Wednesday, July 22, 2020 - Judicial System

Video Subtitles:

hey i'm wearing a one of these
um you know old time judge wigs and
uh just did some research and saw that
at the very beginning of
you know our our constitution our first
judges they uh still wore the wings
hi good to see you guys fun filter today
having fun i'm going to talk about the
judicial system i'm a little late today
but that's cool
i'm not working under any kind of uh
to be on time every day so
um so i decided to talk about the
judicial system because i haven't really
talked about it yet
and read about it and understood the
different structures and actually
there's been some stuff in the news
over the past few weeks that's really
kind of stuck my brain about
what's the difference between
uh federal court state courts more local
courts and
how and
how uh you know it's decided like how
one case goes to the federal courts uh
and the funny story about this that got
me thinking i was talking with a friend
about it
is um you know those people with the
guns in st
louis that were like pointing their guns
to protect their property in
st louis missouri they're
the uh their most influential prosecutor
in st louis is pressing charges against
them for
unused unlawful use of a of a weapon
because there was no force being
expressed against them but there's some
controversy because
a senator of you know conservative
senator from
i believe he's from saint he's from
missouri yes either republican from
uh is now putting into a an
against that prosecutor that um
those people with the guns did in fact
a constitutional right to be
you know pointing their guns at a
potential threat um and of course that
local prosecutor is saying
these people had a constitutional right
due to the first amendment you know
freedom of speech
to be demonstrating outside their
property and that there was no direct
threats uh to their safety or well-being
or to
um you know the security of their
property which is you know something
that the constitution has been very
about saying that is protecting is our
right to property our our right to that
um and interesting that
in the the anti-federalist papers that i
read last week
or two weeks ago uh it talked about
uh brutus you know who brutus was
uh was talking about how um
once you involve property like all of
humans like
evil and like potential for
a lack of justice or for oppression or
whatever would be like once you start
involving property
so interesting um so yeah that's kind of
interesting there's like this like
definite like heavy like political
conflict going on uh in regards
to this this situation with these these
folks with the guns
uh just a really funny situation
i think they should just be charged for
looking like clowns that's
that's pretty funny um
so i'm going to uh an anti-federalist
paper about the first one that was
written by brutus
about the judicial system uh with some
pretty cool
kind of criticism of course the
anti-federalist papers are all criticism
so that's kind of cool
um uh but first
i found this really cool document i'm
gonna look over it's not the
it is a document uh by the the us
and uh you know i have this wig on
on the instagram filters and i did find
that at the very beginning
of uh united states after the
constitution was
passed and we had our first supreme
the judges did continue wearing
like the wigs and the robes uh
reminiscent of the british
judicial system so that's why i chose it
was like in the early 1800s
there was somebody who like stopped that
uh i had his name up should have kept
that window open i forget his name
uh he he got rid of the wigs but
the wigs are cool so i'll keep i'll keep
this one up
okay so the court structure we have the
federal court system in the state court
system the federal court system
uh is defined by article three of the
constitution it invests the judicial
power of the united states in the
federal court system
article three section one specifically
creates the us supreme court and gives
congress the authority to create the
lower federal courts
right so i had already read about that
uh what was confusing to me is like so
how did the state courts get formed
and then in the case of
you know a trial how do you decide when
a federal
you know the federal courts are going to
be used or the state courts are going to
be used and
uh um a recent event
that got me questioning that was the
um our first federal
execution which happened last week
in terre haute indiana um
the the this uh the the
what you would call it the execution was
supposed to happen
you know in april i believe but then
because of
kovid they had to i just got water all
over my stickers no good
these are the good stickers too all
right um so
and so i ended up going down this rabbit
researching this case of
this um
guy on death row that was you know being
executed and since his execution i think
there's been like three or four other
uh and we hadn't had a federal execution
since like the
the late 1990s so it's kind of a big
um and so i researched this guy this
particular guy i forget his name
um but he was he he you know branded a
white supremacist and actually
killed a white person so that's another
interesting thing that a hundred percent
of all executions
uh that have happened here in the united
states have all been uh for crimes
committed against
white people um it's interesting little
uh so uh but he was a white supremacist
but he
he he i think the the story was that he
had actually
uh killed like an arms dealer in um his
uh pretty bad murder but he had an
accomplice or not even an accomplice he
had a partner
and uh it had me questioning well is the
uh you know on death row as well and so
i researched the partner story and the
partner was
