The Respect for Marriage Act, passed by the US Congress on December 8, 2022, is a landmark federal law that protects statutory recognition of interracial and same-sex marriages in the United States. The Act overturns the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited the federal government from recognizing marriages not between a man and a woman. It also clarifies that religious organizations won’t be required to perform same-sex marriages and that the government wouldn’t be forced to enforce laws against interracial marriage.
The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual, such as freedom of choice to marry. The Respect for Marriage Act overturns the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited the federal government from recognizing marriages that were not between a man and a woman. The bill was amended in response to Senate GOP demands, clarifying that religious organizations wouldn’t be required to perform same-sex marriages and that the government would not be forced to enforce laws against interracial marriage.
The Act marks the most significant piece of pro-LGBTQ legislation enacted by Congress and an unprecedented show of bipartisan support for queer rights. The bill is quite limited, replacing provisions that define marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite gender. It takes the federal government out of the business of deciding what marriages are valid by making a general rule that if a marriage was legal in the state where it took place.
📹 The Bill of Rights: Every Amendment, Why it’s important, and How it limits the government
This review video covers: The Bill of Rights, All 10 amendments with explanations, Why the Bill of Rights was added to the …
What does the 13th Amendment do?
On December 6, 1865, the first of the three Reconstruction Amendments, Amendment Thirteen to the Constitution, was ratified. It bans slavery in the United States and its territories, except as a punishment. The official text is as follows: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist in the United States or any place subject to its jurisdiction, except as a punishment for a crime. Congress can pass laws to enforce this article.
Which country has the youngest marriage age?
Sudan had a different policy about marriage age. Muslim children could get married at puberty. Non-Muslim children could only marry after they were 13 or 15. In late 2020, Sudan changed the legal age for marriage to 18, outlawing child marriage.
Is forced marriage illegal in China?
Marriage in China. China’s marriage, divorce, and annulment laws protect people from forced marriages. China’s Marriage Law sets out the rules for getting married and getting divorced. The Criminal Law says that force cannot be used to stop someone from marrying. In China, you can get married at 22 for men and 20 for women. In some ethnic autonomous regions, the age is 20 for men and 18 for women. The Marriage Law says that you can’t be forced into marriage. It also says that you can get an annulment if you are forced into marriage. This law protects people who are forced into marriage against their will. It also protects people who are threatened if they don’t marry. China’s Protection of Minors Law says that parents or other guardians cannot force or allow minors to marry. It also says that they cannot arrange marriages for minors. It is unclear how often such laws are enforced by Chinese authorities. Media reports show courts granting petitions for annulment in forced marriages. Gender imbalances in China have led to changing social expectations around marriage and an increase in trafficking of women and girls into forced marriage situations. In urban areas, educated women may feel pressure to get married to avoid being a shengnü, or “leftover woman.” Gay and lesbian individuals may feel pressure to marry someone of the opposite sex.11. The gender imbalance has also affected marriage in rural areas, where there are fewer women because many have left for cities and urban areas, and where men may lack resources for finding a marriage partner. This has led to more women being trafficked from China and surrounding countries for forced marriages to Chinese men. Women in such situations are often tricked or sold by family members or trafficked by men acting as boyfriends or offering fake jobs.
Potential Risks and Protections in Country It’s hard to know how safe you’d be if you were forced to marry in China. While there are laws against domestic violence, it is still a problem in China. Victims may be reluctant to contact authorities or go to court due to the perception that such incidents are family affairs. The Chinese government has tried to stop human trafficking, but there is little information about how it is investigated and prosecuted. Marriage brokers and criminal gangs continue to provide brides to Chinese men, who often force them to marry.
Is freedom of marriage a human right?
What are human rights? All humans have certain rights, no matter who they are or what they believe. These rights include the right to life, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of expression, the right to work and education, and more. Everyone has these rights.
International Human Rights Law. International human rights law says that governments must act in certain ways to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. The United Nations created a comprehensive body of human rights law—a universal code to which all nations can subscribe and all people aspire. The UN has defined many internationally accepted rights, including civil, cultural, economic, political, and social rights. It has also set up ways to promote and protect these rights and help countries do their job.
What are the rights in the Bill of Rights?
The First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly. The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms. The Third Amendment restricts housing soldiers in private homes. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The Fifth Amendment protects against self-testimony, double jeopardy, and eminent domain. The Sixth Amendment protects the right to a speedy trial, jury trial, and legal representation. The Seventh Amendment protects the right to a jury trial in civil cases. The Constitution guarantees a trial by jury in cases involving a certain dollar amount. It also prohibits excessive bail or fines and cruel and unusual punishment for crimes. The Ninth Amendment says that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights do not mean that other rights are not in effect. The Tenth Amendment says that the power not granted to the Federal Government is reserved for states or individual people. There were originally 12 amendments to the Constitution, but the first 2 were not adopted.The Bill of Rights was inspired by the Virginia Declaration of Rights written in 1776 by George Mason. Learn more at the Bill of Rights site at the National Archives.
What does the constitution say about marriage in the US?
