society. Unlike conservative meatheads, Enlightenment culture had a basic respect for mans mind, mans independent mind. They wanted a politics to protect the minds guidance of ,mans life. The practical, political concrete situations they faced were not basic. They put those situations into an intellectual context best called rational individualism. That context is virtually missing from our current culture and your mind. All you know is a chaos of concrete facts viewed from arbitrary tradition. Leftists, of course, w/their heads in the clouds of mystical ideals, also hate and evade mans independent mind, but for equality. We are headed for a Leftist/conservative dictatorship without the slightest concern or knowledge of individual rights, just two mindless, hate-filled tribes screaming for blood. Both hate America altho only Leftists are honest about it. Nationalism is not rational patriotism that respects individual rights. Americans have rejected independent thought for Trump and Biden. Atlas Shrugged-Ayn Rand

@@garygreen7552 The main problem was to protect individual rights in their concrete situation.

onstitution = A joke on all the people who choose to live by it. This is the 21st Century a far cry from the writers of the Constitution the Primary writer owned slaves. Go figure

The context of the repatriation of the constitution for Québec was such a collective backstabbing by the rest of Canada that the unwillingness to ratify runs across parties wether they are federalists or not. I suspect that, as history repeats itself, that someone will eventually accept the 30 shekels.

more so... a work of --- edited for community guidelines

@@noretreat151 trump got right up in your arse huh pal? Maybe wake up to the real world.

We all are "works in progress." Unless the government is dead, lifeless, and a huge burden. Some principles of governing must remain constant for stability, but others must adapt and change with the people and the times. Too much of either can destroy all that has previously been built up.

Nonsense op

Its long past due.

@@FreeSpeechAbsolutist1776 get ready to bleed then. though why youd prefer that to ballot box I cant imagine.

We are missing blood of tyrants. We have AMPLE blood of patriots

The words of a coward doesn't mean much, he was one of the youngest members of the Continental Congress and only one of a few who refused to serve.

BORING.... BUSINESS IS BUSINESS, needs no buss fuse.

Depends on what you/people mean by "written with the 21st century in mind". Of course, the framers could not foresee even most of the 19th century. Still, the Constitution doesn't need to have the 21st century in mind as it only provides the framework, the rules under which government works and, after the Bill of Rights, a few key principles. The Constitution doesn't to be prophetic because it can be amended and in any case most of the time constitutional changes are not needed for government to work.

It irks me that people today aren't writing laws with the 23rd century in mind.

They were looking back at 2000 years of power being concentrated and abused and tried to prevent it. But guess what, you have an elected king and his standing army.

​@@str.77yeah good luck changing the constitution in this day and age

@@tesladrew2608 Why should I? Constitutions shouldn't be changed IMO. In any case, it shouldn't be easy.

Interesting interpretation. However, "government education" in the US has not ended, but has gained plenty of control over our children & resources - and it continues to grow. I assert the quality of my experience as both an active voter & a public school teacher, and actual observations with my own eyes, ears, and cognition.

@@darktimesatrockymountainhi4046 I will retract my assertion a bit, saying it is not the absolute but prevalent in many larger city schools of blue tint. Some public school teachers have moved to different employment because of demanded material presentation and lack of authority to discipline students effectively. I am not a teacher , my sister was , I did other work in the public school system. Maybe you agree . ?

“Teachers, leave them kids alone Hey, teachers, leave those kids alone”

It is the elimination of teaching ABOUT government in public schools that has enabled the threat of tyranny. Without an understanding of how local, state and national governments SHOULD work and how they do in fact work has enabled dishonest people to convince large groups to trust and distrust the wrong things - in fact, to get the things that are most and least trusted agents of government (and sources of information) essentially backwards.

Amen

This statement is fully dependent on which side you personally lean

@@deemo5245 facts are facts, has nothing to do with sides.

@@michelebriere9569 it didn’t used to have

@@deemo5245 the intent is all laid out in the letters and drafts the writers and fathers of the constitution left behind. People prefer to ignore them, put their own spin on it. Too bad people can't put their personal feelings aside, and simply accept the facts.

@@michelebriere9569 Again, completely depends on what side you lean. One side Is really really wrong

The people get representation of 1 per 30,000.

Should have gone to church school. At least you would know something of the bible and that the earth is only 6000 years old and that humans and dinosauers existed at the same time.

omfg dude--STOP. JUST STOP WITH THE RACIST AP[OLOGETICS. ENOUGH OG THE KKK PROPOGANDA--GTFOH

It's the old story of gas-lighting. Using the compromise to denigrate the ones actually opposed to slavery. Even to this day.

Slavery existed among African and Indian tribes. Some say it still exists.

​@@rogersmith7396 Give us an evidentiary lecture on that

Those Good little deists and their slavery

Thank YOU for watching, Malcolm!

"Just some old white guy going yada, yada, yada..." I agree it was informative, but this is not how children learn ANYTHING today

@@kendallsmith1458 You are part of the problem that is tearing apart our country.