charged and actually his partner
directly like pleaded guilty
to the to the murder and and then this
guy had
the entire time pleaded innocent saying
that he wasn't even in the states uh and
that this other guy had acted alone
and um for some reason these two
different people
uh one was sent to a federal court and
the other was sent to a state court
and the guy that got sent to the state
court that pleaded guilty to everything
uh he just he got like three lifetimes
in prison or something like that
uh so you know he definitely didn't get
off but he definitely wasn't killed
um and the guy that went to federal
court uh
was sent um on death row um
very interesting and so that that guy
when he was
killed uh via lethal injection last week
his last words were
um i didn't do it i'm innocent uh
so fascinating stuff so yeah that got me
how do we decide well you know what
court i've been having these
conversations with a few people and no
one really seems to know the answer just
yet so i figured
i start uh researching it today and
through my reading see
what happens so uh the state court
uh the the constitutional laws of each
state established the state's court
a court of last resort often known as
the supreme court is usually the highest
some states also have an intermediate
court of appeals
below these appeals courts are the state
trial courts some
are referred to as circuit or district
okay so that's just kind of the
hierarchy of federal courts state and
each state is different they set their
own constitution of how they want their
courts set up
so for the federal court system congress
has used this power to establish the 13
u.s courts of appeals
the 94 u.s district courts the u.s court
of claims
and the u.s court of international trade
u.s bankruptcy courts handle bankruptcy
cases magistrate
judges handle some district court
states also usually have courts that
handle specific legal matters so probate
court wills and estates
juvenile courts family courts so even
within those different
hierarchies of the the different courts
uh there are different
you know themes uh and different
categories of
of courts you know based off of whatever
the conflict may be
that's being discussed
parties dissatisfied with the decision
of a u.s district court
the u.s court of claims and or the u.s
court of international trade
may appeal to the u.s courts of appeals
and the state system parties
dissatisfied with the decision of the
trial court may take their case to the
intermediate court of appeals right so
how that works in the federal court
system a party may ask the u.s supreme
court to review a decision of the u.s
court of appeals
but the supreme court usually is under
no obligation to do so
the u.s supreme court is the final
arbiter of
federal constitutional questions right
if there's disagreement going all the
way up
that hierarchy of courts ultimately the
supreme court
will make that decision of course those
judges won't be wearing the wig but
just for fun i am
and then finally in the state courts
only certain cases are eligible for
review by the u.s supreme court
so um it is very unlikely that if uh
there's a trial at the state court level
it'll ever be escalated into the u.s
supreme court so selection of judges the
federal court system the constitution
states that federal judges are to be
nominated by the president
and confirmed by the senate they hold
office during good behavior typically
for life through congressional
impeachment proceedings federal judges
may be removed from office for
um so yeah and that makes sense
you know if you're a judge you're not
creating policies like yes you are
making judgments on things but
it seems that that is like one of the
positions within our government
where experience
experience is good you know so
in the state court system uh the judges
are selected in a variety of ways
including election
appointment for a given number of years
appointment for life and combination of
three methods
appointment followed by election so
you know i know i just did my primary uh
last month or a few months ago i don't
know if time's going so fast
and most of the decisions on that ballot
for uh judges seats
and the various courts within the local
court systems here
in southern nevada or within my district
so the types of cases hurt okay so here
we go this is maybe going to answer some
of my questions so for the federal court
uh it's cases that deal with the
constitutionality of a law
cases involving the laws and treaties of
the u.s
cases involving ambassadors and public
disputes between two or more states
admiralty law bankruptcy
and haveis corpus issues
hi jack good to see you uh in the state
court system
uh the trials are the cases that they
will be looking at
are most criminal cases probate
involving wills and estates
most contract cases tort laws such as
personal injury
family law marriage divorces and
adoptions and
state courts are the final arbiters of
state laws and constitutions
their interpretation of federal law or
the u.s constitution
may be appealed to the u.s supreme court
the supreme court may choose to hear or
not to hear such
so i guess this still doesn't answer my
question i mean if anybody is watching
is knowledgeable on this specific
subject of why um
you know because that that was a
criminal case i don't understand
most criminal actions and most criminal
uh cases are um
are you know dealing
in the state court so i understand how
this guy's particular case
made it to the federal level it could be
he's from he's from a different he's
from a different
state i don't know if you guys know let
me know
uh but maybe this habeas corpus it's you
uh so let's see habeas corpus um
is used to bring a prisoner or other
detainee before the court determine if