A. Marriage is between a man and a woman. “Marriage in the United States is between a man and a woman. This Constitution, state constitutions, and state and federal laws cannot require that unmarried couples or groups have the same rights as married couples. A. The first sentence says that every state must deny same-sex couples the right to marry. The second sentence says that any local or state protections for gay and lesbian couples would be overridden. These include hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, pension benefits, and health insurance. The Federal Marriage Amendment would make marriage one-size-fits-all, regardless of state laws. Q. What’s the difference between civil unions and marriage? If they’re just different names, why do gays and lesbians need to be “married”?
What is the marriage reform law in China?
Implementation Mao Zedong enacted the new marriage law in May 1950. It provided a civil registry for legal marriages, raised the marriageable age to 20 for males and 18 for females, and banned marriage by proxy. Both parties had to consent to a marriage. It became an essential part of land reform because women in rural communities were no longer sold to landlords.
The official slogan was: Men and women are equal; everyone is worth something. After the 1950 Marriage Law was passed, there were campaigns to promote the idea of freely chosen monogamous marriages and official registration of marriage. As a result of yearly propaganda campaigns from 1950 to 1955, more than 90% of marriages in China were registered. The Women’s Federation reported that women were beaten when they tried to get divorced. The Shaanxi Women’s Federation reported 195 deaths related to marriage by the end of 1950. In 1953, the Women’s Federation promoted and organized Marriage Law Month to calm the conflict caused by the new laws. Songs and operas were performed to show the end of old ways.
Effect on marriage registration The new marriage law also changed how marriages were registered in China. The law gave women and men equal rights and allowed them to choose who they married. It also made it illegal to force anyone into marriage. The couple who married could register. The system would help build a new society by allowing citizens to set healthy standards for marriage.
Is marriage a fundamental right in the US?
One is disputes over land that the federal government directly controls, like non-state territories and the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court has also found that marriage is a fundamental right.
What is 10 of the Bill of Rights?
10. Dignity. Everyone has dignity and the right to be treated with respect.
12. Freedom and security. 1. Everyone has the right to freedom and security. This includes not being taken away from home without a good reason.
📹 U.S. Congress passes historic same-sex marriage bill
The bill passed in a 61-36 vote, with 12 Republicans joining Democrats to vote for it. #shorts #xmen #betsybraddock …
So if these were the Bills of Rights why did the 16th amendment pass that violates these rights and also violates the 13th amendment. Then the supreme court has multiple times upheld the right of the government lay tax on income which is a seizure of property even though we have not been duly convicted of a crime and violate due process as with the IRS you are guilty until proven innocent. I just do not understand how they can right Congress has the power to lay tax on income and ratify it without respect for the Bill of Rights that the language of the 16th amendment violates and additionally makes every single person in the United States a involuntary servant of the federal and state governments in violation of the 13th? The 13th also specifically mentions any jurisdiction where the US government operates therefore making state income taxes illegal. Taxing income is taxing labor per the federalist papers and was considered a form of slavery which is why the 13th amendment that ended slavery specifically mentions involuntary servitude along with making slavery illegal. It is clear that the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights for a reason and the tyrants in the last 120 years have ignored them and have paid off legislatures and courts to keep that power they have taking illegally.
Good article the only thing I believe you missed was on the 10th amendment it says, or to the people which means the people have the right to disagree over whatever the state say. They hate when you know this everyone will try to tell you you’re wrong any amendment you try to invoke you will get bullied and be told a lie saying you actually don’t have that right
You should delve into the US Code. As a gun owner that is seeing the constant assault on the Second Amendment by Democrat run cities and states, I refer to Title 18 Section 242. That specifically speaks about anyone who deprives anyone of their rights under color of law, as violating these statutes. Punishment can be as severe as death. We all know that many of the Democrat run states violate this code by infringing on the Second Amendment. The problem is WHO can enforce the US Code, when we’ve seen New York and New Jersey do everything they can to circumvent the Supreme Court’s ruling on Bruen.
One of the things you feel to touch on the fifth amendment domain is they cannot take your property for non-public use which means if they’re going to build a new school in your properties there yes they can take it if they’re going to build a highway yes they can take it however they cannot take your land and then sell it to McDonald’s or Burger King or a gas station or a manufacturing plant or any other thing it has to be public use this cost the state of Connecticut over 150 million a few years back because the landowner sued they were going to build a highway going through his land when that highway project fell through because they had to move it 20 miles away due to some swamp lands that they would have ran into they took the turnaround and sold that land to developers who put McDonald’s Burger King Wendy’s and a couple of other stores and restaurants and a few gas stations there the man turn around and sued them and won.
You mentioned a “fair & speedy trial”. All I could think about was the J6 political prisoners… And when it says a “right to a fair & impartial jury”. They should find a way to make sure cases involving politics have equally different voting parties. So in NY, DC & Cali all republicans wouldn’t be guaranteed to be guilty regardless of the Lack of evidence.
