The Constitution, the Articles, and Federalism: Crash Course US History #8


Hi, I’m John Green, this is Crash Course U.S. History, and today we’re going to talk about the United States Constitution. And, in doing so, we’re going to explore how the American style of government became the envy of the entire world, so much so that everyone else copied us. What’s that, Stan? We’re not gonna talk about other countries
stealing our form of government? Because no other country stole our form of
government? That – that doesn’t seem possible, Stan. [Patriotic Rock Music] No, Stan, not the Libertage, cue the intro! [Theme Music] So, today we’re going to learn why the green
areas of not-America didn’t copy us. All right, so as Americans may dimly remember from history classes, the Constitutional system we’ve been living under since 1788, the year of the first Presidential election, was not the original American government. The first government set up by the Continental Congress was called the Articles of Confederation and it was, in a word: Bad. In two words, it was not good, which is why
it only lasted 10 years. The problem with the confederation is that it wasn’t so much a framework for a national government as it was a “firm league of friendship,” which unfortunately only sounds like a team
of Care Bear Superheroes. The Articles set up a “government” that consisted of a one-house body of delegates, with each state having a single vote, who, acting collectively, could make decisions on certain issues that affected all the states. There was no president and no judiciary. You can try to tell me that John Hanson, the president of the congress, was the first American president, but it’s just not true. Any decision required 9 of the 13 congressional votes, which pretty much guaranteed that no decisions would ever be made. Ahh, super majorities: Always so efficient. But besides the 2/3rds requirement, the Congress
was very limited in what it could actually do. The government could declare war, conduct foreign affairs and make treaties – basically, the stuff you need to do to go to war with England. It could coin money, but it couldn’t collect
taxes; that was left to the states. So if you needed money to, say, go to war
with Britain, you had to ask the states politely. The articles could be amended, but that required a unanimous vote, so zero amendments were ever passed. The government was deliberately weak, which followed logically from Americans’ fear of tyrannical governments taxing them and quartering soldiers in their houses and so on. But here’s the thing, weak government is
like nonalcoholic beer: It’s useless. That said, the Articles government did accomplish
a couple things. First, it won the war, so, yay – unless you were a slave or a Native American, in which case, you know, probable boo. Second, the government developed rules for dealing with one of the most persistent problems facing the new nation: Ohio. Which was called the northwest, presumably
because it is north and west of Virginia. Getting control of the land meant taking it from the Indians who were living there, and the Articles government was empowered to make treaties, which it did. Crash Course World History fans will remember the Athenians telling the Melians that “the strong do as they can and the weak suffer what they must,” and the Americans definitely went to the Athenian
School of Treaty-Making. Through treaties signed at Fort Stanwix and Fort McIntosh, the Indians surrendered land north of the Ohio River. The biggest accomplishment of the Articles government was the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which set up a process to create 5 new states between the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. Two things to know about this: first, it acknowledged that American Indians had a claim to the land and that they had to be treated better if settlers wanted to avoid violence. And second, Stan, can I get the
foreshadowing filter? Yes, perfect. The ordinance outlawed slavery in all five
of the new states. Still, the Articles government was a complete disaster for exactly one reason: It could not collect taxes. Both the national government and the individual states had racked up massive debt to pay for the war, and their main source of revenue became tariffs, but because Congress couldn’t impose them, states had to do it individually. And this made international trade a total nightmare, a fact worsened by the British being kinda cranky about us winning the war and therefore unwilling to trade with us. In 1786 and 1787, the problem got so bad in Massachusetts that farmers rose up and closed the courts to prevent them from foreclosing upon their debt-encumbered farms. This was called Shays’ Rebellion, after Revolutionary War veteran and indebted farmer Daniel Shays. The uprising was quelled by the state militia, but for many, this was the sign that the Articles government, which couldn’t deal with the crisis at all, had to go. But not for everyone; Thomas Jefferson,
for instance, was a fan of Shay’s Rebellion. “A little rebellion now and then is a good
thing. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time
to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Which is all fine and good, I mean, unless