the prisons person's imprisonment or
detention is
lawful a habeas petition proceeds
as a civil action against the state
agent usually awarded
who holds the defendant in custody
so maybe that was it maybe because um
he was pleading innocent you know he
ended up getting held against his
his constitutional rights
and ended up making a
you know habeas corpus a writ of habeas
which could have then put him into the
federal court system
i do not know i am you know still trying
to to learn and understand these things
because they're important you know i
think i think it is important you know
not just to like
read the news and accept what it is you
know because like i read that story and
it's like true crime you know true crime
is something that like i think is a very
you know just really fascinating
understanding you know someone's
motivations or whatever
um so you know i think that's what kind
of sent me down the rabbit hole of
reading about this guy's story
but then i was confused as hell about
um why his case was taken to the federal
level and he was taken to uh the federal
um detention center and and and
execution center death row
uh which the the one in terre haute uh
you know where this happened
is the only one in in the us right now
so anybody
uh you know our major federal criminals
uh do end up
there um so you know some some other
seem very understandable why they were
in the federal court so um you know i
the last person that was executed before
this one was mcveigh timothy mcveigh
you know who did some pretty serious
terrorist actions
and you know that could have been
under um
yeah still i don't understand i mean
maybe more here
but anyway when i started looking into
um the anti-federalists hi jake
good to see you when i started looking
into the anti-federalist papers
associated with this
um you know the main one is is brutus
11 uh which is the first one where uh
the the judicial
system is first addressed and the main
criticism given is that
not enough attention has been given to
the traditional branch like
a lot of attention to the executive
branch you know how
and who president will be and their
and then of course a very large chunk of
it dedicated to our
our representatives so our senate and
our congress understanding that branch
um but then you know the the judiciary
brands kind of got left hanging
so i thought that was fascinating i
thought that was cool and interesting so
uh what i'm going to be reading today in
addition to what i just read
will be this document brutus 11
published on january 31st 1781
and it begins the nature and extent of
the judicial power the united states
proposed to be granted by this
constitution claims our particular
much has been said and written upon the
subject of this new system on both sides
but i have not met with any writer
who has discussed judicial powers with
any degree of accuracy
and yet it is obvious that we can form
very imperfect ideas of the manner in
which this government will work
or the effect it will have in changing
the internal police and mode of
justice at present subsisting in the
respective states
without a thorough investigation of the
powers of the judiciary
and of the manner in which they will
this government is a complete system not
only for making but for executing laws
and the courts of law which will be
constituted by it
are not only to decide upon the
constitution and the laws made in
pursuance of it
but by officers subordinates to them to
all of their decisions the real effect
of the system of governments
will therefore be brought home to the
feelings of the people
through the medium of the judicial power
it is moreover
of great importance to examine with care
the nature and extent of the judicial
because those who are to be vested with
it are to be placed in a situation
altogether unprecedented in a free
they are to be rendered totally
independent but of the people
and the legislature both with respect to
their offices
and salaries no errors they may commit
can be corrected by any power above them
if any such power there be
nor can they be removed from office or
making ever so many arrange
erroneous addictions adaptations
it's a word i am not familiar with
oh and so by the way i was speaking on
case of the gun
the gun pointing people in st louis who
actually they were judges i think both
of them were judges
um or lawyers yeah they're lawyers and
injury lawyers i've i've heard um and
the woman
in that situation is actually in the
ethics community of the state's bar
so you know if even if charges aren't
you know set up against them i'm
wondering if if there would be any
effect on on her position and influence
but in that situation right so you have
they pointed their guns at people and
became viral
then the local prosecutor
decided to put charges and that was like
what i heard then another friend told me
actually you should research
more because uh in addition to our
presidents uh you know other
conservative republicans
um you know including a senator from
missouri has asked the federal
judicial um you know branch
department justice department of justice
sorry yeah that's it
had asked them to launch this
investigation into the constitutionality
of this local prosecutor's charges
against these people so this is exactly
uh you know kind of highlighting this
that you know like local decisions can
be made like local courts local
um but you know the only way that that
would ever get escalated to the federal
level or to the supreme court or
would be if um or one of the ways is if
you're questioning the constitutionality
of that decision itself
so that's pretty cool kind of seeing
like modern day
cases um you know of action of these
documents rented you know over 200 years
pretty cool