What Does the Word “Arms” Mean in the 2nd Amendment?\r By: TJ Martinell|Published on: Jun 30, 2016|Categories: 2nd Amendment, Constitution 101\r \r Previously I’ve examined what the phrase “bear arms” meant in the Second Amendment. The evidence makes it obviously clear it referenced both military and civilian use of weapons.\r \r But what did the word “arms” mean at the time?\r \r Today the word “arms” refers collectively to offensive or defensive weapons. The word’s meaning has changed little since it was first used seven hundred years ago. It’s definition has never restricted civilian use of military weapons, including when the Second Amendment was approved.\r \r “Arms” comes from Middle English and originated from the Old French word “armes,” which meant “weapons of a warrior.” This word dates back to 1300. “Arms” also originates from the Latin word for “weapons,”arma.” This word was also first used in the 14th Century.\r \r (On a side-note, the word “firearms” popped up around 1640 to describe weapons that used gunpowder compared to other arms like bows and arrows)\r \r It’s clear the meaning allowed for a very broad definition of what constituted “arms.” The Bill of Rights of 1689 states that the “subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”\r \r The last part of the sentence is very telling. It’s a conditional phrase meant to limit the type of “arms’ allowed by Protestant subjects. The limitation imposed meant that the word “arms” had a definition permitting a very wide range of weapons including those the document’s authors decided could be restricted by law.
Miranda Rights are not part of the Fifth amendment but are also called the Miranda warning and they stem from a 1966 Supreme Court case: Miranda v. Arizona.\r \r In the original case, the defendant, Ernesto Miranda, was a 24-year-old high school drop-out with a police record when he was accused in 1963 of kidnapping, raping and robbing an 18-year-old woman. During a two-hour interrogation, Miranda confessed to the crimes. Lawyers would contend that Miranda had not been clearly informed of his rights to have a lawyer and against self-incrimination. Their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court forever changed U.S. criminal procedure.
I think a good fact to add is that our rights listed and explained within the Bill of Rights were not given to us. They are preexisting as an American citizen. I think all law enforcement officers should be required to pass an extensive test on the Bill of Rights. Based on the hundreds of articles I watch I would say 50% of them could not pass a test on the first 4.
The way you explained Grand Jury is probably the reason people so often get confused with jury, grand jury, federal jury, and federal grand jury. Grand jury indites- jury convicts… I don’t get why people are still not clearly explaining this… and by clearly I mean just quoting what is written and explaining it in a way that basically is not really the nature of a grand jury and is going to convolute things… may be what they meant in the constitution… but it confse people.
Not just “FIRE” arms… ANY ARMS. *UP TO AND INCLUDING AR-15s* also included: Sticks —ANY SIZE Stones —ANY SIZE Bricks Shards of glass Knives, Swords, cutlasses, sabers, spears, bows and arrows… etc… ANY AND ALL FIREARMS INCLUDING MACHINE GUNS. And any sort of future laser weapons or any such weapon that has yet to be developed that currently only exists in concept or article game. Period.
Unfortunately, our rights are basically meaningless now. Some places in the US have outlaws guns (Chicago for example if memory serves), 3a voilated during covid, 1st 2nd and 4th regularly violated by cops, etc. all without the gov employees responsible being held criminally liable. Which means the bill of rights has been mitigated to the bill of legal defenses.
Dude this is an awesome presentation!! One thing I think that should be noted is that the “well-regulated” part of the 2A didn’t mean then what the Supreme Court reinterpreted it as. George Washington saw that many of the farmers were untrained and unskilled in the use of firearms when fighting the British, so he wanted it to be mandatory for people who choose to use a firearm to learn how to use a firearm – thus “well-regulated”. It didn’t imply that the government could choose who can and can’t own a gun – that was a modern (possibly intentional?) misinterpretation. As for Eminent Domain, that’s where the federalists went wrong. They gave the government way too much power, and introduced a contradiction to the right to own property.
Great article, wish it existed when learned about civics and government – geek moment; impartial jury of your “peers” who have the same knowledge, training, etc. to assess reasonableness of the defendents actions and behavior… good luck finding those during jury de-selection process used to remove the knowledge experience requisit and impartial mindset in jury pool cattle call.
great info, one question. When the government (our elected public servants) violate the Rights of WE THE PEOPLE, who and how holds the government accountable? For instance if the President denies Rights to citizens or weaponizes government agencies against citizens, specifically, reality, who and how is this corrected?
1:03 It was no simple pinky promise, but maybe a pinky promise would have sufficed. In any event, it was an iron-clad contractual agreement in writing, enforcable in any open court of Law between the representatives of the People and the Government. The government made an offer to govern the People and the People agreed to be governed by the government under the terms of the Constitution.
I’m new to the website, but if you could do a review of how the Supreme Court works that would be super. Come to think of it a review of the Judiciary in general would help. Too many people don’t understand how the courts work and as a result view them as just an extension of the various parties and the Supreme Court is NOT that.