you’re the bleeding patriots or tyrants. But to most elites, Shays’ Rebellion showed that too much democratic liberty among the lower classes could threaten private property. Also, people who held government bonds were nervous, because without tax revenue, they were unlikely to get paid back. And when rich people feel like something has
to be done, something is usually done. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. The first attempt to do something was a meeting in Annapolis in 1786 aimed at better regulating international trade. Only six states sent delegates, but they agreed to meet the next year in Philadelphia to “revise” the Articles of Confederation. The delegates who met in Philly the next year
had a funny definition of “revision,” though. Rather than make tweaks to the articles, they wrote a new charter of government, the Constitution, which is, with some significant alterations, the same one that Americans live under and argue about today. Despite what some seem to believe, the 55 men who met in Philadelphia and hammered out a new form of government were not gods, but they were far from ordinary, especially for the time. Most were wealthy, some very much so. More than half had college educations, which was super rare since .001% of Americans attended college at the time. About 40% had served in the army during the
war. But, one thing they all shared was a desire
for a stronger national government. The delegates agreed on many things: the government should have executive, legislative,
and judicial branches; and should be republican, with representatives,
rather than direct democracy. But the devil appeared in the details. Alexander Hamilton, probably the biggest proponent of very strong government, wanted the President and Senate to serve life terms, for example. That idea went nowhere because the overarching concern of almost all the delegates was to create a government that would protect against both tyranny by the government itself and tyranny by the people. They didn’t want too much government, but they also didn’t want too much democracy, which is why our Presidents are still technically elected not directly by regular people but by 538 members of the Electoral College. This system is so byzantine and strange that when American politicians speak of spreading democracy through the world, they never actually advocate for American-style elections. Thanks, Thought Bubble. Yes, I know, you have fantastic elections
in Canada. Yeah, right, OK. All that too.
I get it, OK? It’s U.S. History, Thought Bubble. So conflicts between competing interests arose quickly at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. The first being between states with big populations
and those with small populations. Large states supported James Madison’s Virginia Plan, which called for a two-house legislature with representation in both proportional to a state’s population. And smaller states, fearing that the big boys would dominate, rallied behind the New Jersey plan. [muttered] New Jersey. This called for a single legislative house with equal representation for each state, as with the Articles of Confederation. But, of course, coming from New Jersey, it had no chance of succeeding, and sure enough, it didn’t. Instead we got the Great Compromise, brokered by Connecticut’s Roger Sherman, which gave us two houses: a House of Representatives with representation proportional to each state’s population, and a Senate with two members from each state. House members, also called Congressmen, served two year terms while Senators served six year terms, with 1/3 of them being up for election in every 2 year cycle. The House was designed to be responsive to the people, while the Senate was created to never pass anything and it was so masterfully designed that it still works to this day. However, this solution created another problem:
Who should be counted in terms of representation? Slaveholding states wanted slaves to count toward their population, even though of course they could not vote, because they were property. States with few slaves argued that slaves shouldn’t be counted as people because, just to be clear, none of these dudes were not racist. This issue was solved with the notorious 3/5ths
compromise. For the purpose of determining the population, the total number of white people plus 3/5ths the population of “other persons” – the word “slave” was never used – would be the basis for the calculation. So yeah, that’s still in the Constitution. The Constitution also contains a fugitive slave clause requiring any escaped slave to be returned to their master. And this meant that a slave couldn’t escape slavery by moving to a state where slavery was outlawed, which meant that on some level some states couldn’t enforce their own laws. Spoiler alert: this becomes problematic. But except for the tyranny of slavery, the
framers really hated tyranny. To avoid tyranny of the government, the Constitution embraced two principles: Separation of powers and federalism. The government was divided into three branches – legislative, executive, and judiciary, and the Constitution incorporated checks and balances: each branch can check the power The legislature can make laws, but the president
can veto those laws. The judiciary can declare laws void, too,
but that’s a power they had to grant themselves. You won’t find it in the Constitution – I