so it just means a formal judgment
new word for me to learn hi marco
okay the only causes for which they can
be displaced
is conviction of tregen
treason bribery and high crimes and
this part of the plan is so modeled as
to authorize the courts not only to
carry into execution the power is
expressly given
but where these are wanting or
ambiguously expressed
to supply what is wanting by their own
they may be enabled to form a just
opinion on the subject
i shall in considering it first examine
the nature and extent of the judicial
and second inquire whether the courts
who are to exercise them
are so constituted as to afford
reasonable ground
confidence that they will exercise them
for the general good
with the regard to the nature and extent
of the judicial powers
i have to regret my want of capacity to
give that fool
in my new explanation of them that the
subject merits
to be able to do this a man should be
possessed of a degree of law
knowledge far beyond what i pretend to a
number of hard words and technical
phrases are used in this part of the
about the meaning of which gentlemen
in the law different its advocates know
how to avail themselves of these phrases
in a number of instances where
objections are made to the powers given
to the judicial
they give such an explanation to the
technical terms as to avoid
that's interesting
though i'm not competent to give a
perfect explanation of the powers
to this department of the government i
shall yet attempt to trace some of the
leading features of it
from which i presume it will appear that
they will operate to a total subversion
of the state judiciaries if not
to the legislative authorities
legislative authority of the states
in article 3d section 2d it is said the
judicial power shall extend to all cases
in law and equity arising under this
the law of the united states and the
treaties made or which shall be made
under their authority the first article
to which this power extends
is all cases in law and equity arising
under this constitution
what latitude of construction this
clause should receive it is not easy to
at first view one would suppose that it
no more than this that the courts under
the general government
should exercise not only the powers of
courts of law
but also that of course of equity in the
manner in which these powers are usually
exercised in the different states but
this cannot be the meaning
because the next clause authorizes the
courts to take
cognizance cognizance of all cases in
and equity arising under the laws of the
united states
this last article i conceive conveys as
much power to the general
judicial as any of the state courts
the cases arriving arising under the
constitution must be different from
those arising under the laws
or else the two clauses mean the two
clauses mean exactly the same thing
the cases rising under the cases that
rising under the constitution must
such as brings into question its meaning
and will require an explanation of the
nature and extent of the powers of the
different departments
under it this article therefore vests
the judicial
with the power to resolve all questions
that may arise on any case
on the construction of the constitution
either in law or inequity
first they are authorized to determine
all questions that may arise upon the
meaning of the constitution
in law this article vests the courts
with authority to give the constitution
a legal construction
or to explain it according to the rules
laid down for construing a law
these rules give a certain degree of
latitude of explanation
according to this mode of construction
the courts are to give such meaning to
constitution as comports best with the
common and generally received acceptance
of the words in which it is expressed
regarding their ordinary and popular
use rather than their grammatical
where words are dubious they will be
explained by the context
the end of the clause will be attended
to and the words will be understood
as having a view to it and the words
will not be so understood as to bear no
or a very absurd one
i like the way this written it's a nice
one i wish i could write like that
maybe i could just start doing it
using words like absurd
second the judicial are not only to
decide questions arising upon the
meaning of the constitution and law but
also in
equity by this
they are empowered to explain the
constitution according to the reasoning
of it without being confined to the
words or letter
from this method of interpreting laws by
the reason of them
arises what we call equity which is thus
explained defined by
groteus the correction of that
we're in the law by reasons of its
is deficient for since in law all cases
cannot be foreseen
or expressed it is necessary that when
the decrees of the law cannot be applied
to particular cases there should
somewhere be a power vested
of defining those circumstances which
they been foreseen the legislature would
expressed and these are the cases which
according to groteus
just a bunch of latin i don't understand
i'm gonna look it up
because we can do that
let's see this one
the law does not define exactly but
trust in the judgment of a good man
that's interesting that's very
interesting you know
so it's like no wonder this is like the
trickiest part of the constitution
because you're having to define
the responsibilities and duties for
um that's kind of not black and white
it's you know so like for the executive
and for the
legislature it's pretty crystal clear
how you get voted in office what your
responsibilities are when you're in that
versus you know in the judicial it's
kind of like yeah we can create all
these laws and we can have
you know a constitution for uh the
judicial to
base their decisions on but
um ultimately