There is an exception to the double jeopardy. It affects only active duty military and retired military as the military courts are seen as a separate court system. I was one time a bailiff on a courts martial. The person had already been found guilty in regular courts and served his prison time upon release from regular prison. He was re-arrested by CID with a writ of return to active duty, given a courts-martial, found guilty (other conviction used as evidence too) and remanded to Ft Leavenworth Disciplinary Barracks for 8 years ALL FOR THE SAME EXACT CRIME.
Intent of Apportioned Representative Districts IDEA FOR DISCUSSION: “APPORTIONED REPRESENTATION” What was the INTENT, Reasoning and Purpose for the APPORTIONMENT clause, in the U.S. Constitution? If the Apportionment Clause was Intended to create Apportioned Districts, the Purpose of which was to Elect a Representative, to actually REPRESENT the views of the citizen constituents that reside within that Representative District, then wouldn’t ANY INFLUENCE from citizens (or non citizens) which Reside OUTSIDE of that defined Representative District, be an INFRINGEMENT, upon the Constitutional RIGHTS, of the Citizens which are Constituents of that Representative District? This might be a great topic for discussion! Just an Idea for Consideration! Thanks
The Constitution of the United States was signed in to Law of the United States of America on 17 September 1787; in Article VII of the original Constitution of the United States there are 3 Sections; Section 3 is the signature Section with Twelve States Representatives signed the Form; Section 1 established that 9 States were required; the Bill of Rights were ratified on 15 December 1791 (4 years later);
I think the third amendment should be modified to include economic migrants, or illegal immigrants. Because there have been many examples of the federal government getting close to forcing people to house others regardless of the homeowners wishes. The federal government has already forced certain hotels to do that, and is only one step away from forcing private citizens to do that with their homes as well. It wouldn’t be nearly as useless an amendment.
“bear arms” does not explicitly or implicitly mean firearms. Also, the word “infringe” implies that there are laws of governance. Therefore, Congress could make a law that says citizens may bear arms in the form of bladed weapons and not firearms and that would not be a second amendment infringement.
There are some attorneys who believe the 3rd amendment also applies to government paramilitary agencies such as police. Currently a police team can take over house without your consent, trashing it in the process to use as a command post or whatever during an incident. They do not have to reimburse you for damages. These attorneys believe these actions to be a violation of the 3rd Amendment. Mind you I am not a legal scholar but it is an interesting argument. They are basically saying that the government should reimburse you and of course obtain your consent.
Only Limitation to individuals rights (bill of rights) is using your Rights to Violate anothers individual Rights…private property is individuals right so you cannot use you rights to assemble to violate anothers private property rights. Arms is a overarching term used for offensive & defense reasons…which includes any “weapons” not just guns & body armor & used the Term Arms to stand the test of time because they knew such items would increase in technology & still must be protected
the principle intent of this “missing” 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government. “If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”
See: ‘Ordered Liberty’, which is the concept underpinning any Republic, esp the Republic of The United States of America. old stroke foghead recall fails whomsoever first formulated the phrasing, but if you dig into the history thereof, you will find much ‘civics’ gold from which to refine myriad article lessons, frens. thx much for all the fine work you put into producing the great vids, helping Americans young and old to better grasp fundamentals of actual factual ‘Citizenship’ as a Sovereign Citizen of The American Republic!
In the section on the first amendment, the rule of thumb could be teased out more. Just because a law makes something illegal doesn’t mean that you don’t have that right. Congress could pass a law restricting speech about abortion on public lands. While that law would make speech about abortion on public lands illegal, it would violate your rights recognized under the first amendment, and the law would be unconstitutional. Hence, the mere illegality of the act should not be the end of the analysis, nor is it even a good rule of thumb.
I was born in 1972 kind of a lost era for kids after the craziness of the 60’s and before the 80’s and the cold war we still had to say the pledge of allegiance everyday before class but we never learned in school why? Why is america great? Why have we come so far? How did we do much good in the world. Was not really taught. Than the 80’s we had drills at least once a week get under your desk before the bomb hits. It never did. Than the 90’s the era of feelings. Thats when everyone started to get sensitive. We gave out awards and trophies for kids doing absolutely nothing but being below average. Than the 2000’s came and we became more sensitive and more seperated than ever before and we continue to be rules by emotions of week people not facts and truth
The Bill Of Rights, were intended to part of the main body of the Constitution which is not subject to change.After the war the colonies were eagerly waiting for the governing document to be written and presented to them. But, it was not ready yet.They were still arguing over what was to be included in the Bill Of Rights. The decision was made to ratify what was ready and add or ammend the Bill Of Rights later when its contents were agreed upon.Thus they were erroneously mislabeled as ammendments which meant items added after ratification. Those first ten were supposed to be part of main body not subject to deletion or alteration. Lawyers have been exploiting this mistake to destroy the Constitution since before the ink was dry.
The Miranda Rights. not only do we have the right but I knew those rights we also have a right not to help in the investigation against which means we shouldn’t be giving them my ID when we get pulled thanks that nature because that is helping them in their investigation against us. you can do all the investigating you want to do but if you can’t identify that person you can’t press charges on a person you can’t identify! obligation to help them whatsoever in their investigation against us! but we do have a constitutional right to refuse any orders are questions that they’re conducting in their investigation against us! funny how most people look over that part only see it as being silent as a word that we might say something that incriminates! when it’s literally quite a bit more than that.