promise, you can look for it. And federalism is the idea that governmental authority rests both in the national and the state governments. As an American, I am a citizen both of the
United States and of the state of Indiana. And the national government, the one set up by the Constitution, is supposed to be limited in scope to certain enumerated powers. Most other powers, especially the protection of
health, safety and morals, are left to the states. But the Constitution also seeks to protect against the radicalism that too much democracy can bring. The mostly rich framers worried that the people, many of whom were poor and indebted, might vote in congress people, or God forbid a President, in favor of, like, redistribution of property. To hedge against this, senators were elected by the states, usually by state legislatures, and they were supposed to be, like, leading citizen types. You know, the kind of good Americans who take bribes and have adulterous affairs in airport bathrooms and patronize prostitutes and shoot Alexander Hamilton. Anyway, the other hedge against too much democracy is the aforementioned Electoral College, which many Americans hate because it has the potential to elect a president who did not win the popular vote, but that’s kind of the point. The electors were supposed to be prominent, educated men of property who were better able to elect a president than, like, the rabble. But, the Constitution of the United States is a really impressive document, especially when you consider its longevity. I mean, as Crash Course World History fans will remember, the nation-state is pretty new on the historical scene, and the United States established by the Constitution, is actually one of the oldest ones. But the Constitution would be meaningless if it hadn’t been ratified, which it was, but not without a fight that helped clarify America’s political ideology. 9 out of the 13 states were required to ratify the Constitution in special conventions called for the purpose. In order to convince the delegates to vote for it, three of the framers, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of 85 essays that together are known as the Federalist Papers. Taken together, they’re a powerful and ultimately persuasive argument for why a strong national government is necessary and ultimately not a threat to people’s liberty. Oh, it’s time for the Mystery Document? The rules here are simple. If I name the author of the Mystery Document, shock as in surprise. If I don’t shock as in [gurgling noise] All right, Stan, let’s see what we’ve
got here. “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and
those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton.
[dinging noise] YES. Too easy, Stan, although I appreciate the
opportunity for a rant. The whole idea of the Second Amendment was that the people could protect themselves from a standing army by being equally well-armed. Which, these days, would mean not that citizens should have the right to buy assault rifles, but that they should have the right to buy, like, unmanned drones. And arguably, suitcase nukes. And by the way, in the Constitution, this
is not listed as a privilege, it is listed as a right. And, as a right, if I can’t afford my own predator drone, I guess the government should buy one for me. It’s almost as if Alexander Hamilton had no way of knowing that weaponry would one day advance past the musket. P.S. You know how Alexander Hamilton died? GUNSHOT. Sorry, I just, I had to. I am on a roll. So, it would be easy to ignore the people who opposed the Constitution because, you know, they lost. But some of the ideas of these so-called Anti-Federalists were particularly powerful, and they deserve a bit of attention. Anti-Federalists, unlike the mostly wealthy federalists, were usually supported by common people, small farmers who weren’t as involved in commercial activity. They saw less need for a strong national government
that would foster trade and protect creditors. And, the Anti-Federalists were very afraid of a strong government, especially one dominated by the wealthy. Writers like James Winthrop held that a large group of united states would be like an empire and “that no extensive empire can be governed upon Republican principles.” As evidence, he could point to Britain, or
all the way back to Rome. Smaller, more local governments, are more responsive to the people and better able to protect their rights. To the Anti-Federalists, that meant state
governments. And while ultimately the Federalists won out and the Constitution was ratified, the issue of how large government should be did not go away. So, the Constitution was really only a starting
point. It’s a vague document, and the details would
be worked out in the political process. And then on the battlefield. Thanks for watching.
I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan
Muller. Our script supervisor is Meredith Danko. The show is written by my high school history
teacher, Raoul Meyer, and myself. Edited by Stan and Mark Olsen. The associate producer is Danica Johnson. And our graphics team is Thought Bubble. If you have questions about today’s video,
or anything about American history, good news: there are historians in comments, so ask away. Thanks for watching Crash Course and as we
say in my hometown, Don’t Forget To Be Awesome.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Post navigation