OR...let the Founding Fathers speak for themselves in context. Most people fantasy of America is not in line with the FF feelings that are well documented. Just as Confederate supporter not don't seem to know or care what the secessionist intended and their rational for leaving the union. Conversely, people on either side of the Civil War total misrepresent the North's office position on enslaved Africans and the benefits of free labor from Southern plantations.

🔥🔥🔥🚒

Any familiarity with the generational, Progressive (incremental) irrelevance & "legal" obfuscation of such?

constitution says its to be determined by the people dork

@@anothercomment3451 Ha, they simply ignore it 50% of the time. That old chestnut. 🌰

John Jay😊

Thank you for the nice feedback, Kimberly!

What about the anti-federalists? They insisted on a Bill of Rights, or we wouldn't have one. kzfaq.infoabout

Its not pretty.

Same!

didn't say how or why?

The Constitution passed by offering the vision of a large powerful dynamic nation instead of small, poweless moribund states. We should have that in mind today. Most states are bankrupt without their annual Federal dole.

Make sure you read both Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers

Republicans like Meatball Ron are doing everything in their power to prevent people from learning as you did. They want small minded and obediant robots to control.

Indoctrinated from first grade? Pledges, flags and pictures of rulers? These sound no different from Nazi Germany or Hitler youth. It may not have been that bad but Nazi Germany, North Korea, Soviet Union, China all do this kind of stuff. What hope do you have?

Requiring children to pledge allegiance to the flag is idolatry and Indoctrination.

Not that happy with the elitist, slave owning, social climbing, incompetent general Washington.

Probably not considering most younger people including myself aren’t very big fans of the current us government and it’s lack of social programs and aptitude to increasing disparity between those with wealth versus those without

The average person has no idea what is in the constitution other than the elitist propaganda they were taught. If they did they would demand its dissolution.@@markvickery5894

There is no 'The' American Constitution. Each of the countries in America have their own.

@@davidharner5865 Its the UNITED STATES of AMERICA constitution. Why anyone named the entirety of the new world "America" was the mistake. So now we have North, South and Middle America. However, there is only ONE USA.

@@davidharner5865 of course there is an American constitution. "American" is simply a colloquial way of saying the Constitution of the United States of America. Only the citizens of the United States are known as Americans. Thus the constitution that governs United States citizens is properly described as the American constitution.

jefferson advocated that it expire in 20 years. bc he thought it was insane that people in the future would be clinging to what dead guys (not how he put it) thought.

You can’t own slaves, be a rapist, and somehow only be “imperfect” the founders were mostly horrible criminals who systemically wiped out over 50+ million people living in advanced agricultural communities in harmony with nature. AmeriKKKA is collapsing anyway thankfully. Back to sanity

@@r3b3lvegan89 the genocide was AFTER 1789. it's weird/TELLING that you're lying about it.

@@op3129 Columbus wasn't 1789 genius, Columbus started the genocide against native Americans starting in Haiti El Salvador and then moved up to Florida and began wiping them out. there's always the Native American Museum in DC that 100% backs this up, along with literally hundreds of verified sources including journals from Bartolemu Dela Casas as well as Frank James (Indian who's grandfather was murdered by the pilgrims) its been featured on ABC even back in 2014. I'm sorry you have been indoctrinated with white washed crap, dig deeper.

@@op3129 I wish YT would allow me to see the reply

The terrifying factor was the uneducated mob influenced by corrupt means :. Intimidations, alcohol, and money. Not entirely unlike the masses today. Should we fear the masses today?

@@mikedickison5003 no

Then it was about either just paying off the voters in cash, free rum on election day, or flat out beating one up if they voted wrong. Now days it's handing out "free" social programs by the billions of dollars, legalized marijuana and and other modern pharmacopeia, and being dismissed on social media to actual arrest for politician or religious non conforming views. Don't you dare support pro- life, anti LGBTQ lifestyles, law enforcement, voting reforms, tough immigrant policies these days or they'll burn down your businesses, harass you in the streets and throw you in jail. Not much different, really.

Not really. In that time, a lot of people were ignorant and couldn't read or communicate like we can today. You couldn't simply click on a button and 20 minutes later have a decent working knowledge of the Constitution like you can right here. They were afraid of ignorant people voting and destroying all of the work that they put in to the foundations of this nation.

@@TNCelt1 this is why they pushed a republic rather than a democracy. It's about law rather than popularity of the moment.

Perhaps you are correct, however, historians have estimated there were at least 150 riots during this time. That had to have had a strong effect on their thinking.

It’s not that Deep…. UNTIL you have a group of people wanting to shove us all into Smart Cities under a Social Credit system.

😷☕🇺🇸

I feel like a lot of 29-year-olds today are less mature than I was when I was 12 or 14.

Yeah you can't be educated without knowing Latin. Most people were illiterate.

Oh yeah, all them responsibilities on their slave ran plantations.

That was because, as upper class, democracy is to his disadvantage. Democracy is not liberty. As libertarians like to complain, "Democracy is tyranny of the majority!"