The whole Miranda rights is confusing. A long long time ago, I ran wild- I got in trouble a lot. I know for a FACT that legal representation is NOT provided if you are unable to pay the “application fee” for a public defender- they wouldn’t even come talk to someone in jail without that “fee” paid. So how does “… if you cannot afford an attorney- one will be provided…” and “too bad you and your family are poor- rot in jail- how do those two intersect in the amendments? How is this racket even legal? I live in Charleston, SC, in case anyone wanted to know..
it doesn’t just mean to own a firearm or gun they own Cannon’s back then to amongst many other weird projectile weapons that used gunpowder la vida more inventions that never got off the shelf. like if you had a sword a hatchet or naxx arms you bear in times of war or needing to defend yourself or someone. the right to bear arms is not just guns. there anything that you can grab that becomes an extension of your arm to use in defense are entitled war.
Yes you remember driver’s license is a commercial item to be in commercial that’s why each state has their different laws for driver’s license it’s a commercial term for commercial application you have a free right under life liberty under that pursuit part is the travel to happiness your travel is by your feet your bicycle your motorcycle your automobile you’re not a passenger you’re not in commerce you’re a fellow
An amendment to the constitution is always necessary when we can no longer rely on political parties to ensure civil rights to all citizens. For this reason i will be voting YES for the VOICE TO PARLIAMENT REFERENDUM because first people’s nations in Australia still do not have any remotely similar entitlements as other citizens on a macro level and are further neglected decade after decade and generation after generation. I think the countrys’ penal system reflects this quite clearly. voice.gov.au/resources/fact-sheet-referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment
The 2nd Amendment also contains the phrase, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”. The 10th Amendment also contains the phrase, “… or to the people”. Just thought those were worth a mention, since you glossed over them. Also, the argument isn’t whether or not there is a right to bear arms, the argument is whether or not that right should be subject to regulation.
Others have said this already but it needs to be said more often and LOUDLY because even the producers of this article, while claiming to explain the Bill of Rights, gets it wrong. The Bill of Rights grants NO Rights, our Rights didn’t begin when the BoR was adopted. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. The BoR puts restraints on the government established by the Constitution. If there’s any doubt the 10th Amendment makes it crystal clear.
The right actually stated by the 2nd A is the right to remove any govt that becomes tyrannical, by the use of civilian militias bearing “arms”, which defined by any dictionary means “weapons of war”, not just guns but all other weapons used in war, cannons, mortars, artillery, firearms, munitions(ammo), and any other military equipment!!!
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights grant ZERO rights! The Bill of Rights are written in such a way as to PROTECT our rights (“Congress shall make no law infringing…”) That’s because our FOUNDING document (Declaration of Independence establishes that the source of our rights is the Creator, not the government. If the government grants rights, they can (and will eventually) take rights away. Declaration establishes that our rights come from the Creator, and the Bill of Rights defend those rights from a federal overreach.
It’s great in theory but law enforcement violates these rights everyday. Police could care less about your rights. They only care what they can get away with. The lower on the social economic scale you are the more likely your rights will get trampled on due to lack of resources and platform in which to speak out.
I disagree with your opinion on Amendment X. The Constitution was written largely because states were violating “unalienable” rights. Read the Declaration, governments (plural) are instituted to secure unalienable rights. The FIRST thing in the Constitution is “in Order to form a more perfect Union”. As violations are outlawed (i.e. slavery), we become more perfect. Since the Declaration says governments are instituted to secure rights, states, too, are to secure, not violate, unalienable rights. So the ONLY things states are allowed to do have to do with securing unalienable rights. The remaining is left to the PEOPLE. It is not saying it is saved for the states to do these things. As Bastiat said in The Law, “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.”
How funny! In 1795, after lawsuits were holding public officials who ignored the revolution and continued to abuse power, they created a constitutional right so that the BILL of RIGHTS would not punish them for using the power to punish enemies or steal property from private citizens. In fact, the Pennsylvania Bankruptcy act would actually require debtors who could not pay back victims to slice their ear free from a nail attaching their ear to a post (the early version of a bad FICO score).\r \r This constitutional amendment was the first amendment congress created, and it had nothing to do with preventing abuse of power and preventing government from committing human right violations. What it did was to grant “sovereign immunity” to all public officials even police. \r \r So from that day on, the Bill of Rights were ended, yet nobody told the “We the the People” about this event. \r \r What do you call a nation of people who celebrate a bill of rights where if the government violates them the criminals caught in government are given immunity? The King of England had no such power. Invisible Irony! This is the most diabolically brilliant democracy scam the human race his ever witnessed, although, to be fair, the witnesses have all died and people who refuse to research this believe they have rights. Total Irony!!!!\r I’m a victim of the Caldor fire. They kicked everyone that lost their hotel or temporary homes at freeway park and rides or were evacuated out of shelters to make room for firefighters.