100 thoughts on “The Constitution, the Articles, and Federalism: Crash Course US History #8

  1. Ignorant look up the history a mini shot muskets in the blender Buster they knew what they were talking about when they're making the amendments

    Just look up the history of guns

  2. what is wrong with electoral college? I think its the best system yet, not the most perfect though. I envy you american, you should be grateful to be born there. There's a lot people that is not so fortunate to born in a less successful country.

  3. Might as well tear the thing up. The corporate world and the bankers have been pissing all over it for hundreds of years. Americas a sham now. Self serving, soulless caricatures of human beings have made sure it's not worth the paper its printed on

  4. The part about the slaves is a bit misleading. Many of the founders wanted to abolish slavery, but without more support that was improbable. Also the 3/5th sounds racist but if that wasn't the case then the southern states would most likely had more control of the house and senate probably making the future discontinuation of slavery impossible. Many of the Founders truly believed in all men being created equal by the creator, and that included slaves.

  5. ive been watching your crash course all semester for American Heritage and just wanna say thank you. These are sooooo helpful. <3

  6. This dude is racist when he asked for the cast shadow he acting like getting rid of slavery was bad I never knew he was this racist! :0 🙁

  7. I never had exams on aaaany of this stuff, nor was I even taught it in school. There were thousands of people in my school, too – it was in a decently-sized city and everything. I can't remember ever having attended a history class, period, and I graduated with honors. hwat is wrong with Utah?

  8. The US Constitution was created on September 17, 1787, and ratified behind closed doors on June 21, 1788. Thirty nine of the fifty five delegates attending the Philadelphia Convention signed the document. Their con job is evident from the very first line penned. Legally, the "People" mentioned are not sovereign beings, but willing slaves who have been granted the illusion of freedom.

  9. Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were three of the men who framed the infernal Constitution and pushed for its ratification. Their document served the American aristocracy, not the people. In fact the document was never put before the people for ratification, and was openly opposed by the majority of men and women in the original thirteen states, who resisted coming together to form any kind of unified nation.The Constitutionalists were guileful traitors whose attendance at the Philadelphia Convention was kept secret for an entire generation. Their document served to leave the "door" of America unlocked and ajar, so the country's foreign enemies could surreptitiously re-enter in the days and years following the supposed War of Independence.

  10. I see so many people complaining about how slow and inefficient the government is when passing laws. Someone like George Orwell saw and understood very well that the more efficient a government is, the more dangerous it becomes to the people it governs.

  11. LMFAO!!! The Articles of Confederation can make amendments but you needed a unanimous vote and that's not possible??? IF SO THEN HOW DID THEY CREATE THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION IN THE FIRST PLACE???

  12. You clearly don't understand the electoral college, even though you drone on about it for quite some time.
    Its purpose is not to ensure that the "rabble" cannot win, rather, it's to prevent states with massive urban cities with a high population density make all the decisions for people halfway across the country. Should New York decide what happens in Oklahoma?
    You mention why the framers did not want the mob in control, sometimes praising them, then you turn around and very dishonestly start to revert back to leftist talking points.

  13. The Confederation congress was designed to keep the individual states from squabbling during the revolution.

  14. Amending The US Constitution-Vice-President Part One
    Other than to succeed to the presidency upon the death or resignation of a president, a vice president's only constitutional duty is to preside over the Senate.
    Since they are supposed to be active in managing the US Senate by doing such things such as assignment of bills and senate members to proper committees and quite a few other tasks.
    Since the Vice-President is indirectly elected by the people, but not directly, and also not purely selected by the President, the US Constitution is correct in allowing the Vice-President in serving as President of the US Senate and being in charge of that.
    However, what if people felt that since the Vice-President is not suitable to serve in this role because of his/her close proximity with the US President? Many feel the VP may act in such a manner so that committees are formed and debates and votes are held to cater to the desired legislation sought by the President. This in turn would mean that the executive branch has possibly too much influence over the legislative branch than what the US Constitution allows.