the the the judges the the the acting
parties within this branch
have to have you know have to have their
own judgments and
and critical thinking to be able to um
to make judgments behind what's what's
you know so maybe that's why things were
um you know and and so his judgment at
the beginning of this document saying
that the constitution hasn't
fully um addressed the judicial and the
powers of the judicial
um you know is kind of a criticism of
you know hamilton and folks you know but
actually if you look at the federalist
papers which i can do
i will continue this because you know i
i know this document will probably take
the end of this
session but uh in future sessions i will
look at those federalist papers but
there's actually
um six uh different articles
written about the judicial systems the
powers of the systems but really to be
honest i've looked through them already
they're a lot shorter than what's
written in this article
and this is actually only one of three
articles within the anti-federalist
papers that addresses
the judicials so
you know that's the power of debate
that's the power of having you know two
sides and arguments
so that uh
you have somebody there kind of playing
devil's advocate or kind of reminding
everybody okay yeah
this is like an important issue uh we
we have to be mindful of okay so i
the same learned author observes that
equity thus depending essentially upon
each individual case
there can be no established rules and
fixed principles of equity laid
down without destroying its very essence
and reducing it to a positive law
from these remarks the authority and
business of the courts of law
under this clause may be understood
they will give the sense of every
article of the constitution
that may from time to time come before
and in their decisions they will not
confine themselves to any fixed or
established rules
but will determine according to what
appears to them
the reason and spirit of the
the opinions of the supreme court
whatever they may be
will have the force of law because there
is no power provided in the constitution
that can correct their errors or control
their addictions from this court
there is no appeal and i conceive the
legislature themselves cannot set aside
a judgment of this court
because they are authorized by the
constitution to decide in the last
the legislature must be controlled by
the constitution
and not the constitution by them
they have therefore no more right to set
aside any judgment pronounced upon the
constitution of the cons
construction of the constitution and
they have to take
from this president the chief command of
the army and navy and committed
to some other person the reason is plain
the judicial
and executive derived their authority
from the same source
that the legislature do theirs and
therefore in
all cases where the constitution does
not make the one responsible to
or controllable by the other they are
all together
independent of each other i'm loving
the judicial power will operate to
effect in the most certain but yet
silent and in imperceptible
manner what is evidently the
tendency of the constitution i mean an
entire subversion of the legislative
executive and judicial powers of the
individual states
every advocation of the supreme court
or any question that may arise upon the
nature and extent of the general
will affect the limits of the state
in proportion as the former enlarged the
exercise of their powers
will that of the latter be restricted
that the judicial power of the united
states will lean strongly in favor of
general government and will give such an
explanation to the constitution
as will favor an extension of their
is very evident from a variety of
first the constitution itself strongly
countenances such a mode of construction
most of the articles in this system
which convey powers of any
considerable importance are conceived in
general and
indefinite terms which are either
equivocal ambiguous or which require
long definitions to
unfold the extent of their meaning the
two most important powers committed
to any government those of raising money
and of raising and keeping up troops
have already been considered
and shown to be unlimited by anything
but the
discretion of the legislature the clause
which best the power
to pass all laws which are proper and
to carry the powers given into execution
it has been
shown leaves the legislature at liberty
to do everything which is
in their judgment is best it is said i
that this clause confers no power on the
which they would not have had without it
though i believe it is not the fact yet
admitting it to be
it implies that the constitution is not
to receive an ex
explanation strictly according to its
letter but more power is implied
than is expressed and this clause if it
is to be
considered as explanatory of the extent
of the powers given
rather than giving a new power is to be
understood as
declaring that in construing any of the
articles conveying power
spirits intent and design of the clause
should be attended to
as well as the words in their common
this constitution gives sufficient color
for adopting an equitable
construction if we consider that the
great end and designed it professed
professively has in view these appear
from its
preamble to be to form a more perfect
establish justices ensure domestic
provide for the common defense promote
the general welfare
and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and prosperity
prosperity the design of the system is
here expressed and it is proper to give
such a meaning to the various parts as
will best promote the accomplishment
of dent this idea suggests itself
naturally upon reading the preamble and
countenance the court giving the several
articles such a sense