Its funny how everyone always skips over the part where that Constitution was written for the 6% of Americans who were the wealthiest, that was 18000who were considered People back then, the rest of the country that is 3.7 million after taking away the 700k slaves were not considered people and could not vote at all. it was not until 1868 and the 14th Amendment came along and made us all Subjects to the State that we were allowed to vote and considered people, well except for the non taxed Indians, to this day they are not considered people. So all that heehaw about Rights being for all “People,” the 14th Amendment now calls them Privileges and lists our immunities as Due Process and Equal Protection.
The well-regulated militia being necessary is controlled by the governor. If he is a tyrant then he will order the militia to act it out which is shoot to kill. Private militias are illegal. You have to be ready to fight a militia thus have weapons similar to what they have. Military cannot be used as police. Good example is Ludlow Colorado 1914 miner’s strike. Waco and Ruby Ridge are good examples of govt using tanks and full automatics, and that is to send a warning to citizens. Ruby Ridge was misrepresented by FBI and ATF. Government acted criminally and labelled Weaver as white supremacist so the public would side with the true criminals, the FBI.
Your interpretation of the second amendment is incorrect..there was no standing army..our only ground forces established in the Constitution was the militia..therefore the second amendment protects members of the militia the right to keep and bear arms..the Supreme Court confirmed this interpretation in four cases prior to the 2000s..then Justice Scalia was able to overrule precedence
The 2nd amendment right to bear arms goes WAY beyond just fire arms. Not only does it include anything that could be considered a weapon or a method of protection against a weapon, like bullet proof vests, helmets, knives, bows, cannons, etc. It aslo includes any aspect of a fire arm which a person may desire to augment or accessories their fire arms. This would include sites, scopes, magazines or clips, grips, etc., and yes obviously ammunition. While some goverment agencies have attempted to restrict access to certain accessories and even ammunition claiming that they are not protected under the term “arms”, historically these continue to be overturned by higher courts on a regular basis. New York state recently passed an obviously illegal law restricting a person to purchasing no more than 120 rounds of riffle ammo every 6 months. Obviously this is an “infringement” of the right of the people in New York to “bear” or own arms in the form of ammunition. I’m sure they think that if people can’t buy more ammunition then less people will die. The sad reality is that while this law will no doubt be quickly squashed by higher courts the entire basis of the law is beyond ridiculous. First 120 rounds can still kill more people than any mass shooting in US history. So no rational person would even pretend to imagine that this law will somehow reduce deaths in shootings. On the other hand it will seriously impact the ability of law abiding citizens from practicing with their fire arms so that they are safe operators when outside of the shooting range.
it’s left to the states are respectively to the people. people never go into why this is and this is because the people that are making the laws aren’t supposed to be the ones voting for them to pass them into law. ICU nurse States the people have the right to travel amongst our nation within any one of the states that is the United States of America and choose the laws we want to live under by the population in those States dust people that are more like-minded people will be living in those States compared to the other people living in the other states that aren’t so like-minded thus keeping the peace I see that don’t happen because we don’t get to vote for our laws like we’re supposed to they make them they both come in and they pass them that’s not the way it’s supposed to be. that’s why it’s respectively to the people. that’s one of the reasons why the people hold the political power.
So why and how can police not charge you with a single crime, but take cash u have,say its drug money, ignore your documents, if any, let u leave without charging you for a crime, have no proof of wrong doing, and then force you to prove wrongdoing,of no crime.they donf have to prove anything. Explain please, my opinion only, best one i know is police stopping armored car, taking all money,because money came from proceeds of,( legal sale of Marijuana, from a legal dispensing store. ) Really,
“These first ten amendments have become known, erroneously, as a Bill of Rights. The framers were not interested in rights, but with liberties. There is no right named anywhere in the Constitution. (Of course, everything is a right today….) The first ten amendments, instead of being called a Bill of Rights, should be called the Bill of Prohibitions, because the gun is, as it were, pointed at the general or central government, and the first ten amendments stipulate what privileges that central government cannot abridge (cut off or diminish). It cannot abridge the privileges of worshiping freely, speaking freely, assembling freely, bearing arms freely. All of this culminates in the 9th and 10th amendments, which states that all powers not expressly granted by the Constitution to the federal level of government, or denied thererby to the states, are left to the states or to the people respectively.” – Prevailing Worldviews of Wester Society Since 1500, Dr. Glenn R. Martin
The bill of rights doesn’t grant anything. The bill of rights acknowledges that these are natural rights and forbids the government from infringing on them. Even with out the bill of rights the framers held the belief that these are natural rights and shouldn’t be subject to the political winds. The reason the bill of rights even exists is because they didn’t think the constitution in its then current form addressed these issues properly.
The Bill of Rights actually consisted of 12 amendments. The first 10 that passed are what are commonly known as the Bill of Rights. One of the 12 passed in 1992: No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened. That’s the 27th amendment. You can accurately say the bill of rights is 11 amendments.