    Amending The US Constitution-Vice-President Part Two
    Should the VP be President of the Senate? Look at the following criteria for President of the Senate.
    1. Popular vote is not possible for the President of the Senate. This position is not supposed to be involved in the lawmaking process. This is direct democracy and the position will be affected by the winds of populism.
    2. Direct selection by the POTUS of this position is not viable as well. The President of the Senate belongs to another branch of government and there cannot exist proximity and ongoing official contact between the two. Yet the President of the Senate hands all bills to the POTUS directly. This is Imperial Democracy at work.
    3. For some of the same reasons listed in the number two clause, the Vice President cannot be the President of the Senate due to proximity and ongoing official contact with the POTUS.

    Amending The US Constitution-Vice-President Part Three
    If the VP should no longer the President of the Senate, what will his/her role be?
    Since the VP is no longer doing what is constitutionally mandated, then why continue to mandate? Remove the requirement that he/she serve in the US Senate and instead limit his/her role within the confines of the White House duties as representative of the POTUS at the will of the POTUS.

    Amending The US Constitution-Vice-President Part Four
    If the VP should no longer the President of the Senate, who would indeed fill that position? Look at the following requirements.
    1. The President of the US Senate cannot be directly elected by the people since his/her role is merely to apply laws in the governance of the upper house of the federal legislature. That role is not a lawmaking one and therefore has to be insulated from the winds of populism. In this role, discretion is not allowed.
    This model of direct democracy(democracy with a small d) cannot be deployed in picking this position.
    2. The President of the US Senate cannot be selected by the same people he is supposed to preside. There would exist too many conflicts of interest and would therefore lead to unnecessary power brokering and influence peddling. This would lead to direct democracy as the lack of checks and balances would lead to a lack of accountability. The political party in control would have too much influence over this position holder. Popularity cannot have too much of an influence of this office holder.
    3. The President of the US Senate cannot be selected by President because the President would have to deal with this position holder on an ongoing basis. There lies a conflict of interest and the executive branch would gain too much power. This would lead to Imperial Democracy as the lack of checks and balances would lead to a lack of accountability.

    Amending The US Constitution-President Of The Senate Part Five
    The candidate for President Of The US Senate cannot also serve as a lawmaker in the US Senate unless there is a tie on a specific vote.
    All the members of the upper houses of each state legislature cast a vote for President Of The US Senate. The reason why the upper houses cast votes for this position is the role of state senator is similar to the role of federal senator.
    If a candidate wins the majority of the state senators' votes, either initially or through Ranked Choice Voting, that candidate wins all the electoral votes for that state. Each state is assigned the same number of electoral votes as they are entitled to for the presidential election.
    There are 538 electoral votes that the state legislatures offer. There are also 538 electoral votes that the House of Representatives offer.The reason why the House of Representatives cast votes for this position is there is no attached conflict of interest with this position on their part.
    The percentage of votes that a candidate receives in the House of Representatives is applied against the number of electoral votes, which is 538.
    If a candidate fails to win the majority of the electoral votes from the state legislatures, then the top two vote recipients receive one newly assigned vote from each state that he/she has the higher number of electoral votes.Then the percentage of the total of newly assigned votes received by these two candidates is applied to the previous number of electoral votes, which is 538.
    The candidate who wins the most electoral votes based on the combination from the State Legislatures and from the US Senate wins the election for President Of The US Senate.