as will the most effectually promote the
ends of constitution had in view
the constitution had in view how this
manner of explaining the constitution
will operate in practice they'll be the
subject of future inquiry
okay we're almost done second not only
will the constru
constitution justify the courts and
to this mode of explaining it but they
will be interested in using this
latitude of interpretation
every body of men invested with office
or tenacious of power
they feel interested and hence it has
become a kind of maxim
to hand down their offices with all its
rights and privileges
unimpaired to their successors the same
principle will influence them to extend
their power and increase their rights
this of itself will operate strongly
upon among the courts to give such a
meaning to the
constitution in all cases where it can
possibly be done
as will and as will enlarge the sphere
of their own authority every extension
of the power of the general legislature
as well as of the judicial powers will
increase the powers of the courts
and the dignity and importance of the
judges will be in proportion to the
extent and magnitude of the powers they
i add it is highly
probable the emollients of the judges
will be increased with the increase of
the business that they will have
to transact and its importance
from these considerations the judges
will be interested to extend the powers
of the courts
and to construe the constitution as much
as possible
and such a way as to favor it and they
will do it appears
probable always with the pessimism
third because they will have presidents
to plead
to justify them in it is well known that
the courts in england
have by their own authority extended
their jurisdiction far beyond the limits
set them in their original institution
and by the laws of the land
the court of exquisite pure
exchequer is a remarkable instance of
oh look that word up that's a cool word
i've never seen that word before
i'm always learning new things
a royal or national treasury there we go
got it the court
of exchanger is a a remarkable instance
of this it was originally intended
principally to recover the king's debts
and to order the revenues of the crown
it had a common law jurisdiction which
was established
merely for the benefit of the king's uh
we learned from blackstone that the
proceedings in this court are grounded
on a writ
called quo minus in which the platon
the plaintiff suggests that he is the
king's farmer or debtor
and that the defendant hath done him the
damage it complained
of by which he is less able to pay the
these suits by the statue of
rhettlin are expressly directed to be
to such matters as especially concerned
the king or his ministries in the
and by the articulate super karats
cortes it is enacted that no common
please be
then's force held in the ex check her
contrary to the form of the great
but now any person may sue in the
the surmise of being a debtor to the
king being matter of form
and mere words of course and the court
is open to
all the nation when the courts will have
a president before them
of a court which extended its
jurisdiction in opposition to an
act of the legislature it is not to be
expected that they will extend
theirs especially when there is nothing
in the constitution expressly against
it and they are authorized to construe
its meaning
and are not under any control
this power as the judicial will enable
them to mold to the governments
into almost any shape they please the
manner in which
they may be expressed we will hereafter
so that's it and you know there's
two more documents following this
there's so there's brutus
11 brutus 12 which is has two parts to
and then
yeah so this was written in january end
of 1788
yeah that's interesting
so i'm just looking at like the timeline
here i don't know i just
um realized that the constitution was
drafted before
this kind of conflict went on and so
that kind of explains why the
were so pessimistic
you know which i think is good and
that's actually why i'm choosing
to focus my readings
within this portion of this program
which i'll be doing more and more
uh but uh and i can include more of the
federalist papers when i do that but
um i i think it's it's it's really good
especially with what's going on in
society right now
and what's going on with our own
understanding of what the constitution
and where it came from that
you know even though the goal with the
constitution was to write
these definitive rules that would set
how our government
works and how we behave as citizens of
that it was an argument back then and
you know
not to say that it should be an argument
now but
that there's merits to questioning
uh because they were questioning things
back then too um
and just because the the federalists won
hamilton won and he you know like i i
think that
um the the work of the anti-federalists
uh was important and it wasn't a winner
loss type of a thing it wasn't a
polarized type of a thing
it was kind of like
yeah here is
uh our feedback and you know i think a
lot of the feedback got
uh addressed in the constitution
and just look at this timeline again so
the constitution was first created on
september 17
18 1787 it was presented
you know 11 days later and then it was
in june of 78 of 88
and this document that i just read this
brutus 11 was written in january of 88
so you know just a few months after it
was proposed
and then when was that the pennsylvania
oh here we go okay so that's just where
it got ratified
oh that's an interesting document
it's interesting pennsylvania was the
most ethnically and religiously diverse
state in the new nation one third of
pennsylvania's population was
german speaking and the constitution was
printed in german for the purposes of