7:50 the poster of the article fails to explain an important part. The term “property” means anything that is COMMERCIAL and NOT simply anything that belongs to someone. If a teddy bear belonged to someone, but the teddy bear was not owned for a commercial reason, then the government cannot take it, even if they needed it for public use and were willing to pay for it. This is because the Constitution only granted powers over commerce to the government. This is how a state may charge “property” tax over land that is owned by a bank. The bank is making interest over the land, therefore the land is commercial, therefore it is property, therefore it is taxable. The tax is simply contractually passed on to the consumer by the financer.
Fairly good work but you left off one of the most important sections of the Bill of Rights. Why did you censor the Preamble to the Bill of Rights? The Preamble to the Bill of Rights establishes the entire framework of why our founders added the bill of rights. This frame work is much more than what you communicated. Do you have a hidden agenda?
1791 I feel the 2nd amendment is the most important. Keeps the government in line. Guess which party want to take away ur guns an force u to buy electric cars. This is the u.s.a an we have the freedom to pick an do what we want ( within the eyes of the law) how is it freedom when the government tells u they’ll make u get a electric car?
NASA means: National Aeronautics & Space Association. Or, “Need Another Seven Astronauts.” 💀 It was first known as as “Naval” aeronautics and space Association. I just recently got rid of some newspapers from that time period that covered all of this and the Apollo program. Gave them to a public library.
3:45 I’m sorry, this is wrong. You have castle laws. If the deed is in your name, or, you are legally subleasing your home, you can have any number of people over, which do not 1.) Disturb the peace (make several callers unable to focus on what’s going on in their own house) 2.) Exceed the legal capacity (point at which the house is so stuffed that it becomes a fire hazard because people cannot vacate rapidly.) You are free to assemble any amount of people under that count. State interpretations of the Constitution will vary, as to what those defining terms are. Trespassing is determined by the landlord, or the sublessor.
Your definition of double jeopardy isn’t totally right. You can’t be tried twice for the same crime in the same court. However, you can actually be tried 3 times for the same crime technically. That would be in a federal court, a state court and a civil court. You can also be found guilty in all three legally. OJ beat his state murder rap but lost his civil suit. And the feds could have charged him with a federal statute pertaining to murder and it would not have been double jeopardy.
Actually the 2nd amendment guarantees two rights, not just one. It guarantees the right to bear arms AND the right to form militias. It’s really quite simple, but some moron who failed English is going to try arguing with me. 1) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, 2) (And) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” or 1) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed. 2) The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Buddy .. you need to re-read the 4th amendment… It doesn’t say : only with a warrant signed by a Judge …or probable cause.. It says that you can search some only with a warrent signed by a judge and that NO judge shall sign such a warrant without probable cause…. In other words, you simply cannot search without a warrant.. period.. A judge is the only one to make that decision period.. not a cop, not a dog, not anyone… just a judge … And the fact that now in the days of technology… a warrant can be Faxed to a sqad car ….well there’s absolutely no excuse for not having warrant and following the bill of rights as written..none
Of course at the time American slaves weren’t covered. The men who wrote the Bill of Rights had difficulties putting coherent thoughts onto paper, and an example is the 2nd Amendment. We all know the reasoning of the 2nd Amendment, but the wording can have two meanings (evidently) and leaves the door open for the abuses we live with today. As it’s written an American can have arms and carry them while in a “well regulated militia”. The Amendment doesn’t say, “Any American over the lawful prescribed age has a Constitutional right to own and to carry any type of small arms they desire and can purchase and store as many munitions as they can afford.” The framers failed us with ambiguity, and now our SCOTUS is tasked with continuously having to interpret the opaque language, but often with partisan results.
Yeah well they’ve been doing it for the last at 100 years what don’t they get about simple words with very educated men a lot of them lawyers that do not use lawyer language I think one of them words was we wrote it in simple language so the most simple-minded man in this nation could understand it that means there’s not much interpretation to do that means the supreme Court is there to uphold the Constitution not interpret it PostScript most of them spoke at least four languages some of them spoke more than seven they were all world travelers in a time where you had to take sail ships for months to get anywhere risking literally your life to do it the Middle East Asia France Great Britain on top of that they were businessmen they all went to work in Washington to serve the people for just a few weeks or months at a time and when home to live and make their money running their business
no on the 9th amendment there with unless the government rights in Abella law saying we cannot wear tall socks that does not make that law or anything that goes against our fundamental rights freedom to Liberty and our constitution the United States Republic Constitution that’s includes the Bill of Rights and the declaration of Independence and the other amendment. didn’t is not law no matter what the government says and should be treated as such. governments only the supreme laws of our land when they’re doing what they’re supposed to be doing anything that goes against what their supposed to be doing is not launch should be treated as such. the government’s only supreme in their law when they’re following the actual supreme laws of our land in the fundamental rights of what’s supposed to be free people!