    Amending The US Constitution- Vice President and President Of The Senate Part Six
    – When the US Constitution was written, the VP was not part of the Presidential ticket. He ran separately and if the candidate received the 2nd highest total of electoral votes, he became the VP and the President of the Senate. Since he was not part of the Presidential administration, the President as head of the federal executive branch could not be asserted of having undue influences over the US Senate.
    Over the many decades to come, the role of the VP changed and for good measure. Since he was also there to take over the role of presidency in case the president was removed from and/or was no longer available to serve that role, it made inevitable sense that he become an integral part of the presidential administration. It also made sense he no longer be that active in serving as President Of The Senate.
    The difficulties lied in the fact that these customary changes were not reflected officially in amendments in the US Constitution. So for 150 years-200 years, the roles of these position holders have been shrouded with gray. The overlapping and co-mingling of duties by the VP continued to this day.

    Amending The US Constitution- Vice President and President Of The Senate Part Seven
    At the start of the American nation, it was correct that the VP was not part of the Presidential administration considering his main active duty was to serve as President of the US Senate. However, what indeed served the flawed democratic model of direct democracy was the fact he was,while electorally, popularly voted.
    There is a firm reason why the framers of the US Constitution did not want office holders who merely are supposed to only enforce, apply, and support the law to ever be elected by popular vote. A popular vote victory for any candidate in this position would give them cause to start utilizing discretion, which is absolutely prohibitive.
    Discretion is only reserved for those in the lawmaking capacity(legislators and heads of the executive branch) when it comes to making the law. All others in government service must follow and implement the law to strict standards on an uniform basis.
    This is why the state legislatures and federal representatives in the US Congress must select the President of the Senate and that position holder cannot concurrently serve any other role in any of the government branches, such as VP or Senator. This also holds true for the Speaker Of The House, who cannot either be directly elected, selected by House Representatives, or be a member of the House that he or she presides.

  15. Where in the constitution does it say that the govt should provide you with arms? A right does not mean a government must provide it much in the same way the government is not obliged to provide you with food under the 9th amendment or that the government does not give you a platform to exercise your free speech. Based.

  16. If insight is going to be given on the electoral college, why not put out more than it's strange? The fact is, there are many different lifestyles out there. Out of the many lifestyles that exist, packing people into cities like sardines is but one that people can choose. Will the laws that make sense for people who live in a handful of cities work for everyone? Likely not, and that is why the electoral college is useful.

    Example:
    People in big cities fear guns, but even more so they fear guns with many rounds that can be fired quickly. After all, what use do they have for them? However, those living in rural areas are more prone to being farmers, liking to hunt, and being able to protect themselves from the big city criminals when need be because "yes" that is where the majority of them come from and an officer is not right around the corner when dealing with country roads and such. Coyotes and wolves hunt in packs and a farmer needs to be able to have many rounds that shoot quickly if livestock is in harms way. Hunting puts you in the same scenario where you might be what is being hunted if you are not careful.

    Since big cities contain most of the countries people, yet you could fit all big cities in the space of just a state or two(guessing here), would the popular vote be the most logical way to pass laws that apply to the entire country's situations?

    OF COURSE NOT! Welcome to the electoral college.

  17. This is an Example of why Millenials Hate Everything about America. History loosely based on Facts and largely based in Opinionated Dishonesty.
    Instead of Embracing Free Speech, this channel Abuses 1st Amendment.

    To begin the video with the Usual Ignorant Statement that Electoral College is "terrible" is complete rubbish. So the same idiots Cry Out for abolishing EC and calling for Popular Voting deciding Presidential Elections. Removing EC would give ONLY 3 Cities the Complete rights to electing President, Los Angeles Chicago and New York City.
    Does any American with American Values still in their heart really want Progressive Left Leaning Fake liberals deciding every Presidential Election? I don't Think So.

    The Electoral College is by FAR the most under-rated addition to our Constitution. Look at a Modern Map of USA, the whole Nation is pretty much Conservative with the obvious drifting of Leftists to Coastlines. It's not The Red Disctricts seperating themselves from everyone else it's the Blue Left clearly the ones shifting away from Everyday Americans.