evolving that population in the debate
cool the chairman of the pennsylvania
ratifying convention
reverend frederick augustus conrad
was the son of the leading german
lutheran minister and god son of
conrad wiser who has been a leading
colonial indian interpreter
and german speaker political leader
the leader of the anti-federalist
opposition was the delaware-born scotch
thomas mckean future supreme court
justice and scottish immigrant james
was the most articulate defender of the
federalist cause
pennsylvania drafted the most radical of
the state constitutions during the war
of the independence
by excluding quakers and all other
pacifists unwilling to take oaths of
allegiance to the revolutionary cause
a fervently anti-british anti-indian
scots-irish faction has seized
power for the first time in the
remarkably diverse
state only when pacifists were again
able to exercise
the franchise in peace time was it
conceivable that the more conservative
u.s constitution
might pass in pennsylvania large states
the most to lose by joining a
strengthened union
james wilson's genius in describing the
nature of
layered sovereignty in a federal
republic using the solar system as an
analogy was invaluable
in convincing pennsylvanians to ratify
anti-federalists found themselves in a
hypocritical position of criticizing the
federal constitution for failing to
codify the freedom
of religious practice they had actively
denied their fellow citizens during the
war of independence
interesting cool a third
of pennsylvania's population at the time
you know the constitution was german
german speaking and they had to publish
everything in german for them wow that's
you learn something new every day every
day something new
well i think i'm gonna go
i've got a lot to chew on
oh one last thing in regards to the uh
the news update of the uh
the gun the gun pointing lawyers in st
is uh you know the local prosecutor has
you know press charges and the senator
um you know has has made a claim with
justice department to investigate the
constitutionality of that
of those charges and the governor has
actually publicly spoken out
that he would pardon any charges that
and that those people will not spend a
day in jail
so it's kind of interesting how um
you know even though we have these
systems in place
there still is a lot of um friction
you know about um
who gets the final say on things
you know and now that the federal
justice department is involved yeah
definitely they're going to have the
final saying
this could eventually be something that
goes to um
you know the supreme court which would
be interesting you know it's a crime
or hardly a crime but it's a crime that
or charge i should say that's the right
word it's a charge that questions the
validity and you know state of the
amendment which is cool because we need
more more conversations around this
um so yeah i hope it gets you guys
thinking i hope you learned something
i know i learned a whole bunch today but
i hope it gets you guys thinking about
um uh
the questions that we should be asking
and you know not just accepting news as
news like yes it's news and it's it's
entertainment and it's a freaking
business you know they're ultimately
trying to sell
us something when we're consuming that
news not just fact and information
but we can be grateful it's there you
know the fact that information is being
and uh digested and
re-communicated to us through media
um you know is very useful and of course
comes with its bias
but we should take advantage of the
positives of it
and um you know learning things keeping
up with what's going on in the world
and then not just accepting those things
as some kind of soap operas like oh
here's the news again let's see what's
on it it's like let's see what we need a
question today
let's see what we need to to research
you know and so you know that was a
silly story
i think really the only good thing that
came out of it were all the funny
mustard memes
by far the best meme that came out of it
was the hamburglar
um photoshopping of the the woman the
woman was something else
but um yeah we need to question more
and uh i will continue this conversation
and i will read
the countering federalist papers you
know around the judicial system
um and maybe can uh finally
answer the question about um you know
this uh this
uh inmate
on death row that um you know was
at the federal facility last week why
his case got taken
to the federal court if i just do like a
basic like google search like why he
went to federal
court like there's no no one wrote a
ball about it yet there's no article
about it so it might be something
um you know have to continue
the discussion um
but cool awesome guys well if you're
going to be a judge
you got to be unbiased you got to be
unpartial or else you're going to fuck
the whole system up
basically that's it
summary of what we talked about today um
and that's a big responsibility i mean
that's something like uh in my business
in tealet
right we are almost acting as kind of
like this um
this platform that is not only kind of
establishing the rules about how this
platform acts but also
makes judgments about like are are these
members of the platform are these
members of this network
following the rules respecting each
other and you know
respecting the system and in doing that
yeah you have to be unbiased and you
have to be smart and critically thinking
and able to evolve with the times
um instead of
i mean being stuck in like an old
that could cause a corruption change
um you know to happen to the government
or to the system itself
cool well thank you guys for watching i
had a lot of fun today
and i hope you have a good rest of your

Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published