New common on freedom of speech sing we live in these times of feelings feelings and killing somebody are two different things and the limitation to freedom of speech has nothing to do with your feelings it has to do with threats direct threats not talking about something like the Nazis not talking about stuff that other people don’t want to hear they have feet they can walk away not any kind of shows cuz they got the website changer they can change it so very very small window to intrude and violate freedom of speech even if you think it’s misinformation government
Floridians have no right to drive in Florida, but is a privilege, which means you are obligated to a tax for a license. However, if you drive within the 47 remaining Continental states, it is not a privilege because you don’t have to pay for a license to drive in these states, which means, you have a right to drive in them. If someone in Georgia wants to drive in Florida, it is not a privilege because they don’t have to pay for the privilege that Florida says it is a privilege to drive in the state. Where are the people’s right to travel by driving in all 50 states. Yeah, I know, a privilege is taxable but rights are not….or are they ?
These are not a BILL OF RIGHTS. What is the subject of the first Amendment? “Congress shall make no law..” A more accurate description would be “the BILL OF RESTRICTIONS ON GOVERNMENT IN CURTAILING NATURAL RIGHTS”. It’s because they were so well written, that they were adopted at all. However, these Amendments only function in the context of the Constitution. See youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd–UO0&pp=ygUXc2NhbGlhIGFuZCBjb25zdGl0dXRpb24%3D
Good but not quite accurate. Congress shall pass no law limiting, licensing, or revoking ANY rights. That power does not exist in the constitution. 1st amendment – freedom of religion – grants MEN ONLY the right to partake of polygamy and yet States think their power is superior to our rights. It isn’t. 2nd amendment – shall not be infringed (by anybody, business, person, etc, or any government or court). Means ALL gun control laws are unconstitutional period. The 2A does not have the word except in it. 3rd amendment can easily be abused by states. Read your State Constitution. 4th amendment – Terry stops come to mind. So is searching your home for others when cops only have an arrest warrant for one person. Eminent Domain – just compensation is NOT market Value. If you inherit a home, what is the real value TO YOU vs market value? 4th amendment does not grant probable cause searches without a valid search warrant. And yet the governments pervert the words and meanings. 5th amendment – while you cannot be charged twice for the same crime, prosecutors will just recharge you with a lesser crime and start all over. Instead of 1st degree murder and you found not guilty, they can charge you with 2nd degree murder (a different crime). Not to mention you can be forced into civil court and raked over the coals despite the criminal outcome – a form of double jeopardy. 9th amendment – everything else is an absolute right. 10th amendment – limited power actually. State’s 10th amendment right is NOT superior to any preceding enumerated and non enumerated rights.
I been saying since shortly after November Twentysecond Nineteenhundred and Sixtytwo, and before Nineteenhundred and Seventysix, it was men, NOT GOD that gave you your rights, and smoke and mirrors, oops, checks and balances serve to protect, ….. what exactly? God did NOT decide, men did. And when ready, the prodige of those men, will REDEFINE your, ehem, God given rights. LUKE TWENTYONE THIRTYSIX
This article is incorrect as twice it states that a ‘law’ can be made that abridges a Right. Such a concept is absolutely wrong. Laws are from the Constitution – as amended. Statutes on the other hand are written by legislative bodies & are often referred to as ‘law,’ but when such are unconstitutional they are null & void & without effect & can thus be challenged by anyone with standing (that is by anyone charged with violating such, or anyone who has been otherwise victimized by such). Apart from an amendment – which must be first properly ratified else it’s null & void & without effect – no rule, regulation, or statute (aka: code) can abridge a Right; so, if something was a Right one hundred years ago, then it’s still a Right today, & will yet be a Right tomorrow & so forth: there’s no legitimate way to make a Right either illegal or unlawful (& any attempt to try & do so only results in an unconstitutional farce that can be challenged in court & overturned). Do you ‘get it’ now? 🤔 And what’s this B.S. about a tap-dance revolution (did I hear you right)? Making jokes is fine as long as you also ensure to teach what’s real to the best of your knowledge (as it’s unethical to do otherwise in a course of instruction billed as a history class or law class rather than as a comedy show). 🙄 (Oy!)
3:07 The press does not refer to media. “The press” refers to an actual printing press. The printing press was the newest technology of the time and the founders were guaranteeing the people the right to own a press and discriminate the written word. Nowhere in history before the mid 1800’s was media, news papers, or journalists ever referred to as press. The first time press was used in writing refering to media was in some british dude personal letter to some other guy. From the late 1400″ until mid 1800″ the press was used in writings was always in reference to a printing press or a press for pressing food for wine. The lack of knowledge in this world even after the entire history is placed into our hands with palm sized internet devices is astounding to me. You people are all so easily brainwashed into believing completely ignorant things it no surprise you all can not even define a woman.
This article misrepresents “freedom of speech” at 3:12. It is NOT about the “right to our opinions and to express ourselves whether people agree with us or not” and it’s problematic to suggest that is its meaning. The 1st Amendment says the government shall pass no law “…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”. It is important to state it is a limit on government action. The government cannot suppress our opinions, or our expression of them, or censor the press. The people have every right to shun you, ignore you, cancel you, or pretend you don’t exist. You can say most anything, but nobody is required to listen, or be welcoming toward you after hearing your vile opinions. You don’t have the freedom of speech without consequences. That isn’t what the 1st is saying at all.