    Leftists are Intolerant, Racist and Radical Ideologues that refuse to compromise or budge in their thoughts on Reality. Since about 1850 there have been 19 Republican Presidents and 15 Democrat Presidents. It might not be Absolutely Perfect buts it's the Greatest System ever Written Down in all of this Universe.
    The day we Abolish Electoral College is the Day The US loses and The World Overall. Democrats know this hence the Constant Push to do so. Democrats would win the First and Final Presidential Election not based through the EC. They would win every Presidential election going forward, until eventually they announce that the President would instead be Appointed instead of elected. Why Vote if Democrats always win? That would be the thinking and there would be nothing Americans could do about it, especially if the Leftist proceed in eliminating our 2nd Amendment also through some illegal Presidential Order.

    It's not far out there thinking if you actually replace The Middle Class fighting Democrats with a Tyrannical Left, which is precisely what is happening in America. They want One Thing and One Thing Only POWER. The old school Democrats of JFK and democrats my parents were raised to believe in are now being Outlawed by a Radical Leftist Socialist party. Open Borders for Illegal Voting, turning all crimes into Slaps on the Hand for Felon Voting, Abolishing Electoral College so California, Illinois and New York decide President, Global oops I mean Climate Change policy to take over all Policies, these are all Extreme Policies pushed by One Party and hint hint it's not The Grand Ole Party Republicans its the Progressive Leftist who will eventually become the Ruling Power and everything American Greatness brings to the World will Vanish and the World will Enter 1000 years of Darkness.

  18. Can I have my 8.5 mins of my life back? Yes, I said 8.5 mins because I sure as hell couldn't make it through this nonsense. Talk about revisionist history.

  19. Correction:
    The 3/5th clause does not say "White people" it says "…free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…".
    "White" was never used in that regard.
    Contrary to popular belief there were free "blacks" that were considered citizens of New York & Massachusetts among others; therefore those free "blacks" were counted as one whole person in those states.

  20. A few issues:

    A.) Weaponry had already surpassed the musket and claiming that the founders couldn't fathom advancement is ridiculous.
    B.) Suit case nukes and Predator drones are incredibly expensive and would eliminate 99.9% of the population from purchase. What Green is doing is fear mongering.
    C.) The second amendment is a negative right, as in the government can't disarm you or inconvenience the right. without just cause. They are not obliged to arm you, that would be a positive right. Saying otherwise is ignorant.

  21. Did you read any of the papers you’re explaining? Democracy NEVER appears one time. That’s because we’re a Representative REPUBLIC. You get a B-

  22. Don't need your rewritten ideas. I already know what I have studied. I know perfectly well. Also that they revise and water down what is truth. I don't need any bullcrap rewritten garbage

  23. nancy polose and memebers of congress,,,,,,,take lessions and take notes now,,,,,,,,watch this now,,,,,,,this will help you now,,,,,,,watch it now,,,,,,part one,,,,,first part,,,,,,watch it now

  24. Man…I forgot how fun and education these were! ….And John Green definitely was younger and energetic and it shows ^^;; aaahhhh time…..

  25. Man…I forgot how fun and education these were! ….And John Green definitely was younger and energetic and it shows ^^;; aaahhhh time…..

  26. Man…I forgot how fun and education these were! ….And John Green definitely was younger and energetic and it shows ^^;; aaahhhh time…..

  27. If you guys did this video again but at half the speed, I would remember so much more of this (I am racing a vintage Ferrari in a video game at the same time)

  28. Dear John,
    Technology changes, rights don’t. We have the right to own assault rifles, please read Heller V DC.
    BEST WISHES,
    Ryan

  29. Sucks how this channel has become so openly partisan. I just wanna know about the constitution without this kids openly leftist bias. So annoying

  30. We we're watching this in history class and I fell asleep because it's late in the day and now I'm back rewatching over the weekend

  31. As others may have pointed out before, the 3/5ths count for slaves was a measure to limit the disproportionate congressional power slave states would have following censuses, an imperfect but by no means exclusionary reality.

  32. That explains everything. This whole time I was under the impression that the US was a confederation which was weirdly dominant over its constituent states lol.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *